Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

Dave wrote:

"Indyguy1" wrote
At the time I thought it was just plain nuts we
couldn't just get divorced without jumping
through so many hoops.

In instances with no kids, I have absolutely no problem with no-fault
divorce. If you have kids together, I think there should be some kind of
reason.

I'd take that a few steps further. If there are no children, the marriage was
short in duration and if there are few if any marital assets, only then should
no-fault be used.

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

Mrs Indyguy

TeacherMama wrote:

"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!?


I'm afraid I just don't agree with you, TeacherMama.

In the first place, I don't think these decisions typically are reached
by the sort of rational two-person discussions that you postulate.
There may be a few situations where this happens, but I doubt whether it
happens often. In my view, the typical situation is that either the
decision for the mother to stay home is made by her alone, or the couple
simply goes along with what they think of as social expectations.

So long as no-fault divorce and post-conception reproductive choice
only for women continue to be the norm in the U.S., treating women as
victims of men is an invitation for women to abuse the system. The most
common way of abusing the system is for women to force men to pay for
decisions made by women -- be they decisions to stay home, decisions to
let pregnancies proceed to childbirth, or decisions not to give up for
adoption children that are born.

I'm really saying nothing more than that women should mature. They
should be grownups. They should accept, and prepare for, the
consequences of their own decisions.

One of the strangest features of the evolution of feminism over the
last 30 years is that it started off with the notion that women should
be equal to men, but it has ended up with tremendous emphasis being
placed on special privileges for women. In the early part of the 21st
century, the war-cry of the official feminist movement is the
Titanic-era one of "women and children first."

How can the feminists get away with this? It's simple -- men let them
do so. There's no organized resistance by men.

TeacherMama wrote:

"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.


From what I have seen, the move to no-fault started in California. (So
it must be a sound, well-based concept, if it started there, right?) It
was based on the notion that (a) there were many dead marriages around,
and no-fault would enable them to be ended officially, and after an
initial surge of divorces, the numbers would fall back to what they had
been before, and (b) the existence of no-fault would take the acrimony
out of divorce, and would end all the undignified stuff about private
detectives spying on people to establish fault causes for divorce.

The justifications for no-fault divorce have, of course, turned out to
be a complete myth. The huge upsurge in divorce in the U.S. closely
tracked the spread of no-fault. The bitterness has, of course, not been
removed from divorce. And a huge divorce industry has been established,
consisting of people whose income is almost entirely dependent on the
continuation of a 50 percent divorce rate.

One of life's most important questions is: compared to what? There is
no hope that someone can devise a system of divorce that removes all the
difficulties. The best we can do is to arrive at a system that is
better than what we have now. A return to fault-based divorce would
indeed present problems, including all the stuff about private
detectives spying on people. However, there is every expectation that
fault-based divorce would be far better than what we have now.



The basic pro

The Dave© wrote:

"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.


I'm saying that I'm utterly tired of women being able to get away with
so much, on the implicit argument that they are the victims of men. I'm
saying that women (and men), should go into marriage with their eyes
open. I'm saying that we should have an end to the situation where
women are able to claim all the advantages that come from equality with
men, and then suddenly turn around and dispense with all the
DISadvantages of equality with men by pretending that they're poor
little frightened things who only did what some man told them to do.

And I don't think universal prenuptial contracts are impractical. Many
churches and synagogues have made some progress in saying that they will
not marry couples who have not gone through premarital counseling, via
programs organized by groups like Marriage Savers. Prenuptial contracts
are only an extension of that concept.

Good heavens, it might even be possible to get the legal profession (a
major part of the divorce industry) to go along. We could tell them
that what they would lose in divorce business, they would gain in
preparing prenuptial contracts. They could still make lots of money out
of the haggling between couples, and out of drawing up their little
pieces of paper. The difference would be that this would happen BEFORE
marriage, not BEFORE divorce.

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.....

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!!!!!

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?

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

# Gimme the Plaza, the jet and $150 million, too . . .
Headline , New York Post, 13 Feb. 1990, reporting Ivana Trump's divorce
settlement demands of husband Donald.

--

Replace the obvious with paradise to email me.
See Found Images at:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

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

"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

Well, Bob, I do have to call you on this one. It was not "women" who did
this, but a small group of very radical feminists. Many other women spoke
out against them--and many just went about their every lives, asuming that
the rants of the feminists would soon pass. I think almost everyone was
caught by surprise when they actually did get so much of their agenda put
into action. I don't know a single feminist! I don't know anyone who knows
any feminists. All women should not be placed in the same category as
feminists!


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.

Now this I tend to agree with. But not everyone by far who is in the groups
that are allowed special consideration take advantage of that special
consideration. We would do well to phase out the majority of the "hand out"
programs that have been developed over the past far-too-many years.



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?

I think, perhaps, she may not want to go into the angry reasons you post
about the pathway to today's unfair system. I, myself, would not speak to
my daughters the way you posted, because I want them to be proud of who they
are. I do not want them to feel as if they are part of a weak and selfish
gender who need to spend their lives atoning for the wrongs that were
perpetuated by "women" like them. I do not think that consistently speaking
of the sins of "women" is going to fix anything. Besides, who listened to
these feminists? Who actually enacted the legislation who gave them
legitimacy? It had to be men, because not many women were in governing
roles at that time. But we are talking about handsful of each gender among
many who did not participate in any way at all. And most people still let
the government make their decisions for them--until it touches their lives
personally in a negative way.


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.

I don't think Tiffany attacked you, Bob. She may just have been reacting to
the anger in your post.

"Moon Shyne" 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.

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.

I guess I'd say if SAH mom went wandering off with Harry Humpem, then
expected the kids, CS , and alimony because she'd been stuck at home all
those years, she probably shouldn't be rewarded for her choices. Not the
non wage earner having no right to file a "fault" case--just not having the
right to reap benefits when the fault is on her (or his) side.

Phil#3 wrote:

'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.

Unilateral choices should have solo consequences. Joint choices, as in one
spouse being a SAH, should have joint consequences.

The spouse deciding to be a SAH may accept input from the other spouse. The
other spouse does NOT make the decision. *I* decide what *I* will do. *YOU*
decide what *YOU* will do. Accept your decisions unless there was a gun at
your head. You'll be a better person for it.

Mel Gamble

Mrs Indyguy

Phil #3

[snip]

"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?

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.

Mel Gamble

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.

"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 disagree. Perjury is a small thing in the grand scheme of the legal system.
False allegations of abuse are an attempt on the part of the accuser to have
the accused suffer the legal outcome of conviction - incarceration for X years.
The false accuser should be penalized to the same extent that we would punish
any other felon who had attempted to imprison another person for X years.

The fair result would be the same penalty that would have applied had the
accused been found guilty, only applied to the accuser.

Mel Gamble