Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:ZIRIa.161322$eJ2.76711@fed1read07...
Bingo. Well said Bob.

Well said, perhaps, but not really well thought out. Just because men are
getting royally screwed right now, does not mean that things should be
reversed so women get royally screwed. Would you want your mother treated
that way?

Yet that is the justification for affirmative action. Since minorities were
screwed in the past, it is justified that we treat them preferentially. We
can either treat men and women equally when it comes to family law, now, or
eventually women will get screwed to make up for it, when men receive
preferential treatment.




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

"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?

TM you have raised an interesting scenario for discussion. I think
many

women would suggest they have sacrificed for 15 years for the sake of
the
marriage without acknowledging they benefited for 15 years by having
the
option to not have to work and have the freedom to do other things
that
interest them. The issue I see is women get a lot of choices -
working,
not
working, working part-time, having children, not having children, etc.
And
men are asked to compensate women for making one choice over another
and
rejecting the other available choices that they view as less
desirable.

It is grossly unfair to men to say if women make the choice of not
working
that they should be given state sponsored insulation and financial
protection from the consequences of their decisions. The concept of
CS
and
alimony tells women they can be rewarded financially for making
certain
decisions in their lives. Financial insulation from the consequences
of
personal decision-making is a strong motivator for women initiating
divorce.

But on the flip side women are not held accountable to maintain their
marriage roles after a divorce. They are not told they have to go
grocery
shopping for their ex husbands, clean his apartment every week, do his
laundry, provide other services like she did during the marriage.
Women
are
held to different standards post-divorce than men.

It would be just as illogical to award child custody to men 85% of the
time
and have the women pay the men enough to hire replacement services for
those
provided by women during the marriage. After all the man made the
choice
to
advance his career and he should be given compensation for making the
choice
to not improve his housekeeping skills, right?

"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.

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:ZIRIa.161322$eJ2.76711@fed1read07...
Bingo. Well said Bob.

Well said, perhaps, but not really well thought out. Just because men
are
getting royally screwed right now, does not mean that things should be
reversed so women get royally screwed. Would you want your mother
treated
that way?

Yet that is the justification for affirmative action. Since minorities
were
screwed in the past, it is justified that we treat them preferentially.
We
can either treat men and women equally when it comes to family law, now,
or
eventually women will get screwed to make up for it, when men receive
preferential treatment.

Yep, I can see that coming. Myself, I prefer that all people be treated
equally now. As I'm sure many on this newsgroup do. Think we can talk the
politicians, lawyers, and judges into it?

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.



"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:ZIRIa.161322$eJ2.76711@fed1read07...
Bingo. Well said Bob.

Well said, perhaps, but not really well thought out. Just because men
are
getting royally screwed right now, does not mean that things should be
reversed so women get royally screwed. Would you want your mother
treated
that way?



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

"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?

TM you have raised an interesting scenario for discussion. I
think
many

women would suggest they have sacrificed for 15 years for the sake
of
the
marriage without acknowledging they benefited for 15 years by
having
the
option to not have to work and have the freedom to do other things
that
interest them. The issue I see is women get a lot of choices -
working,
not
working, working part-time, having children, not having children,
etc.
And
men are asked to compensate women for making one choice over
another
and
rejecting the other available choices that they view as less
desirable.

It is grossly unfair to men to say if women make the choice of not
working
that they should be given state sponsored insulation and financial
protection from the consequences of their decisions. The concept
of
CS
and
alimony tells women they can be rewarded financially for making
certain
decisions in their lives. Financial insulation from the
consequences
of
personal decision-making is a strong motivator for women
initiating
divorce.

But on the flip side women are not held accountable to maintain
their
marriage roles after a divorce. They are not told they have to go
grocery
shopping for their ex husbands, clean his apartment every week, do
his
laundry, provide other services like she did during the marriage.
Women
are
held to different standards post-divorce than men.

It would be just as illogical to award child custody to men 85% of
the
time
and have the women pay the men enough to hire replacement services
for
those
provided by women during the marriage. After all the man made the
choice
to
advance his career and he should be given compensation for making
the
choice
to not improve his housekeeping skills, right?

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.


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
I don't know, TeacherMama, how many couples jointly made an agreement
that the wife would stay home. It's possible that the wife unilaterally
decided, or that there was no explicit discussion of the issue.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, the principle you articulate is
used as a way to protect women, but is not applied to men when it would
work in THEIR favor. Few would argue with the notion that making people
bear the financial consequences of their own decisions is the right way
to go. But why, in the U.S. today, are women who decide to end their
marriages able to offload most of the financial consequences of their
decisions onto their husbands?

Furthermore, in the rare cases where there is a divorce in a situation
where the man was a stay-at-home husband, or had the primary role in
looking after the children, the indications are that he still does not
get custody of the children. I know of no overall statistics on this
point. However, I can think immediately of several examples where, in
these situations, the wife still exercised her traditional role of
taking custody in the divorce, despite the fact that the husband had the
main responsibility for the children. For example, one was the
situation of Marcia Clark, the OJ prosecutor, who had custody of her
child, despite the fact that she was a workaholic, and her ex had
flexible work arrangements that enabled him to look after the child much
more easily than Ms. Clark.

The fact of the matter is that your "two people enter into an
agreement" principle, like so many other general principles in this
area, never is used to protect the interests of men. The basic reason
is that, here as elsewhere, laws and judges take account of the reality
that, in the battle of the sexes, only one side shows up.


TeacherMama wrote:

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:Gv4Ja.161790$eJ2.78591@fed1read07...

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...

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!!

True, why bother with marriage at all. So essentially, you see
marriage
as
a protection in a relationship? If a couple really loves and trusts
eachother, do they need protection? I think someone who gets
married
so
that they can get protection for the future is looking out for
number
one.
I don't see anything wrong with looking out for number one, it's
important
to plan for your future. I don't believe in screwing anyone over
though.
If I were in a relationship, and my spouse/girlfriend put me through
school,
I would feel obligated to return the favor, but don't think it
should
be a
mandatory court order. Of course, if the relationship ended because
the
ex
was screwing around, see ya, thanks for college.

You must have been badly burned by the women in your life for you to
say
that women marry to get protection for the future. IF that is why
somwone
marries, then they probably shouldn't be marrying at all!

But if two people enter into an agreement that one parent will stay
home
and
do the "home" things--which have absolutely no value in being
financially
independent--and the other will work outside the home to provide the
finances necessary, and increases his ability to earn in the
process--then
both should be equally responsible for the results! Perhaps, then,
the
SAH
parent should get the house upon divorce, because, after all, she was
the
one looking after it as her part of the agreement. And the other
parent
should just get their money, since that is all they did during the
marriage.

I wish that the government were completely booted out of family
matters,
and
could only be brought in for the most egregious of reasons. The
system
is
so screwed up today because it is the decent people who are being used
as
whipping boys by the government to cover up their ongoing inability to
do
anything about those who refuse to cooperate.

"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.



Like it or not, as adult we are responsible for our decisions, and our
decisions have consequences. That, we as adults, make decisions that can
effect those who can not make the decisions, we, as the decision maker, have
an obligation to consider the effect of our decision on those that can not
make the decisions. You can't escape that fact, as much as we might like
to.

IOW, under no-fault divorce, it should be the parent that didn't want the
divorce that gets first choice in the custody determination. If it is a
fault divorce, it is the parent whose at fault that get first choice.

In a no-fault divorce, the parent that decides to walk away, does so knowing
that as a consequence, they walk with the property they acquired before the
marriage, 1/2 of what was acquired during the marriage, and they pay CS, if
necessary, to the other parent. If it is a fault divorce, it is the parent
not at fault that gets first choice in a custody determination, while the at
fault parent gets to pay CS, if necessary, what they acquired prior to the
marriage, and 1/2 of what was acquired during the marriage.

Many psychological/social/behavioral experiments show that the expectation
of consequences has a major influence on one's behavior. For example, most
people will cheat, if they think they won't get caught or there are little
consequences. Most people, won't cheat if they think they will get caught,
or the consequences are severe.

As an aside, The threat of a severe consequence is a primary justification
for the death penalty (a deterent). The problem is that most murders are
commited in the heat of passion (on impulse). Therefore the death penalty
has little effect on the murder rate. In order for any consequence to be a
deterent to one's behavoir, the consequence must exceed the benefit of
committing the act, and one must think that the chances of suffering the
consequence are good. (Also, beyond a certain point increasing the
consequence has little effect on behavoir)

The really bad point about it swinging back to women being screwed for
the sake of men in divorce is less than a century ago that's the way it
was. Less than a century ago it was legal practice to give custody in
divorce 100% of the time to men, to leave the ex wife destitute. And
all this at a time when women had no legal rights and could not even
vote (they had no legal defense against their husband's desire to
divorce and were stuck with his decision), and at that time men
inntiated almost all divorces. We've already swung to far in backlash
from one gender to another.

TeacherMama wrote:
"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:ZIRIa.161322$eJ2.76711@fed1read07...

Bingo. Well said Bob.

Well said, perhaps, but not really well thought out. Just because men

are

getting royally screwed right now, does not mean that things should be
reversed so women get royally screwed. Would you want your mother

treated

that way?

Yet that is the justification for affirmative action. Since minorities

were

screwed in the past, it is justified that we treat them preferentially.

We

can either treat men and women equally when it comes to family law, now,

or

eventually women will get screwed to make up for it, when men receive
preferential treatment.


Yep, I can see that coming. Myself, I prefer that all people be treated
equally now. As I'm sure many on this newsgroup do. Think we can talk the
politicians, lawyers, and judges into it?

"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]

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.

Mrs Indyguy

Phil #3

[snip]

TeacherMama wrote:

"frazil" wrote in message
...

TeacherMama wrote in message
...

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:ZIRIa.161322$eJ2.76711@fed1read07...
Bingo. Well said Bob.

Well said, perhaps, but not really well thought out. Just because men
are
getting royally screwed right now, does not mean that things should be
reversed so women get royally screwed. Would you want your mother
treated
that way?

Yet that is the justification for affirmative action. Since minorities
were
screwed in the past, it is justified that we treat them preferentially.
We
can either treat men and women equally when it comes to family law, now,
or
eventually women will get screwed to make up for it, when men receive
preferential treatment.

Yep, I can see that coming. Myself, I prefer that all people be treated
equally now. As I'm sure many on this newsgroup do. Think we can talk the
politicians, lawyers, and judges into it?


I hate to sound like a broken record, but in the U.S. today belonging
to a particular special interest group (particularly an ethnic grievance
group) has become crucial to how you are treated. And a corollary is
that the special interest groups that can make the most noise, and be
the most successful at intimidating decision-makers, are the ones that
get favorable treatment.

It's immensely discouraging, I'm afraid, but there's really no question
of talking politicians, lawyers, and judges into treating people
equally. All that can be done is for the disadvantaged individuals to
form themselves into their own special interest grievance group, and
organize publicity, marches, yelling contests, and perhaps a few good
riots. That's what gets results. Focusing on equity between
individuals gets precisely nowhere.