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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"gini52" wrote in message ... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "The DaveŠ" 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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
The DaveŠ 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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"The DaveŠ" 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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"Tiffany" wrote in message ... The DaveŠ 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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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. |
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 |