Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

"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. 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!?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:5sNIa.161285$eJ2.84088@fed1read07...
Short, sweet, shoot it down. I can counter argue just about
anything
you
throw at it. I am looking for holes, so suprise me.
-Drew

Both parents made a 50/50 decision to concieve a child, therefore...

1. Custody is 50/50 assuming one parent is not abusive
2. No C$ necessary since the child is with the other parent 50%
of
the
time

I'd still be interested in what you'd do with a marriage where one
parent
stayed at home with the children for 15 years, while the other
developed
job
skills and rose through the ranks at work. Each did the job they had
agreed
to do during the marriage--but now one is left with no job skills and
the
other is sitting pretty, salary wise. Sure, the working parent will
have
to
learn the housekeeping skills--but they can bumble through that while
still
having plenty of $$ to pay the bills. The former stay-at-hme parent
will
have a nicely organized house, with very little to pay the bills. How
could
it be ok for the working parent to walk away, leaving the stay at home
parent in poverty?

My knee-jerk reaction is that it depends on the reason for divorce. If
the
wage earning parent initiated a no-fault divorce, they have an
obligation.
If the non-wage earner initiated a no-fault divorce, I say "live in
poverty"

Regardless of the reason for initiating the divorce? Some states *only*
offer
no fault divorce - there is no longer the option of filing a 'for cause'
divorce.

That's the whole point, Moon!! Let's get back to the point when people are
held accountable for their behavior, instead of sweeping the behavior under
the rug with "no fault divorce." Maybe if consequences were attached to
wrong behavior, people would think through their behavior a bit better.

"TeacherMama" wrote
I totally agree! Perhaps if no fault divorce meant
automatic joint custody, things would be better. And
if one party wanted something different than joint
custody, they would have to prove why they deserved
it. In other words, it would not be a no fault divorce at
that point. Maybe people would think things through a
lot more carefully if there were real consequences to
their behaviors.

As long as we also addressed false accusations of abuse being used as a tool
to gain what one wants, I agree with this. If it turns on "at fault" I can
see the instances of false accusations increasing.

"Kenneth S." wrote
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.

I hate to sound as if I'm promoting the NOW agenda, but I have to ask the
question. Are women assumed to be the victims of men, or are you saying
that really men are the victims of women? If two people who get married are
only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
married? Basically, they've made a choice. It seems to me that marriage is
the joining of two into one, to use a common cliché. If a marriage fails,
and there are no kids, I would agree that absolutely nothing should be owed
from one party to the other. If there are kids, you are still tied together
whether you like it or not, and some provision has to made for the kid's
upbringing. Not what we have now, obviously, but something. I don't
believe pre-nups are a viable options for the average person.

"frazil" wrote
For better or worse, this is already happening. A
significant number of divorced men are refusing to
get married, especially those with children. And a
noteworthy number of never married are refusing
also. I'm one of them. I have no desire to have
more children as a result of my divorce, and if I
did, I couldn't afford more children anyway. Since
I can't afford any more children, what would be the
point of getting married? And as a result I only date
women who already have children and don't want
anymore, didn't want children in the first place, or
who can have children. As to the later, if adoption
comes up, I run for the hills. For me at least, marriage
is a losing proposition. And my single male friends,
having witnessed what I went through, are not very
eager to tie the knot anymore. It is too bad, because
I liked being married, but the consequences are just
too great, and the benefits too little. Men are slowly
learning that lesson. It is unfortunate.

I understand what you're saying. I have seriously considered advising my
two boys to never get married and make sure they don't have "accidents".
It's a very sad commentary on society when people have to think that way.

I would be open to helping raise someone else's kids, but I would NEVER
adopt.

As far as no more kids, I took care of that about three years ago. We have
the technology.

"frazil" wrote
My knee-jerk reaction is that it depends on the reason for
divorce. If the wage earning parent initiated a no-fault
divorce, they have an obligation. If the non-wage earner
initiated a no-fault divorce, I say "live in poverty"

In general, I agree with you completely. In cases where the non-wage earner
leaves for a valid reason (i.e.; legitimate abuse, etc), would you be in
favor of bringing back "at fault" divorce as an option, thus allowing the
wage earner to pay something for at least a limited period of time. In no
case do I believe that alimony of CS is justifiable indefinitely.

"The Dave©" wrote in message
s.com...
"TeacherMama" wrote
I totally agree! Perhaps if no fault divorce meant
automatic joint custody, things would be better. And
if one party wanted something different than joint
custody, they would have to prove why they deserved
it. In other words, it would not be a no fault divorce at
that point. Maybe people would think things through a
lot more carefully if there were real consequences to
their behaviors.

As long as we also addressed false accusations of abuse being used as a
tool
to gain what one wants, I agree with this. If it turns on "at fault" I
can
see the instances of false accusations increasing.

Quite frankly, Dave, I think false allegations of abuse should be treated as
any other perjury, and dealt with criminally. These false allegations take
away from the seriousness of real abuse. To use them just to get an
advantage in a divorce situation is unconscionable!

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:5sNIa.161285$eJ2.84088@fed1read07...
Short, sweet, shoot it down. I can counter argue just about
anything
you
throw at it. I am looking for holes, so suprise me.
-Drew

Both parents made a 50/50 decision to concieve a child,
therefore...

1. Custody is 50/50 assuming one parent is not abusive
2. No C$ necessary since the child is with the other parent 50%
of
the
time

I'd still be interested in what you'd do with a marriage where one
parent
stayed at home with the children for 15 years, while the other
developed
job
skills and rose through the ranks at work. Each did the job they
had
agreed
to do during the marriage--but now one is left with no job skills
and
the
other is sitting pretty, salary wise. Sure, the working parent will
have
to
learn the housekeeping skills--but they can bumble through that
while
still
having plenty of $$ to pay the bills. The former stay-at-hme parent
will
have a nicely organized house, with very little to pay the bills.
How
could
it be ok for the working parent to walk away, leaving the stay at
home
parent in poverty?

My knee-jerk reaction is that it depends on the reason for divorce.
If
the
wage earning parent initiated a no-fault divorce, they have an
obligation.
If the non-wage earner initiated a no-fault divorce, I say "live in
poverty"

Regardless of the reason for initiating the divorce? Some states *only*
offer
no fault divorce - there is no longer the option of filing a 'for cause'
divorce.

That's the whole point, Moon!! Let's get back to the point when people
are
held accountable for their behavior, instead of sweeping the behavior
under
the rug with "no fault divorce." Maybe if consequences were attached to
wrong behavior, people would think through their behavior a bit better.
==
TM, do you know the arguments surrounding the implementation of no-fault
divorce by the states?
I'm sure you aren't old enough but thought you might have read about it. I
remember when states began doing
this but don't remember the arguments pro/con. It would be interesting to
see how reality squares with
those arguments.
==
==

"TeacherMama" wrote
Quite frankly, Dave, I think false allegations of abuse
should be treated as any other perjury, and dealt with
criminally. These false allegations take away from the
seriousness of real abuse. To use them just to get an
advantage in a divorce situation is unconscionable!

We have parallel minds on this.

I don't know, Gini, but have been surfing the web looking for answers.
There is some really interesting stuff out there on the subject! I searched
for "no fault divorce"---a bunch of "we'll do your divorce for $29.95"
stuff--but a number of information sites, too. Will keep looking.


"gini52" wrote in message
...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:5sNIa.161285$eJ2.84088@fed1read07...
Short, sweet, shoot it down. I can counter argue just about
anything
you
throw at it. I am looking for holes, so suprise me.
-Drew

Both parents made a 50/50 decision to concieve a child,
therefore...

1. Custody is 50/50 assuming one parent is not abusive
2. No C$ necessary since the child is with the other parent
50%
of
the
time

I'd still be interested in what you'd do with a marriage where one
parent
stayed at home with the children for 15 years, while the other
developed
job
skills and rose through the ranks at work. Each did the job they
had
agreed
to do during the marriage--but now one is left with no job skills
and
the
other is sitting pretty, salary wise. Sure, the working parent
will
have
to
learn the housekeeping skills--but they can bumble through that
while
still
having plenty of $$ to pay the bills. The former stay-at-hme
parent
will
have a nicely organized house, with very little to pay the bills.
How
could
it be ok for the working parent to walk away, leaving the stay at
home
parent in poverty?

My knee-jerk reaction is that it depends on the reason for divorce.
If
the
wage earning parent initiated a no-fault divorce, they have an
obligation.
If the non-wage earner initiated a no-fault divorce, I say "live in
poverty"

Regardless of the reason for initiating the divorce? Some states
*only*
offer
no fault divorce - there is no longer the option of filing a 'for
cause'
divorce.

That's the whole point, Moon!! Let's get back to the point when people
are
held accountable for their behavior, instead of sweeping the behavior
under
the rug with "no fault divorce." Maybe if consequences were attached to
wrong behavior, people would think through their behavior a bit better.
==
TM, do you know the arguments surrounding the implementation of no-fault
divorce by the states?
I'm sure you aren't old enough but thought you might have read about it. I
remember when states began doing
this but don't remember the arguments pro/con. It would be interesting to
see how reality squares with
those arguments.
==
==