Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

"The Dave©" wrote in message
s.com...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote
And the parent who was not at
fault was the best parent for custody.

So, theoretically, if the divorce truly is "no fault", then joint custody
should be a given. It's not, I know, but the logic would indicate so.

You would certainly think so, wouldn't you. But the whole custody thing
didn't crop up immediately when no-fault came into being. It grew into
being as the issues of supporting the children came to the forefront. The
whole system of cs that we see today evolved over a period of time, as
people realized how profitable it was to hold up the children as victims.
Of course, nobody wants children to live in poverty--but the system we see
today capitalized on that and began to portray NCPs as who objected to large
awards as uncaring ogres who didn't care if their children lived in poverty.

Mel wrote:

If two people who get married are
only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
married?

The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even
though
you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money and
you
takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of the
car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to accept
the
possibility of the bus.

After typing this into the Mel to english translator, this reads........


I'm in it for me and me alone.

Mrs Indyguy



Mel Gamble

Your translator is broken. Should have read.......

"I don't let other people make my decisions for me."

Or.......

"I don't make bad decisions for me just because somebody else wants me to."

Or.......

"I'm an adult."

See??? Broken.

Mel Gamble

Oh, I forgot to add in my previous reply to this post where I stated that your
translator is broken......

Mel wrote:

If two people who get married are
only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
married?

The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even
though
you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money and
you
takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of the
car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to accept
the
possibility of the bus.

After typing this into the Mel to english translator, this reads........


I'm in it for me and me alone.

Mrs Indyguy

You should always suspect a broken logic module in your translator when you
hear that whining sound coming from it....

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
And therefore....

Mel wrote:

snip

Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable
lifestyle.
You
build it together you should split it together. Neither will have
exactly
the
same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one shouldn't be
flipping
burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.

It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the burgers
would
have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had never
taken
place. Prove it.

There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage earner
would
be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH spouse
at
home
raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of everything
with
the exception of earning the money.

that she would be earning some magical amount if she hadn't been a SAH is
built
of hoooey. You remain true to form.

So you prefer to believe that every SAH parent would likely have been
earning minimum wage even after 20 years in the work force, Mel? Is there
no position between "She would have been earning as much as her ex" and "She
would have been earning minimum wage"?

Let's see here.... : )

Mel wrote:

. that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN
HER
OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home unless I
lock
you in.

Ok, then...... Let's say your spouse was being a nagging old hen because
during
a thunder storm the satalite dish fell over and she harped on you until you
agreed to go outside and fix it. You want to make her happy and you don't
want
to listen to her gripe. You go out to fix the dish. You get hit by
lightening.
You are are then blind. You have no one to blame but yourself, correct? You
have no ill will against her because YOU made the choice. She did nothing
wrong
and you just made an immature choice. You stay married to her and love her
just
as much as you always did, correct? Unless she was holding a gun to your head
when she opened the door and handed you the metal ladder that fatefull night,
right?

I go out in a lightning storm, climb a metal ladder to the roof where I work on
something wired to ground..... Hmmm, you must think my decision-making skills
as poor as those of the ladies you whine for. They are not. I would not have
gone out into the storm. See, your example fails the logic test.

Correct. It is a choice made every minute of every day that the SAH is free
to
leave and doesn't.


Ditto for the wage earner. They don't want a SAH spouse then they are free to
leave *as soon as their spouse attempts to be a SAH*. If they stay they are
agreeing to the roles. They agree to the roles then they shoulder some of the
consequences those roles level at the time of divorce.

They are only able to change their own role. The wage earner can't change to
being in a marriage with no SAH.....the SAH can. If I tell you what a bitch
you are - and you ARE a bitch - and that I want you to continue participating
in the newsgroup so that I can continue to belittle your whining and lack of
logic, are you continuing to participate because I told you to? Or are you
continuing because you are an adult capable of making your own choices?

Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy

Back in the days when remaining in a marriage with a SAH wasn't such a risky
business for the wage-earner, I might have agreed with you, Teach. But now
your asking if I would allow a business pardner to talk me into making a
business decision that has a 50% chance of causing the business to fail within
10 years. Sorry, I refuse. I will NOT be your SAH if I think I'm going to
suffer such a financial set-back by doing so if YOU decide to leave. I will
NOT put MY life in your hands that way. Any business pardner who would can
look at bankruptcy as the cost of bad decision-making.

Cinderella can't afford her coach anymore - the government forced so many
changes in the design that the horses can no longer pull it, wouldn't be
allowed to if they could because of the pollution factor. And the fees to
license it are more than she can afford. Little girl dreams are a thing of the
past. It's sad.....but true.

Mel Gamble

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Only as long as it remains true...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil #3 wrote:

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...
But, Kenneth, this wasn't about how things are today. Supposed
SAH
moms
are
pretty well protected in the system today. This was about Drew
setting
up
a
new system where custody is 50-50 by default, and each parent
supports
the
child from their own salary. The SAH in a long term marriage
would
be
at
a
distinct disadvantage in this situation, having been out of the
workforce
for so many years. I was asking Drew what he would build into
his
system
in
this scenrario. I was most certainly not advocating for the
abuse
of
the
system by supposed stay-at-homes that we see today.

What is wrong with the SAH suffering the consequences of their
decision?
It
would shatter any knight-in-shining-armour fantasy of women, but
perhaps
that is a fantasy that should be shattered, as men have had their
fantasy
shattered.


'Zactly, compare the choice of the SAH and the choices I made. The
job I
had
in 1999, came to an end when the office to which I was attached,
closed.
If
I had chosen to stay with the post office, today I would have 37
years
seniority, which means I would be making at least double what I was
making
when I was laid off in 1999. Saying that SAHs should be paid for
their
"sacrifice" would be like me arguing to be paid as if I had stayed
with
the
post office or that my retirement should apply as if I had.
Choices have consequences, but it seems that this does not apply to
women
who marry badly, become pregnant 'accidentally' or choose the wrong
profession.
Phil #3

[snip]

You've hit the nail on the head, Phil. There's an unspoken assumption
behind what goes on here. It is that women don't make mature choices,
but invariably are the victims of men, or of some circumstance that is
related to the female sex. This isn't spelled out, of course. But
it's
the only rational explanation for what goes on.

No, Kenneth, that's not what's being said. What is being said is that,
in a
long-term SAH situation, BOTH parents made the choice--both should carry
some of the consequences. It is an ongoing choice of *2* people.

... that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER
THAN HER
OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home unless I
lock
you in.

So is that how you would expect partners in a business to operate, too? Me
for me, and you for you, and to heck with working together for the benefit
of all?

The Dave wrote:

"Indyguy1" wrote
IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
our society even more throwaway driven.

I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the attitude
"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain why they're
not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.

I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of their
marriage
but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again when they
remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than they were
the first time around.

They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to or dont
want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.

Mrs Indyguy


But when these failures leave a marriage, Mrs. Gimmeguy thinks they should be
treated as accomplished business executives...

Mel Gamble

THAT....

Max wrote:

TeacherMama scribbled:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message

Phil #3 wrote:

What is wrong with the SAH suffering the consequences of their
decision? It would shatter any knight-in-shining-armour fantasy of
women, but perhaps that is a fantasy that should be shattered, as
men have had their fantasy shattered.


'Zactly, compare the choice of the SAH and the choices I made. The
job I had in 1999, came to an end when the office to which I was
attached, closed. If I had chosen to stay with the post office,
today I would have 37 years seniority, which means I would be
making at least double what I was making when I was laid off in
1999. Saying that SAHs should be paid for their "sacrifice" would
be like me arguing to be paid as if I had stayed with the post
office or that my retirement should apply as if I had.
Choices have consequences, but it seems that this does not apply to
women who marry badly, become pregnant 'accidentally' or choose the
wrong profession.
Phil #3

You've hit the nail on the head, Phil. There's an unspoken
assumption behind what goes on here. It is that women don't make
mature choices, but invariably are the victims of men, or of some
circumstance that is related to the female sex. This isn't spelled
out, of course. But it's the only rational explanation for what
goes on.

No, Kenneth, that's not what's being said.

That is EXACTLY what's being said by you and indyguy, and others.....

Huh? I never said, and don't generally feel, women are victims of men. I also
don't feel doing what is mutually agreeed on between a couple during a
marriage, to be an immature choice. Actually *I* feel an immature choice
would
be to marry and then not compromise or take one's partners wishes into
consideration.

It seems that what you are saying here is that even if BOTH want one to be a
SAH in the event that things don't work out it is only the one that became
the
SAH that should shoulder any and all of the consequences. To me that is
immature and selfish thinking.


What is being said is
that, in a long-term SAH situation, BOTH parents made the
choice--both should carry some of the consequences.
It is an ongoing
choice of *2* people.

*INCLUDING* the one who chose to be the SAH.
But your argument is that they shouldn't have to take the consequences
of that choice and insist that the other party (you know the one chose
to work to support the SAH in the marriage) has to 'compensate' the SAH
for their *MUTUAL DECISION* about their roles in the marriage.....
Then when it's asked what does the SAH have to do to 'compensate' the
one who chose to work you immediately start whining and bitching that
it's all about money and it's sad that things have to be that way!!!!!

Hold on. The SAH already got a good portion of their consequences during the
marrige while being a SAH. They gave up their prime earning years and all
that
comes with those earning years. Those are things no amount of money can ever
fully compensate for.

The wage earning spouse got the benefits from the SAH status of their spouse.
THEN if the marriage ends YOU still want the SAH to suffer the aftermath
consequences alone.

So you tell me at what point should the wage earning partner have to shoulder
ANY of the consequences, seeing as they don't during the marriage and you
don't
feel they should have to after the marriage ends?


It isn't a forever choice, made only once. I
have a SAH friend who will probably go back to work next year. Times
are financially tough, as her hubby is self employed. The decision
for her to stay at homewith their young children was reevaluated by
both of them. Not just him and not just her. Even in the case of my
parents, married 50 years, they occasionally discussed the
possibility of my mom working part time, as we all approached college
age. It's not just a one time decision by one person--it is an
ongoing decision by 2 people! Why should one person be left holding
the bag!?

Then why should the one who chose to work be left 'holding the bag' for
the SAH's lack of marketable skills after the marriage ends?

They aren't holding that bag alone. They both loose out. The SAH is the one
that takes the greater hit, IMHO. LT marriages that end leave SAH's not only
with no income but usually at an less marketable age.

My H's cousins ex works midnights at a casino, as a cage teller. She's 57
years
old. She was a well paid legal secy before she married. But her skills are so
outdated no one would even see her for an interview for that type of
position.
Her ex made her life a living hell any time she showed interest in seeking
employment during the marriage,

************************************************** ****************
she bowed to his wishes because she loved him
and wanted him to be happy.
************************************************** ****************

was her mistake, and her choice to do or not to do. Now you want HIM to pay
for HER mistake.

But when he was done with her he figured, like
you
apparently do, she should stop leaching off of him and take care of herself.

Just as she could have figured if SHE were the one to be "done with" him.

FOR ****S SAKE NO ONE should be left holding the bag!

That's right. They created that bag together for many years and they should
BOTH still be holding it if the marriage ends.

So if she had been the SAH and he had been out robbing banks.....do you think
she should serve half of his sentence or a full sentence of her own???

The things a SAH gives up are far more precious than just the cash.

THAT depends on the particular SAH. "Giving up" a career at McDonald's isn't
the same as giving up a career as an exec at Max Factor. Yet you seem to think
they are of equal value if they are given up to SAH for the same man.

No amount
of money can make up for the lost years of experience and advancement.

No twisting of logic can prove there would have been "years of experience and
advancement".

But
the
cash is the necessary element to live.

And it's sooooo handy to be able to get it without having to work for it.

When the divorce happens both get an equal share of the *marital
assets*, after that neither should be obligated to continue providing
the kind of support that they did before the breakup.

Oh sure, like most wage earners pay enough in support to keep the SAH in the
exact same SOL they had during the marriage. (major eye roll)

But I do understand you train of thought. Here it is in a nut shell, correct
me
if I am wrong......

For SAHs:

Anyone who agrees with their partner to be a SAH has made an immature choice.
If their marriage ends they alone should face the financial consequences. A
SAHs contributions to the family hold little value to the wage earner and the
losses the SAH reap from the agreed upon status are theirs alone to shoulder.

For Wage Earners:

All they earn is theirs and theirs alone.

Only when they are no longer married...

They didn't hold a *real* gun to
their spouses head and force them to be a SAH so, wage earners should not be
held responsible for choices they agreed upon druing their marriage. Because
the agreement was the wage earner would remain working outside the home and
their partner wouldn't, they get to walk away with the only abilty to earn at
the level they BOTH agreed to and established during a LT marriage.

I hope the next gerneration of couples will look very different than what we
have seen in the past.

Thinking like yours is why there WON'T BE a next generation of (married)
couples.

I'd see this as a good thing for BOTH men and women.
Women will retain their careers and men will end up doing 50% of the child
rearing, home duties and take their share of career set backs for doing so,
like women have been expected to do in the past. WHEN this happens then yeah,
what each earns will be theirs to keep, in the event of a divorce. If the
playing field is level all along then it will be level in the end.

But there is an added bonus for the men. If they are infact doing 50% of the
child rearing then 50/50 shared custody will be more the norm. And that's
what
most men want any way, right? So they won't mind actually doing it during the
marriage. They will be thrilled they get to clean up the projectile vommit
at
3am when the kids are sick. They will relish leaving work early to sit in the
Dr's office and wait 2 hours with a crying sick child. They will be ecstatic
not to take the clients out for cocktails after work, because they have to
bake
cupcakes and run the cake walk at the pre-school. Not seeing the big game
won't be missed because they'll be all warm and fuzzy at the mall getting Jr
the new shoes he needs for Monday.

SIGH... I can see it now. Men all over the country doing their 50% at home
and
being so very happy they don't have to pay their lazy SAH spouse one red cent
if they divorce. I just get chills thinking about it.

You just get tingly thinking about other people's money...

Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy

Oh, Mel--you are in a mood today! You and I have debated this before and
never reached a common conclusion. Perhaps I have just run into a different
quality of SAH's than you have. I know it's different when you're the one
who's been burned.


"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Back in the days when remaining in a marriage with a SAH wasn't such a
risky
business for the wage-earner, I might have agreed with you, Teach. But
now
your asking if I would allow a business pardner to talk me into making a
business decision that has a 50% chance of causing the business to fail
within
10 years. Sorry, I refuse. I will NOT be your SAH if I think I'm going
to
suffer such a financial set-back by doing so if YOU decide to leave. I
will
NOT put MY life in your hands that way. Any business pardner who would
can
look at bankruptcy as the cost of bad decision-making.

Cinderella can't afford her coach anymore - the government forced so many
changes in the design that the horses can no longer pull it, wouldn't be
allowed to if they could because of the pollution factor. And the fees to
license it are more than she can afford. Little girl dreams are a thing
of the
past. It's sad.....but true.

Mel Gamble

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Only as long as it remains true...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil #3 wrote:

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...
But, Kenneth, this wasn't about how things are today.
Supposed
SAH
moms
are
pretty well protected in the system today. This was about
Drew
setting
up
a
new system where custody is 50-50 by default, and each parent
supports
the
child from their own salary. The SAH in a long term marriage
would
be
at
a
distinct disadvantage in this situation, having been out of
the
workforce
for so many years. I was asking Drew what he would build into
his
system
in
this scenrario. I was most certainly not advocating for the
abuse
of
the
system by supposed stay-at-homes that we see today.

What is wrong with the SAH suffering the consequences of their
decision?
It
would shatter any knight-in-shining-armour fantasy of women, but
perhaps
that is a fantasy that should be shattered, as men have had
their
fantasy
shattered.


'Zactly, compare the choice of the SAH and the choices I made. The
job I
had
in 1999, came to an end when the office to which I was attached,
closed.
If
I had chosen to stay with the post office, today I would have 37
years
seniority, which means I would be making at least double what I
was
making
when I was laid off in 1999. Saying that SAHs should be paid for
their
"sacrifice" would be like me arguing to be paid as if I had stayed
with
the
post office or that my retirement should apply as if I had.
Choices have consequences, but it seems that this does not apply
to
women
who marry badly, become pregnant 'accidentally' or choose the
wrong
profession.
Phil #3

[snip]

You've hit the nail on the head, Phil. There's an unspoken
assumption
behind what goes on here. It is that women don't make mature
choices,
but invariably are the victims of men, or of some circumstance that
is
related to the female sex. This isn't spelled out, of course. But
it's
the only rational explanation for what goes on.

No, Kenneth, that's not what's being said. What is being said is
that,
in a
long-term SAH situation, BOTH parents made the choice--both should
carry
some of the consequences. It is an ongoing choice of *2* people.

... that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER
THAN HER
OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home
unless I
lock
you in.

So is that how you would expect partners in a business to operate, too?
Me
for me, and you for you, and to heck with working together for the
benefit
of all?

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Mel wrote:

If two people who get married are
only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of
getting
married?

The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even
though
you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money
and
you
takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of
the
car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to
accept
the
possibility of the bus.

After typing this into the Mel to english translator, this reads........


I'm in it for me and me alone.

Mrs Indyguy



Mel Gamble

Your translator is broken. Should have read.......

"I don't let other people make my decisions for me."

Or.......

"I don't make bad decisions for me just because somebody else wants me
to."

Or.......

"I'm an adult."

See??? Broken.

Mel Gamble

I don't see "We're married, let's make decisions for our family together,
Darling." in there anywhere, Mel.