Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...


Now, by men keeping the assets they earned, do you mean that the women
should be booted out of the house they were buying because the man's
earned
money made the payments? No, I don't think so. Because each did their
share through mutually agreed upon roles that they assumed in the
marriage.

Here is what I am saying. There are two types of marriage arrangements.
The first is the one you have cited in this thread with me and elsewhere
with Max. That marriage arrangement is based on DEPENDENCE with each party
depending on the other for accomplishing a role. This was the pre-women's
movement marriage model but some couples still believe this is a sound basis
for a marriage.

The post-women's movement marriage model, and the one supported by the
family law changes that have occurred since the 60's, is based on
INDEPENDENCE. The parties have decided they will live independent of each
other with separate careers, separate checking accounts, separate (fill in
the blanks). This second marriage model has weakened marriage and created a
dramatically increased divorce rate. Our laws support the decline of
marriage by giving women government sponsored incentive advantages they did
not have before in the dependent marriage model.

What I am objecting to (and I believe Max is objecting to as well) is the
thought process that couples should be able to choose between the dependent
or independent marriage model for their marriage, yet if the marriage fails
the women should get the full force of legal protections provided for in the
law for the newer independent marriage model PLUS the more traditional
dependence model marriage protections. My objection is women shouldn't have
it both ways when they exit a marriage.

Father Drew scribbled:
Wooaa there tiger. I would lighten up on TeacherMama a bit. I
consider her disagreement on alimony small potatoes when you consider
she carrys a viewpoint of equal rights in family court, which makes
her one of the good guys. The thread has gotten messy, so it's
possible she didn't get your question, not that she is ignoring it.
I know I missed it the 1st time around.

Ahh no, I find that when 'push comes to shove' many of the women that
post here claiming to be 'supportive' of men and against the way they
are treated by the system, disagree (often vehemently) on the key issues
that lead to men being treated the way they are....
Things like having sex is choosing to have a child for men; Men having
the right to determine by DNA testing, that their children ARE their
children; That men should still have to pay CS when they find that a
child they thought was theirs isn't theirs; The argument justifying
'alimony' for SAH's, etc, etc, etc.....

It's why I often include the quote about the ' abstract rights of
men.....'

Are you basically asking her, "If the SAH should get compensation for
the choice of SAH, shouldn't the working parent should also get
compensation?".

Yes.

If we must have alimony then there can be no argument for *NOT* having
financial compensation from the SAH to the working partner when the
divorce happens....

The working partner gave up the opportunity to spend *more* daily hands
on time with the children, and opted to work to provide for them. They
gave up that aspect of being a parent; it's the other side of the
argument that the SAH gives up their career; that they 'lose' having a
career and 'opportunities to fulfil themselves' outside of the SAH
lifestyle.

Both make their choices *together*, both know they have to have to
*sacrifice* something. I can see no justification that should a divorce
happen, the SAH gets to be 'compensated' by their ex for that which the
willingly and *KNOWINGLY* gave up to be an SAH just so they can get back
to where they were *before* they chose the SAH lifestyle.

After all the one who chose to work will have to make changes that would
have significant career and financial impact on their lives as well when
the divorce happens; They'll either have to give up their full time
career to provide the hands on care for the children while in their
custody 50% of the time, or pay childcare expenses to a third party so
they can continue to have a full time career; They will also have
housing, education, and health expenses, the same as the SAH would have.

They should NOT have to then pay on top of that 'compensation' to their
ex just because their ex needs to keep up or get back their 'marketable'
skills so the 'former' SAH can pay their bills.....

And anyway flipping burgers, answering a phone, changing towels in a
hotel bathroom, or 'checking out' the groceries in a supermarket doesn't
require years of training to obtain 'marketable skills' at all.

# If the abstract rights of men will bear discussion and explanation,
then those of women, by a parity of reasoning, will not fail the same
test; Although a different opinion prevails in the minds of most women
when their rights are put to that test....
--

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

"Max Burke" wrote in message
...
Father Drew scribbled:
Wooaa there tiger. I would lighten up on TeacherMama a bit. I
consider her disagreement on alimony small potatoes when you consider
she carrys a viewpoint of equal rights in family court, which makes
her one of the good guys. The thread has gotten messy, so it's
possible she didn't get your question, not that she is ignoring it.
I know I missed it the 1st time around.

Ahh no, I find that when 'push comes to shove' many of the women that
post here claiming to be 'supportive' of men and against the way they
are treated by the system, disagree (often vehemently) on the key issues
that lead to men being treated the way they are....
Things like having sex is choosing to have a child for men; Men having
the right to determine by DNA testing, that their children ARE their
children; That men should still have to pay CS when they find that a
child they thought was theirs isn't theirs; The argument justifying
'alimony' for SAH's, etc, etc, etc....

Just to make sure things are absolutely clear, Max, I have NEVER said that
choosing to have sex is the same as choosing to have a child. I have ALWAYS
that DNA should be used to determine paternity whenever either party wants
it. IDO NOT believe that ANY person should pay child support for a child
that is not theirs. And I do not appreciate your above statement.

I DO believe that, in a long-term marriage where both adults have agreed on
their roles within the marriage, that there must be an equitable division of
what they have built TOGETHER, by each fulfilling their agreed-upon roles.
I truly don't give a rat's tush whether it is alimony or not. He has the
high-paying job--let her have the house. She can sell it and use the money
to get through those first few rough years as she begins her trek up the job
ladder. And this would only be in cases of long-term marriages with a SAH
parent. How many of those do you think there are. And, again, this was a
question for Drew under his Solution to the current corrupt system.



It's why I often include the quote about the ' abstract rights of
men.....'

Are you basically asking her, "If the SAH should get compensation for
the choice of SAH, shouldn't the working parent should also get
compensation?".

Yes.

I have never spoken of compensation. The SAH does not get "compensated" for
being a maid, gardener, cook, etc. Because the SAH wasn't any of those
things! The SAH fulfilled thier agreed-upon role, the breadwinner theirs.
They should come out of the deal in somewhat equal positions.


If we must have alimony then there can be no argument for *NOT* having
financial compensation from the SAH to the working partner when the
divorce happens....

The working partner gave up the opportunity to spend *more* daily hands
on time with the children, and opted to work to provide for them. They
gave up that aspect of being a parent; it's the other side of the
argument that the SAH gives up their career; that they 'lose' having a
career and 'opportunities to fulfil themselves' outside of the SAH
lifestyle.

Let's just take this wonderful little statement of yours, Max. The working
earned the money and moved up the career ladder--he gets to keep that. The
SAH raised the children--she gets to keep them. If he wants time with
them--since they are hers--how about if he pays her money (which her earned)
to have time with what she has by right of the work she did in raising them.
You like that one? He did the money stuff--money is his. She did the kid
stuff--kids are hers.

"Father Drew" wrote in message
news:lW4Ja.161792$eJ2.124365@fed1read07...
Well said. That is a big part of the C$ problem. The gov doesn't
give
us the chance to honor our responsibilities. I'm paying C$ through DES as
if I were a deadbeat that needed to have my paychecks deducted and have
the
judge set the C$ amount. I paid before I split with my son's mom, and I
paid after we split, no court order necessary, cause I want my kids taken
care of. Of course I paid in cash, the ex denied I paid and I had to do
pay
it all over again, but that's not the point.
I think we agree that screwing people over is wrong. I think where we
may clash a little is when and where the courts should step in. There are
thiongs that are wrong on a moral level, and things that are wrong on a
legal level, and it's a blurry line. I do respect your position and your
comments.

Personally, Drew, I wish the courts were completely out of it. They should
not be in the position of making family and personal decisions. If the
courts could not just step in whenever they wanted, I don't believe we'd be
seeing all the down and dirty fights over custody, child support, etc, that
we are seeing today. Then my question to you would be irrelevant except in
very rare cases. And my question was only about how you would deal with SAH
parents in long term relationships in your system. In the system today,
they don't have a problem. They are already overprotected.

And I'll tell you another thing. Although children are mentioned quite
often as being the "reason" behind the system, they are way down at the
bottom of the list when it comes to who is actually benefitting form the
system today. If the courts were completely out of it, parents could
actually BE parents and work out what is best for THEIR children
together--because nobody else would be there to do it for them!

"TeacherMama" wrote
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?

I came into this thread late, so I missed alot.

I'm not that far off from Father Drew in concept, but I also agree with
TeacherMama that some consideration needs to be made for extremes in cases
of inequitable income. Some reasons for the inequity can be many and
varied, but they are there regardless. I also believe that both spouses
contribute and contribution does not always mean money. Many men complain
that they're only looked on as money machines, then say (imply?) that money
is not necessary to raise a kid in the other person's case. Seems
contradictory.

Maybe start with 50/50 (or some other percentage), then reduce it 10% a year
until nothing, giving the person receiving the money ample opportunity to
either learn a skill or educate themselves. Plus, I would think of it as
not leaving the kids (YOUR OWN kids) in poverty half the time rather than
focusing on the ex. Yet again, we're obsessed with the idea that the spouse
id somehow going to get over while forgetting about the kids.

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

"TeacherMama" wrote in message
...


Now, by men keeping the assets they earned, do you mean that the women
should be booted out of the house they were buying because the man's
earned
money made the payments? No, I don't think so. Because each did their
share through mutually agreed upon roles that they assumed in the
marriage.

Here is what I am saying. There are two types of marriage arrangements.
The first is the one you have cited in this thread with me and elsewhere
with Max. That marriage arrangement is based on DEPENDENCE with each
party
depending on the other for accomplishing a role. This was the pre-women's
movement marriage model but some couples still believe this is a sound
basis
for a marriage.

The post-women's movement marriage model, and the one supported by the
family law changes that have occurred since the 60's, is based on
INDEPENDENCE. The parties have decided they will live independent of each
other with separate careers, separate checking accounts, separate (fill in
the blanks). This second marriage model has weakened marriage and created
a
dramatically increased divorce rate. Our laws support the decline of
marriage by giving women government sponsored incentive advantages they
did
not have before in the dependent marriage model.

What I am objecting to (and I believe Max is objecting to as well) is the
thought process that couples should be able to choose between the
dependent
or independent marriage model for their marriage, yet if the marriage
fails
the women should get the full force of legal protections provided for in
the
law for the newer independent marriage model PLUS the more traditional
dependence model marriage protections. My objection is women shouldn't
have
it both ways when they exit a marriage.

I agree with that. It's one or the other--and I'd just as soon get rid of
the other!! It's too easy to divorce with the "independent model." It's
like choosing a new favorite breakfast cereal--out with the old spouse, in
with the new.

But what I have been saying is, under Drew's model (see original post),
there has got to be some way for a spouse who has stayed at home and done
their end of the deal for all those years (and it has to be long term--not
just a couple of years) to not drop down to poverty level just because the
marriage breaks up. How many marriages would even fall into that category
these days?