If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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] |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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] |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dust Mite Allergies - A Solution That Works!! | kazham | Kids Health | 0 | March 9th 04 11:23 AM |