Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"The Dave©" wrote in message
s.com...
"gini52" wrote
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.

I'm not sure about how it originated, but one of the reasons I hear
today
for justifying it is that it allows women in abusive relationships to
leave
abusive husbands when actual abuse cannot be proved or the wife is not
believed. It allows her to leave with a minimum of conflict, thus
theoretically not ****ing off the husband.

One of the articles I was reading talked about that. It said that most
of
the women in abusive relationships were with boyfriends, not husbands.
That
the power of the abuser over the abused was not created with the
marriage
certificate, nor would it be ended by a divorce decree, as ex-husbands
are
also high on the list of abusers of these women. It said that there are
really no statistics on the subject of no-fault divorce helping these
women
out of their situations--it was a statement that was made at the
beginning
of the no-fault push as a reason for no-fault, and was just never
questioned.
===
What about "irreconcilable differences?" Was that the catchall before
no-fault
or is that what is considered no-fault? Did the divorce rate go up after
no-fault? The reason I'm asking is that
if there is to be a movement back to at-fault divorce, it seems the
impetus
of the movement would lie
with the objections that surrounded the move to no-fault.

In my ramblings about the 'net today, I found several groups that are
working at getting back to fault-based divorce. Only when both individuals
agree would a no-fault divorce be available. It also seems that divorce
rates DID go up after no-fault--although it was predicted that they would go
down. The focus seemed to move from whether divorce was necessary and/or
acceptable to custody issues. Which is what we are seeing today.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
news

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
newsoVIa.161349$eJ2.117086@fed1read07...
Ummmm, don't want anyone to get screwed, but who is to say this
would
not
happen to a man that puts his wife through college? The law would
not
screw
anyone, it would be the ex that screws them if they so choose, as
is
true
with all relationships currently. What if they were never married
and
one
spouse put the other through school? Why should a piece of paper
change
that?

Then why bother with marriage at all, Drew? Why not just say that
each
person should look out for themselves, at no-matter-whose expense?
Let's
just teach our children how to look out for number one, and
precisely
how
to
screw over anyone who gets in their way. That'll certainly set
things
right
again!!

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.

Yes, it is. I worry very much about the world my young daughters will
be
walking into.

I have a daughter, and I too worry.

I have a daughter who is an adult. She makes comments like "If I ever get
married." My advice to her is to only get married to someone who shares the
same strong religious beliefs about marriage and family relationships.

It's possible to share the same strong beliefs about marriage and family
relationships without requiring that they be based in religion.


There is less of a chance one of the parties will walk away from their
marriage vows if they have similar beliefs going into the marriage about
what marriage means.

"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.

I was questioning the "if the non-wage earner initiated" - I have no problems
with divorce being a fault issue, and evidence being required to substantiate
the fault being claimed. I don't, however, think the determining criteria
should be who initiated - it should go back to the evidence to substantiate
fault.

The Dave© wrote in message
s.com...
"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.



I can understand teaching them about protected sex or not having sex,
period, but not to marry?

I don't think that is a good thing to teach. Sorry but I had to express
that.

T

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"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!?


It most certainly is not always a decision made by two. Otherwise, when it
is, what you say has merit.
Do you feel that when a couple marry and both continue to work throughout
the marriage then many years later divorce at a time when one is earning
over twice what the other earns, should one still need to subsidize the
other when the marriage ends?
Phil #3

"The Dave©" wrote in message
s.com...
"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 have not only considered telling my three remaining boys exactly that, I
have and continue to tell them.
It is sad society has developed the way it has, but I consider their
education in what will very likely transpire should they marry and/or have
children of utmost importance. They see what has happened to me, so my
telling them is probably unnecessary.
They know they have about a 50% chance of marrying for life and if divorced
a near 0% chance of being the father they choose to be.


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

Sound advice.


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


Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. I had mine done over 13 years ago and have not
only not regretted it, I am financially and emotionally far ahead of where I
might be otherwise, especially considering my grandfather had his last child
(twins, actually) at age 69.
Phil #3

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

The Dave© wrote in message
s.com...
"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.



I can understand teaching them about protected sex or not having sex,
period, but not to marry?

I don't think that is a good thing to teach. Sorry but I had to express
that.

T

Perhaps I'd reconsider if you can show one advantage for men who marry.
(Other than the one about statistics show married men live longer than
single men because I'm not so sure they live longer, it only *seems* longer
:-) )
Phil #3

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...



With that I totally agree. I think I can handle it (although I have not
had
the thrill of the marriage ride) but for my daughter.... what do we tell
them? That we hope they one day meet a man who will refuse to marry them
so
they must 'live in sin'????

Tell them the truth. The women's movement, started in the 60's, has
destroyed the concept of marriage as we used to know it. Their aggressive
agenda to advance preferential treatment for women has back fired because
men recognize the favorable treatment for women is coming out of their
wallets. The women's movement desire to redefine "family" in lesbian terms
has caused significant uneasiness within decent people. Politicians are
unwilling to stand up to these violations of common decency because they
want the women's issues votes to get elected.

Don't talk about how men have changed. Talked about how women got what they
asked for and now some of them regret it. Tell them to become ifeminists
and support equal treatment in all areas of law for men and women. Teach
them that affirmative action is for the weak who can't make it without
government help. Make them understand all the feel good programs from
government are not designed to help, but instead hold people down who become
dependent on the social handouts.

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...



With that I totally agree. I think I can handle it (although I have not
had
the thrill of the marriage ride) but for my daughter.... what do we tell
them? That we hope they one day meet a man who will refuse to marry them
so
they must 'live in sin'????

Tell them the truth. The women's movement, started in the 60's, has
destroyed the concept of marriage as we used to know it. Their aggressive
agenda to advance preferential treatment for women has back fired because
men recognize the favorable treatment for women is coming out of their
wallets. The women's movement desire to redefine "family" in lesbian
terms
has caused significant uneasiness within decent people. Politicians are
unwilling to stand up to these violations of common decency because they
want the women's issues votes to get elected.

Don't talk about how men have changed. Talked about how women got what
they
asked for and now some of them regret it. Tell them to become ifeminists
and support equal treatment in all areas of law for men and women. Teach
them that affirmative action is for the weak who can't make it without
government help. Make them understand all the feel good programs from
government are not designed to help, but instead hold people down who
become
dependent on the social handouts.



No... I think I will teach her what I learned. Always be able to support
yourself. Marriage or not, always have your own money so that if it ends,
you can leave, needing nothing from another. I would probably also push the
issue that the stay at home mom idea will probably bite you in the ass one
day so always work. Day care isn't the end of the world for most kids.

T

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...



With that I totally agree. I think I can handle it (although I have
not
had
the thrill of the marriage ride) but for my daughter.... what do we
tell
them? That we hope they one day meet a man who will refuse to marry
them
so
they must 'live in sin'????

Tell them the truth. The women's movement, started in the 60's, has
destroyed the concept of marriage as we used to know it. Their
aggressive
agenda to advance preferential treatment for women has back fired
because
men recognize the favorable treatment for women is coming out of their
wallets. The women's movement desire to redefine "family" in lesbian
terms
has caused significant uneasiness within decent people. Politicians are
unwilling to stand up to these violations of common decency because they
want the women's issues votes to get elected.

Don't talk about how men have changed. Talked about how women got what
they
asked for and now some of them regret it. Tell them to become
ifeminists
and support equal treatment in all areas of law for men and women.
Teach
them that affirmative action is for the weak who can't make it without
government help. Make them understand all the feel good programs from
government are not designed to help, but instead hold people down who
become
dependent on the social handouts.



No... I think I will teach her what I learned. Always be able to support
yourself. Marriage or not, always have your own money so that if it ends,
you can leave, needing nothing from another. I would probably also push
the
issue that the stay at home mom idea will probably bite you in the ass one
day so always work. Day care isn't the end of the world for most kids.

So explain this - Why did you ask for advice on what to tell your daughter,
and other young women about marriage, if you already knew what advice you
would give them?

Quite frankly this is an example of why men and women don't get along.
Women ask men what they think encouraging men to express themselves. And
when men express what they think, women attack what they hear. Tell your
daughter never to do that.