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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
Because, Max, you keep turning it into a he-she thing. You don't seem to
have a concept of "together". The fact that his chosen role is what provides the material necessities of life, and hers provides the rest, does not seem in the least important to you. The fact that it was he and she together that got to the point where they are at the end of the marriage does not seem to matter to you. Only the money and the possibility of being parted with it seems to matter to you. Only money! The SAH worked as hard as the breadwinner for all those years--they worked together to build a home--and you still see it as "the breadwinner's money." As if "she" has been spending "his" money all these years. Not "their" money, because what the two of them are building is a "them" thing. Which is the exact same sickness that the system we have today is infected with. Only the money counts--nothing else. Only money. Which is what makes it so very, very sad! As for my step-nephew, he doesn't give a rat's tush about the children he has fathered. The system doesn't do a thing about it because he makes no money. And, as much as I think there needs to be great reform in the area of forcing men into fatherhood, I do not believe that any man should have carte blanche to spill his seed anywhere and everywhere and then walk away saying "tough sh*t--I don't wanna be a dad. You the woman--deal with it." Just as I don't believe that a woman should bring into this world child after child she can't support and then expect someone else to support her and the kids. Both are wrong--BOTH. "Max Burke" wrote in message ... TeacherMama scribbled: Max Burke wrote: 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. Except when it comes to your step nephew (or whatever relation he is to you....) I have ALWAYS that DNA should be used to determine paternity whenever either party wants it. Many women that post here DONT, including those that have been participating here for years, and claim to be completely supportive of men. I DO NOT believe that ANY person should pay child support for a child that is not theirs. And I do not appreciate your above statement. Tough! Given the way you're refusing to even respond to the point I'm making and bringing up all these strawman arguments you dont get the benefit the doubt here.... You're just being completely hypocritical in your responses........ 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. Yet again show me *ANYWHERE* in my posts that *I* disagree with that happening. *I* dont. But that isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about the SAH being 'compensated' for being the SAH. That's what you are arguing for; That's what I'm arguing against. I truly don't give a rat's tush whether it is alimony or not. I know YOU dont. He has the high-paying job--let her have the house. If you want to put it like that it was his HIGH PAYING JOB that provided the house for her to live and play housekeeper in. 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. Only as long as he gets half the proceeds. And this would only be in cases of long-term marriages with a SAH parent. Long term where I live is three years and you dont even have to be married.... 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. That's what you want for the SAH; Compensation for the career sacrifices they made by choosing to be the SAH...... The SAH does not get "compensated" for being a maid, gardener, cook, etc. No one, least of all me, said they do. After all the 'ability' to do all those things are as a direct result of the working partner paying for the house and garden while *working.* That is their 'payment.' He gets to pay for the house, she gets to take care of the house..... Because the SAH wasn't any of those things! The SAH fulfilled their agreed-upon role, the breadwinner theirs. They should come out of the deal in somewhat equal positions. Exactly. The split the *marital/relationship assets* 50/50 and go their separate ways; there is no need for either provide for the other's post divorce needs in any way at all. 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. Why not? 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. Children are NOT property. It's NOT about who gets to have the children at all. Why bring in all these strawman 'arguments?' It's about YOU saying the working partner, upon divorce, should provide or compensate the SAH for them giving up their 'career' to be an SAH, and just so the SAH can get back on their feet; It's about the working partner having to continue to support the SAH because they cant support themselves. Why did YOU snip the comment of mine which puts the above in the proper context? This is why YOUR hypocrisy disgusts me. Why dont YOU provide an answer for THIS point. [here is the *complete* context; try some honesty when responding this time] 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. [here is the part YOU refuse to comment on; I wonder why...] 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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
TeacherMama scribbled:
Because, Max, you keep turning it into a he-she thing. BS If anyone is doing that YOU are....... You don't seem to have a concept of "together". The fact that his chosen role is what provides the material necessities of life, and hers provides the rest, does not seem in the least important to you. BS again...... The fact that it was he and she together that got to the point where they are at the end of the marriage does not seem to matter to you. Only the money and the possibility of being parted with it seems to matter to you. Only money! It's YOU claiming that there is a need for the SAH to be supported *by money* from their ex post divorce for being the SAH, NOT ME! The SAH worked as hard as the breadwinner for all those years--they worked together to build a home--and you still see it as "the breadwinner's money." BS yet again...... You're not even reading my comments are you...... As if "she" has been spending "his" money all these years. Not "their" money, because what the two of them are building is a "them" thing. BS for the *FORTH* time...... Which is the exact same sickness that the system we have today is infected with. Only the money counts--nothing else. Only money. Which is what makes it so very, very sad! It's YOU who says the SAH needs to be 'supported' post divorce when there is no need to have CS under a joint custody arrangement, NOT ME! It's YOU saying someone (preferably) the ex of the SAH needs to provide financial support to stop the SAH 'sliding into poverty,' NOT ME! It's YOU that says the one who chose to work should be the one who has to support the SAH financially post divorce, NOT ME! You are the one who has made this debate all about money for the SAH, NOT ME! To recap: Drews argument is that under a joint custody arrangement there is no need for CS to be paid from one parent to another; You immediately say what about the SAH? Who will look after them if they dont get a regular CS cheque? How will they live after the divorce if they're dont have CS coming in each week? You then say they have the right to be paid, compensated, whatever for simply being the SAH in the marriage. All your 'weasel words' about how sad it is that it has to be negotiated this way is simply you being hypocritical again.... Oh and you STILL HAVEN'T made one SINGLE comment about the real subject of the debate, and are simply posting yet more 'strawman arguments' to avoid doing so.... As for my step-nephew, he doesn't give a rat's tush about the children he has fathered. The system doesn't do a thing about it because he makes no money. And, as much as I think there needs to be great reform in the area of forcing men into fatherhood, I do not believe that any man should have carte blanche to spill his seed anywhere and everywhere and then walk away saying "tough sh*t--I don't wanna be a dad. You the woman--deal with it." Just as I don't believe that a woman should bring into this world child after child she can't support and then expect someone else to support her and the kids. Both are wrong--BOTH. Thanks for *YET AGAIN* proving your hypocrisy....... Why dont YOU provide an answer for THIS point. [here is the *complete* context; try some honesty when responding this time] 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. [here is the part YOU refuse to comment on; I wonder why...] 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
I think Bob's comments below have it about right. One result of the
mainly feminist-inspired changes in marriage has been to change the balance of advantage between the sexes -- both while the marriage lasts and in divorce. People of my father's generation could expect a far better deal from marriage than people of the present generation of men. Among other things, their position within their families was much more secure, and it was very unlikely that they would be stuck with paying the bill for families from which they had been excluded. Men don't have a choice about working. However, they do have a choice about getting married. I'm very much in favor of strong, stable families. However, increasingly I think that such families will not become the norm again without an interim period during which men boycott marriage. A boycott of marriage by men appears likely to be the most likely way of turning back the changes that have made marriage into such a bad deal for men. Furthermore, I also think that fathers' groups should be more active in disseminating to younger unmarried men what is likely to happen to them if they get married. I see few signs at present in the U.S. of any moves away from no-fault divorce or towards ending the glass ceiling on paternal custody -- two of the most effective ways of controlling the divorce epidemic. Bob Whiteside wrote: "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message hlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... Wrong!! That's what really bugs me--it was not a choice the woman necessarily made on her own. The husband and wife worked these choices out TOGETHER. Post divorce, if he doesn't clean his house, he suffers a bit, but eventually figures it out. SHE, on the other had, would begin suffering immediately from lack of any income, until she landed a job--probably minimum wage. So HE benefits from choices they BOTH made, and she suffers. My parents were married for 50 years. They raised 8 children with her as a stay at home mom and him as the bread winner. If, during those years, he had decided to walk out (never a possibility in real life), should she have had to support and raise us on minimum wage? Just because she trusted that their commitment to each other and the choices they made as a couple were for the rest of their lives? My brother and his wife have 6 children. He works outside the home, and she homeschools the children. How could you even begin to think it is ok for him to walk out and expect her to be instantly self-supporting, while he goes on his merry way with his nearly 6 digit income? Marriage should not be a "his choice-her choice" deal, but an "our choice" thing. And NOBODY should end up totally screwed when divorce rears its ugly head! Prior to the women's movement that started in the 60's marriage was based on women finding an ideal candidate to support her and any children they might have together. The man's role was to work outside the home and the woman's role was to work within the home. Under these role definitions divorce was rare and women would typically file for divorce only under extreme circumstances. As the women's movement began to take shape, women were some of the biggest, most vocal detractors of the equality for pay and opportunities for other women. Their husbands' careers were the financial lifelines for their families and the attempts to strengthen the women's role in the workplace were seen as weakening the man's role, and therefore a direct assault on women at home. The definition of marriage roles changed with the women's movement. As women became more successful in the workplace, the divorce rate began to grow. SAH women viewed these changes as discrimination against them, and this lead to measures to protect women. The concept of alimony grew out of changes in the workplace. What had worked for SAH women previously was falling apart because other women were replacing their husband's role, and women viewed the changes as being a plot against them. ***** This in turn led to the concept of men owing women for the changes based on a sense of entitlement to maintain what they had enjoyed for years with male only providers in the workplace.****** This is where I disagree with you, Bob. It was not a sense of *entitlement*! These women HAD done therepart, and did not deserve to be left high and dry, with no skills and no way to support themselves and their children. It was only right that they be given a helping hand into the workplace! I am not suggesting that women did not do their part. What changed when the divorce rate started rising dramatically was the sources where women found economic security. Previously their main source of financial security came from their husband's income and the SAHM model was the norm. Women were not left high and dry." With the advent of the women's movement divorces became easier the obtain and women began entering the workplace in record numbers. And simultaneously women were given multiple choices on how to achieve economic security. Added to the husband as provider option were options for women to gain income via career or through government actions as their surrogate husband providing welfare, WIC, affirmative action in hiring, increased CS awards, garnishments if support wasn't paid, college admission preferences, military service, women headed small business loans and preferential tax treatment,. So women ended up with multiple economic options to select from as replacements for their husband's income. Men on the other hand, ended up with less than one option. Men have always had only one option in their role of being the income earner. But with all the changes that favored women the pressure on men to be a provider became more intense. With more women entering the workplace, employment options for men started to decline. and simultaneously men were asked to pay increased CS, mortgage payment on houses they no longer lived in, apartment rental, alimony, visitation expenses, and dating. My opinion is these changes are within a zero sum game. Every advantage women won to prevent them from being left "high and dry" was taken away from men. And the reason men are described as "not changing" as fast as women is because men have fewer options to change to. And the reason men are described as being "commitment phobic" is because men recognize how the landscape has changed to their disadvantage. snip What bothers me about what you say here is that it sounds like two individuals living together out of convenience--not like a lifetime partnership. That's not exactly what I am saying. What marriage has evolved into a one-sided relationship where the women hold all the good cards. All they have to do is exercise their option to no-fault divorce and the marriage is done, even over the objections of the husband. And the government will step in as surrogate husband and take money away from the husband to give the woman replacement economic security in the form of CS, alimony, property, and attorney fees. It's not a "partnership" when one party is virtually guaranteed custody of children, at least half the assets, predictable CS awards, and alimony while the other party is guaranteed to pay for all those options awarded to women. As I understand it, the chief motivators for women in marriage are financial security, companionship, and a good relationship. For men the prime motivators of marriage are approval and regular sex. When divorce occurs women withdraw their approval of men and the sex. But the women get to keep the financial security, plus the emotional security of companionship and relationships with the children. snip But that's the point--it is not necessarily "women's choices." It is a choice that couples sit down and make together--because that's what they BOTH want for their children! So, in the end, only the woman would pay the price for the couple's choice? That is just as bad as only the man paying the price for divorce! My point is - women can sit down with their husbands and make choices they both agree to. They then implement those choices. But later on the women can renege on her choices and replace her original choices with other choices off the menu of options. As long as women are allowed to renege on the choices they make, marriage rates will suffer. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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. "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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
And I don't disagree with you at all. But it breaks my heart to think about
the world my young daughters are moving into. "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... I think Bob's comments below have it about right. One result of the mainly feminist-inspired changes in marriage has been to change the balance of advantage between the sexes -- both while the marriage lasts and in divorce. People of my father's generation could expect a far better deal from marriage than people of the present generation of men. Among other things, their position within their families was much more secure, and it was very unlikely that they would be stuck with paying the bill for families from which they had been excluded. Men don't have a choice about working. However, they do have a choice about getting married. I'm very much in favor of strong, stable families. However, increasingly I think that such families will not become the norm again without an interim period during which men boycott marriage. A boycott of marriage by men appears likely to be the most likely way of turning back the changes that have made marriage into such a bad deal for men. Furthermore, I also think that fathers' groups should be more active in disseminating to younger unmarried men what is likely to happen to them if they get married. I see few signs at present in the U.S. of any moves away from no-fault divorce or towards ending the glass ceiling on paternal custody -- two of the most effective ways of controlling the divorce epidemic. Bob Whiteside wrote: "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message hlink.net... "TeacherMama" wrote in message ... Wrong!! That's what really bugs me--it was not a choice the woman necessarily made on her own. The husband and wife worked these choices out TOGETHER. Post divorce, if he doesn't clean his house, he suffers a bit, but eventually figures it out. SHE, on the other had, would begin suffering immediately from lack of any income, until she landed a job--probably minimum wage. So HE benefits from choices they BOTH made, and she suffers. My parents were married for 50 years. They raised 8 children with her as a stay at home mom and him as the bread winner. If, during those years, he had decided to walk out (never a possibility in real life), should she have had to support and raise us on minimum wage? Just because she trusted that their commitment to each other and the choices they made as a couple were for the rest of their lives? My brother and his wife have 6 children. He works outside the home, and she homeschools the children. How could you even begin to think it is ok for him to walk out and expect her to be instantly self-supporting, while he goes on his merry way with his nearly 6 digit income? Marriage should not be a "his choice-her choice" deal, but an "our choice" thing. And NOBODY should end up totally screwed when divorce rears its ugly head! Prior to the women's movement that started in the 60's marriage was based on women finding an ideal candidate to support her and any children they might have together. The man's role was to work outside the home and the woman's role was to work within the home. Under these role definitions divorce was rare and women would typically file for divorce only under extreme circumstances. As the women's movement began to take shape, women were some of the biggest, most vocal detractors of the equality for pay and opportunities for other women. Their husbands' careers were the financial lifelines for their families and the attempts to strengthen the women's role in the workplace were seen as weakening the man's role, and therefore a direct assault on women at home. The definition of marriage roles changed with the women's movement. As women became more successful in the workplace, the divorce rate began to grow. SAH women viewed these changes as discrimination against them, and this lead to measures to protect women. The concept of alimony grew out of changes in the workplace. What had worked for SAH women previously was falling apart because other women were replacing their husband's role, and women viewed the changes as being a plot against them. ***** This in turn led to the concept of men owing women for the changes based on a sense of entitlement to maintain what they had enjoyed for years with male only providers in the workplace.****** This is where I disagree with you, Bob. It was not a sense of *entitlement*! These women HAD done therepart, and did not deserve to be left high and dry, with no skills and no way to support themselves and their children. It was only right that they be given a helping hand into the workplace! I am not suggesting that women did not do their part. What changed when the divorce rate started rising dramatically was the sources where women found economic security. Previously their main source of financial security came from their husband's income and the SAHM model was the norm. Women were not left high and dry." With the advent of the women's movement divorces became easier the obtain and women began entering the workplace in record numbers. And simultaneously women were given multiple choices on how to achieve economic security. Added to the husband as provider option were options for women to gain income via career or through government actions as their surrogate husband providing welfare, WIC, affirmative action in hiring, increased CS awards, garnishments if support wasn't paid, college admission preferences, military service, women headed small business loans and preferential tax treatment,. So women ended up with multiple economic options to select from as replacements for their husband's income. Men on the other hand, ended up with less than one option. Men have always had only one option in their role of being the income earner. But with all the changes that favored women the pressure on men to be a provider became more intense. With more women entering the workplace, employment options for men started to decline. and simultaneously men were asked to pay increased CS, mortgage payment on houses they no longer lived in, apartment rental, alimony, visitation expenses, and dating. My opinion is these changes are within a zero sum game. Every advantage women won to prevent them from being left "high and dry" was taken away from men. And the reason men are described as "not changing" as fast as women is because men have fewer options to change to. And the reason men are described as being "commitment phobic" is because men recognize how the landscape has changed to their disadvantage. snip What bothers me about what you say here is that it sounds like two individuals living together out of convenience--not like a lifetime partnership. That's not exactly what I am saying. What marriage has evolved into a one-sided relationship where the women hold all the good cards. All they have to do is exercise their option to no-fault divorce and the marriage is done, even over the objections of the husband. And the government will step in as surrogate husband and take money away from the husband to give the woman replacement economic security in the form of CS, alimony, property, and attorney fees. It's not a "partnership" when one party is virtually guaranteed custody of children, at least half the assets, predictable CS awards, and alimony while the other party is guaranteed to pay for all those options awarded to women. As I understand it, the chief motivators for women in marriage are financial security, companionship, and a good relationship. For men the prime motivators of marriage are approval and regular sex. When divorce occurs women withdraw their approval of men and the sex. But the women get to keep the financial security, plus the emotional security of companionship and relationships with the children. snip But that's the point--it is not necessarily "women's choices." It is a choice that couples sit down and make together--because that's what they BOTH want for their children! So, in the end, only the woman would pay the price for the couple's choice? That is just as bad as only the man paying the price for divorce! My point is - women can sit down with their husbands and make choices they both agree to. They then implement those choices. But later on the women can renege on her choices and replace her original choices with other choices off the menu of options. As long as women are allowed to renege on the choices they make, marriage rates will suffer. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"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. == It is also very common for the dad/husband to prefer the wife/mother stay home. My preference is for one parent to stay home to rear the children so they need not grow up in daycare centers. I have no preference for which parent does this. As a practical matter, usually the parent with the lower earnings capacity stays home. == == |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
I suppose what I am saying is that I can see no way, in the era of
no-fault divorce, of protecting stay-at-home mothers without opening the door to all kinds of abuse. My understanding is that the evidence from states that have presumptive joint custody is that divorce rates fall. This would be what one would expect, given that (1) wives initiate most divorces, (2) without presumptive joint custody wives nearly always get custody of the children, and (3) expectations of custody are crucial to the decision whether or not to seek a divorce (see Margaret Brinig's research). So 50/50 custody is likely to a reduction in the absolute number of divorces. But there would still be divorces. I can see no reason why a stay-at-home mother should be able to decide to use no-fault divorce to break up her family, and then make her husband continue to pay her, in recognition of her supposed victim status. If people are concerned about justice for everyone (and not just for stay-at-home wives), I can see no alternative to making the treatment of spouses depend on the grounds for the divorce. TeacherMama wrote: 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. "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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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 What happens if the other parent can't afford the child their 50 percent of the time? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
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" 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) |
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 |