Re: Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...


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

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

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

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

[Max Burke]

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > Now, by men keeping the assets they earned, do you mean that the women
> > should be booted out of the house they were buying because the man's
> earned
> > money made the payments? No, I don't think so. Because each did their
> > share through mutually agreed upon roles that they assumed in the
> marriage.
>
> Here is what I am saying. There are two types of marriage arrangements.
> The first is the one you have cited in this thread with me and elsewhere
> with Max. That marriage arrangement is based on DEPENDENCE with each
party
> depending on the other for accomplishing a role. This was the pre-women's
> movement marriage model but some couples still believe this is a sound
basis
> for a marriage.
>
> The post-women's movement marriage model, and the one supported by the
> family law changes that have occurred since the 60's, is based on
> INDEPENDENCE. The parties have decided they will live independent of each
> other with separate careers, separate checking accounts, separate (fill in
> the blanks). This second marriage model has weakened marriage and created
a
> dramatically increased divorce rate. Our laws support the decline of
> marriage by giving women government sponsored incentive advantages they
did
> not have before in the dependent marriage model.
>
> What I am objecting to (and I believe Max is objecting to as well) is the
> thought process that couples should be able to choose between the
dependent
> or independent marriage model for their marriage, yet if the marriage
fails
> the women should get the full force of legal protections provided for in
the
> law for the newer independent marriage model PLUS the more traditional
> dependence model marriage protections. My objection is women shouldn't
have
> it both ways when they exit a marriage.

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

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

[TeacherMama]

"Max Burke" > wrote in message
...
> > Father Drew scribbled:
> > Wooaa there tiger. I would lighten up on TeacherMama a bit. I
> > consider her disagreement on alimony small potatoes when you consider
> > she carrys a viewpoint of equal rights in family court, which makes
> > her one of the good guys. The thread has gotten messy, so it's
> > possible she didn't get your question, not that she is ignoring it.
> > I know I missed it the 1st time around.
>
> Ahh no, I find that when 'push comes to shove' many of the women that
> post here claiming to be 'supportive' of men and against the way they
> are treated by the system, disagree (often vehemently) on the key issues
> that lead to men being treated the way they are....
> Things like having sex is choosing to have a child for men; Men having
> the right to determine by DNA testing, that their children ARE their
> children; That men should still have to pay CS when they find that a
> child they thought was theirs isn't theirs; The argument justifying
> 'alimony' for SAH's, etc, etc, etc....

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

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


>
> It's why I often include the quote about the ' abstract rights of
> men.....'
>
> > Are you basically asking her, "If the SAH should get compensation for
> > the choice of SAH, shouldn't the working parent should also get
> > compensation?".
>
> Yes.

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

>
> If we must have alimony then there can be no argument for *NOT* having
> financial compensation from the SAH to the working partner when the
> divorce happens....
>
> The working partner gave up the opportunity to spend *more* daily hands
> on time with the children, and opted to work to provide for them. They
> gave up that aspect of being a parent; it's the other side of the
> argument that the SAH gives up their career; that they 'lose' having a
> career and 'opportunities to fulfil themselves' outside of the SAH
> lifestyle.

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

[TeacherMama]

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

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

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

[The Dave©]

"TeacherMama" wrote
> > Both parents made a 50/50 decision to concieve
> > a child, therefore...
> >
> > 1. Custody is 50/50 assuming one parent is not
> > abusive
> > 2. No C$ necessary since the child is with the
> > other parent 50% of the time
>
> I'd still be interested in what you'd do with a marriage
> where one parent stayed at home with the children for
> 15 years, while the other developed job skills and rose
> through the ranks at work. Each did the job they had
> agreed to do during the marriage--but now one is left
> with no job skills and the other is sitting pretty, salary
> wise. Sure, the working parent will have to learn the
> housekeeping skills--but they can bumble through that
> while still having plenty of $$ to pay the bills. The former
> stay-at-hme parent will have a nicely organized house,
> with very little to pay the bills. How could it be ok for the
> working parent to walk away, leaving the stay at home
> parent in poverty?

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

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

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

[Father Drew]

Exactly what I was looking for too, although, I think I shot it down a long
time ago by stating that the income division falls under alimony laws, not
CS laws. There were some other arguments I was waiting to hear, but nobody
brought them up. :(

-Drew

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > thlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Now, by men keeping the assets they earned, do you mean that the
> women
> > > > > should be booted out of the house they were buying because the
man's
> > > > earned
> > > > > money made the payments? No, I don't think so. Because each did
> > their
> > > > > share through mutually agreed upon roles that they assumed in the
> > > > marriage.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what I am saying. There are two types of marriage
> arrangements.
> > > > The first is the one you have cited in this thread with me and
> elsewhere
> > > > with Max. That marriage arrangement is based on DEPENDENCE with
each
> > > party
> > > > depending on the other for accomplishing a role. This was the
> > pre-women's
> > > > movement marriage model but some couples still believe this is a
sound
> > > basis
> > > > for a marriage.
> > > >
> > > > The post-women's movement marriage model, and the one supported by
the
> > > > family law changes that have occurred since the 60's, is based on
> > > > INDEPENDENCE. The parties have decided they will live independent
of
> > each
> > > > other with separate careers, separate checking accounts, separate
> (fill
> > in
> > > > the blanks). This second marriage model has weakened marriage and
> > created
> > > a
> > > > dramatically increased divorce rate. Our laws support the decline
of
> > > > marriage by giving women government sponsored incentive advantages
> they
> > > did
> > > > not have before in the dependent marriage model.
> > > >
> > > > What I am objecting to (and I believe Max is objecting to as well)
is
> > the
> > > > thought process that couples should be able to choose between the
> > > dependent
> > > > or independent marriage model for their marriage, yet if the
marriage
> > > fails
> > > > the women should get the full force of legal protections provided
for
> in
> > > the
> > > > law for the newer independent marriage model PLUS the more
traditional
> > > > dependence model marriage protections. My objection is women
> shouldn't
> > > have
> > > > it both ways when they exit a marriage.
> > >
> > > I agree with that. It's one or the other--and I'd just as soon get
rid
> of
> > > the other!! It's too easy to divorce with the "independent model."
> It's
> > > like choosing a new favorite breakfast cereal--out with the old
spouse,
> in
> > > with the new.
> > >
> > > But what I have been saying is, under Drew's model (see original
post),
> > > there has got to be some way for a spouse who has stayed at home and
> done
> > > their end of the deal for all those years (and it has to be long
> term--not
> > > just a couple of years) to not drop down to poverty level just because
> the
> > > marriage breaks up. How many marriages would even fall into that
> category
> > > these days?
> >
> > I have no idea. But I have to admit my personal situation during
divorce
> > has shaped my thinking on this topic. Divorce lawyers who represent
> SAHM's
> > play games for their client's benefit. In my case it was portraying my
ex
> > as a devoted wife (she was having an affair), a caring mother (she
treated
> > me like I was her weekend babysitter), a woman supporting my career (she
> > resented the fact I had a glamorous job), and a woman out of the
workplace
> > with no current skills (pure BS, her problem was too much alcohol
induced
> > depression).
> >
> > She came to the final hearing with her arm in a sling stating she was
> > injured and under doctor's orders not to work for three months. It
> worked.
> > She got alimony for 3 years to allow her to become "retrained and
> transition
> > into the work force." The only problem was 7 days after the hearing she
> had
> > a job paying twice what the court assumed she could make in dividing the
> > assets and setting the CS and SS awards. And she was able to
miraculously
> > throw down her sling 2 days after the hearing because she had "healed".
> > Later she told me her attorney coached her not to become employed
> full-time
> > until after the divorce was final and wearing the sling got her sympathy
> > from the judge.
> >
> > So I have very little sympathy for the SAHM position being discussed
here
> > and I believe it is used as a legal ploy to get bigger settlements from
> the
> > court.
>
> And I know that happens. That is how the system we now use has taught
> people to behave--to get as much as they possibly can from the person they
> once promised to love forever. And I am sure that your ex considers
herself
> to be a kind and honorable person--and when confronted by what she did,
> would say "That's just the way things are done!" If the system is sick,
> then the results of the system will be sick, too! But I was never really
> talking about the system as it is today. I was asking Drew how he would
> handle it in his brand new system. He said "Short, sweet, shoot it down.
> I can counter argue just about anything you throw at it. I am looking for
> holes, so suprise me."
>
> I never really expected to engage in such a heated discussion with you,
nor
> such a nasty argument with Max.
> >
> >
>
>

[dani]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Father Drew wrote:
| That's the thing, one shouldn't have to work on it, it should be the
default
| ruling.

Reminds me of what a Judge told me several years ago; "This Court has
nothing to do with Justice! Were you expecting justice? This is a Court
of Equity not justice."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+9nk/omV36/DpsJ4RAo63AJwK943hJCaOCLzaEUHDi3UmKdxMTwCeMXfY
4OY5eV282Fe1KL9B0xY1DDs=
=5EKj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[AZ Astrea]

"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?
> >
> >
-----------------------------
I think what you are talking about is more like alimony than child support
but here is an interesting article about it anyway.
<http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/P46800.asp??PS=8313>
Some quotes:

What's a homemaker worth? The shocking truth
The value of a stay-at-home spouse is priceless in many ways, but don't kid
yourself: In economic terms, running a household is worth far less than
we've been told.

Obviously, there's far more to the decision to stay home than mere
economics. Stay-at-home parents provide invaluable services and benefits to
their families. Many women think the monetary and economic sacrifices are
well worth it, which is one reason why the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds
that 40% of mothers with children under 6 stay home. (Overall, 13% of the
nation's households include a stay-at-home spouse.)

You should understand just what you're giving up, though, in order to make a
rational decision about whether to stay at home and for how long. You also
should do what you can to make sure your finances, both short- and
long-term, remain sound:

~AZ~

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Virginia]

All the jobs you listed below do not make a livable wage o raise
children on. Only a single person can truely work one of those jobs and
be able to pay the bills. However I have a job you didn't think of that
would make paying the bills workable. An off hours family daycare center
run by the SAHP, who is more than qualified to do such a job, during
nights and weekends which provides a societal ned for those who work
nights and have kids, allows the former SAHP to use a portion of their
home as a business tax expense deduction, and still leaves the day open
for the SAHP to go to school using grants and loans to increase their
earning potential. The only flaw here is most rented properties do not
allow you to run a daycare out of the rented home so the SAHP may have
to keep the house for a few years. But the 2 could just hold off selling
the house till 4-5 yrs after the divorce and then split the sale down
the middle 50-50.

Max Burke wrote:

> 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.

[TeacherMama]

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
>

[Max Burke]

> 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

[Kenneth S.]

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.

[Kenneth S.]

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.

[TeacherMama]

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.

[TeacherMama]

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.

[gini52]

"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.
==
==

[Kenneth S.]

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.

[frazil]

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?

[frazil]

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)

[frazil]

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?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[TeacherMama]

"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> TeacherMama > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Father Drew" > wrote in message
> > news:poVIa.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.

[TeacherMama]

"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> TeacherMama > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Father Drew" > wrote in message
> > news:ZIRIa.161322$eJ2.76711@fed1read07...
> > > Bingo. Well said Bob.
> >
> > Well said, perhaps, but not really well thought out. Just because men
are
> > getting royally screwed right now, does not mean that things should be
> > reversed so women get royally screwed. Would you want your mother
treated
> > that way?
>
> Yet that is the justification for affirmative action. Since minorities
were
> screwed in the past, it is justified that we treat them preferentially.
We
> can either treat men and women equally when it comes to family law, now,
or
> eventually women will get screwed to make up for it, when men receive
> preferential treatment.

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

[frazil]

TeacherMama > wrote in message
...
>
> "Father Drew" > wrote in message
> news:poVIa.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?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[frazil]

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.
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"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)
>
>
>

[Virginia]

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?
>
>

[Phil #3]

"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]

[Indyguy1]

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]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Kenneth S.]

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.

[TeacherMama]

"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!?

[TeacherMama]

"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.

[The Dave©]

"TeacherMama" wrote
> I totally agree! Perhaps if no fault divorce meant
> automatic joint custody, things would be better. And
> if one party wanted something different than joint
> custody, they would have to prove why they deserved
> it. In other words, it would not be a no fault divorce at
> that point. Maybe people would think things through a
> lot more carefully if there were real consequences to
> their behaviors.

As long as we also addressed false accusations of abuse being used as a tool
to gain what one wants, I agree with this. If it turns on "at fault" I can
see the instances of false accusations increasing.

[The Dave©]

"Kenneth S." wrote
> 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.

I hate to sound as if I'm promoting the NOW agenda, but I have to ask the
question. Are women assumed to be the victims of men, or are you saying
that really men are the victims of women? If two people who get married are
only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
married? Basically, they've made a choice. It seems to me that marriage is
the joining of two into one, to use a common cliché. If a marriage fails,
and there are no kids, I would agree that absolutely nothing should be owed
from one party to the other. If there are kids, you are still tied together
whether you like it or not, and some provision has to made for the kid's
upbringing. Not what we have now, obviously, but something. I don't
believe pre-nups are a viable options for the average person.

[The Dave©]

"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.

[The Dave©]

"frazil" wrote
> 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"

In general, I agree with you completely. In cases where the non-wage earner
leaves for a valid reason (i.e.; legitimate abuse, etc), would you be in
favor of bringing back "at fault" divorce as an option, thus allowing the
wage earner to pay something for at least a limited period of time. In no
case do I believe that alimony of CS is justifiable indefinitely.

[TeacherMama]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "TeacherMama" wrote
> > I totally agree! Perhaps if no fault divorce meant
> > automatic joint custody, things would be better. And
> > if one party wanted something different than joint
> > custody, they would have to prove why they deserved
> > it. In other words, it would not be a no fault divorce at
> > that point. Maybe people would think things through a
> > lot more carefully if there were real consequences to
> > their behaviors.
>
> As long as we also addressed false accusations of abuse being used as a
tool
> to gain what one wants, I agree with this. If it turns on "at fault" I
can
> see the instances of false accusations increasing.

Quite frankly, Dave, I think false allegations of abuse should be treated as
any other perjury, and dealt with criminally. These false allegations take
away from the seriousness of real abuse. To use them just to get an
advantage in a divorce situation is unconscionable!

[gini52]

"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.
==
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.
==
==
>
>

[The Dave©]

"TeacherMama" wrote
> Quite frankly, Dave, I think false allegations of abuse
> should be treated as any other perjury, and dealt with
> criminally. These false allegations take away from the
> seriousness of real abuse. To use them just to get an
> advantage in a divorce situation is unconscionable!

We have parallel minds on this.

[TeacherMama]

I don't know, Gini, but have been surfing the web looking for answers.
There is some really interesting stuff out there on the subject! I searched
for "no fault divorce"---a bunch of "we'll do your divorce for $29.95"
stuff--but a number of information sites, too. Will keep looking.


"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.
> ==
> 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.
> ==
> ==
> >
> >
>
>

[The Dave©]

"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.

[TeacherMama]

"The Dave©" > 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.
>
>

[Indyguy1]

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.

If memory serves me well, no-fault was brought in to make easier to obtain when
people simply didn't want to be together any longer due to no fault of either
party. I also remember people saying no-fault was brought in to stop the
he-said/she-said court room dramas.

I married my HS sweetheart in 1971 and filed for divorce in 1972. I knew things
were not going to work out quickly, but in order to get divorced I had to have
grounds. I know there were several grounds options to choose from and I picked
emotional abuse, as it was the least toxic and closest to the truth. Then I had
to have a witness that saw the abuse testify at my divorce hearing. It came
down to a friend testifying she had seen my XH yell at me and insult me infront
of her. At the time I thought it was just plain nuts we couldn't just get
divorced without jumping through so many hoops.

For people that just want to go their seperate ways with little entanglement
no-fault is a God send. Problem is not every couple is in short term marriages,
argee they just both want to call it quits for no reason other than choose not
to be married to one another any longer.

In some states, and it might be all I'm not sure but am sure grounds still
exist in the state I reside in, people still have the ability to divorce based
on grounds. Problem is most states no longer consider any type of fault in the
division of assests and custody.
IMHO if you are abusive, commit adultery, etc. You should be finacially
penalized and not have be given custody in the event of divorce.

Mrs Indyguy
>==
>==
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

The Dave wrote:

>
>Maybe it's just me, but I see a pattern here. The conversation has become
>focused on how the other spouse might benefit, even if by accident, and the
>kid's needs are being virtually ignored. We don't like our spouses anymore
>(men and women, both) that we are willing to lose sight of the bigger
>picture just to make sure they don't get anything.

Dave, I have been reading and posting here since 1997 and the pattern you see
has been here since 1997. By no means is it a figment of your imagination.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[The Dave©]

"Indyguy1" wrote
> At the time I thought it was just plain nuts we
> couldn't just get divorced without jumping
> through so many hoops.

In instances with no kids, I have absolutely no problem with no-fault
divorce. If you have kids together, I think there should be some kind of
reason.

[gini52]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Dave©" > 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.
===
===
> >
> >
>
>

[The Dave©]

"frazil" wrote
> To the contrary, I think it serves the kids needs best
> when their parents are treated fairly. Remember,
> someday most of them will be parents themselves.

Fairly, absolutely. But, I think some become so obsessed with the idea that
their ex is going to somehow benefit from their labors that they confuse
fairness with the extreme in the other direction. I agree completely that
the system as it stands now is not fair and is in serious need of fixing.
But, the kids belong to both parents and it is the resposnibility of both
parents to see to it that the kids have what they need and are raised
properly, regardless of which home the kid is sleeping in on any given
night. If there is a great disparity in income, then one side will probably
need to give some money to the other. This is where we get back to 'cost
based' as opposed to 'lifestyle based' CS.

[Bob Whiteside]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The Dave©" > 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.
> ===
> ===

The main impetus behind no-fault divorce was to allow women (not men) to
leave their relationships without having any scrutiny of the divorce grounds
they were raising, i.e. making divorce easier for women. NOW objected that
women, who were using grounds like mental cruelty, abandonment, adultery,
and other fault based criteria for divorced, were actually being asked to
prove their accusations to secure a divorce. Therefore, the term
irreconcilable differences became the catch-all reason in no-fault divorce.

One of the major objectives presented by NOW was the need for women to have
freedom to end marriages and not be forced to remain attached to men for
financial security. This of course, was total BS. One of NOW's early
pushes was to increase the amounts and incidence of alimony payments paid to
women by their former husbands. How can women no longer be forced to be
attached to men for financial security while at the same time demanding more
financial security (alimony) from men?

NOW got very little support from Congress, and lots of criticism from other
women, for taking this simultaneously conflicting position. So NOW switched
their objective from increasing alimony paid to women to getting alimony
built into CS awards. This change served two purposes. First, they could
claim they were doing it for the children which disguised the true intent.
And second, they could move away from the fixed term applied to alimony
payments and extend them over the timeframe until children reached 18 or 21.

So to go back to fault-based divorce would require more than just going back
to showing a reason for the divorce. The artificially inflated CS amounts
would need to be decreased to take the built-in alimony out. Most men just
focus on this latter objective because that is where they suffer the long
term disadvantage post-divorce.

[Bob Whiteside]

"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> TeacherMama > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > TeacherMama > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Father Drew" > wrote in message
> > > > news:poVIa.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.
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.

[TeacherMama]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "frazil" wrote
> > To the contrary, I think it serves the kids needs best
> > when their parents are treated fairly. Remember,
> > someday most of them will be parents themselves.
>
> Fairly, absolutely. But, I think some become so obsessed with the idea
that
> their ex is going to somehow benefit from their labors that they confuse
> fairness with the extreme in the other direction. I agree completely that
> the system as it stands now is not fair and is in serious need of fixing.
> But, the kids belong to both parents and it is the resposnibility of both
> parents to see to it that the kids have what they need and are raised
> properly, regardless of which home the kid is sleeping in on any given
> night. If there is a great disparity in income, then one side will
probably
> need to give some money to the other. This is where we get back to 'cost
> based' as opposed to 'lifestyle based' CS.

It would be nice if somehow the children could come out with a similar
living situation with either parent. It would be best if the parents could
work that out between them. But, with the adversarial system we have in
place today, it's every person for themselves, with the children used
largely as "reasons" to get more money. And, too, sometimes it is
impossible to balance the households. If both parents remained single, had
no more children, and focused their energies on the children they had
together, then there would be a chance of things working out. But when you
add second families, more children, into the mix, the "best interests" of
the children (meaning ALL the children involved) get really complicated!

[TeacherMama]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The Dave©" > 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.

[Moon Shyne]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > TeacherMama > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > TeacherMama > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Father Drew" > wrote in message
> > > > > news:poVIa.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.
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"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.


>
>

[Tiffany]

The Dave© > 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

[Phil #3]

"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

[Phil #3]

"The Dave©" > 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

[Phil #3]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Dave© > 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

[Bob Whiteside]

"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.

[Tiffany]

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

[Bob Whiteside]

"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.

[Indyguy1]

Dave wrote:

>"Indyguy1" wrote
>> At the time I thought it was just plain nuts we
>> couldn't just get divorced without jumping
>> through so many hoops.
>
>In instances with no kids, I have absolutely no problem with no-fault
>divorce. If you have kids together, I think there should be some kind of
>reason.

I'd take that a few steps further. If there are no children, the marriage was
short in duration and if there are few if any marital assets, only then should
no-fault be used.

IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make our society even more
throwaway driven.

Mrs Indyguy



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Kenneth S.]

TeacherMama wrote:
>
> "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!?


I'm afraid I just don't agree with you, TeacherMama.

In the first place, I don't think these decisions typically are reached
by the sort of rational two-person discussions that you postulate.
There may be a few situations where this happens, but I doubt whether it
happens often. In my view, the typical situation is that either the
decision for the mother to stay home is made by her alone, or the couple
simply goes along with what they think of as social expectations.

So long as no-fault divorce and post-conception reproductive choice
only for women continue to be the norm in the U.S., treating women as
victims of men is an invitation for women to abuse the system. The most
common way of abusing the system is for women to force men to pay for
decisions made by women -- be they decisions to stay home, decisions to
let pregnancies proceed to childbirth, or decisions not to give up for
adoption children that are born.

I'm really saying nothing more than that women should mature. They
should be grownups. They should accept, and prepare for, the
consequences of their own decisions.

One of the strangest features of the evolution of feminism over the
last 30 years is that it started off with the notion that women should
be equal to men, but it has ended up with tremendous emphasis being
placed on special privileges for women. In the early part of the 21st
century, the war-cry of the official feminist movement is the
Titanic-era one of "women and children first."

How can the feminists get away with this? It's simple -- men let them
do so. There's no organized resistance by men.

[Kenneth S.]

TeacherMama wrote:
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "The Dave©" > 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.


From what I have seen, the move to no-fault started in California. (So
it must be a sound, well-based concept, if it started there, right?) It
was based on the notion that (a) there were many dead marriages around,
and no-fault would enable them to be ended officially, and after an
initial surge of divorces, the numbers would fall back to what they had
been before, and (b) the existence of no-fault would take the acrimony
out of divorce, and would end all the undignified stuff about private
detectives spying on people to establish fault causes for divorce.

The justifications for no-fault divorce have, of course, turned out to
be a complete myth. The huge upsurge in divorce in the U.S. closely
tracked the spread of no-fault. The bitterness has, of course, not been
removed from divorce. And a huge divorce industry has been established,
consisting of people whose income is almost entirely dependent on the
continuation of a 50 percent divorce rate.

One of life's most important questions is: compared to what? There is
no hope that someone can devise a system of divorce that removes all the
difficulties. The best we can do is to arrive at a system that is
better than what we have now. A return to fault-based divorce would
indeed present problems, including all the stuff about private
detectives spying on people. However, there is every expectation that
fault-based divorce would be far better than what we have now.



The basic pro

[Kenneth S.]

The Dave© wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." wrote
> > 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.
>
> I hate to sound as if I'm promoting the NOW agenda, but I have to ask the
> question. Are women assumed to be the victims of men, or are you saying
> that really men are the victims of women? If two people who get married are
> only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
> married? Basically, they've made a choice. It seems to me that marriage is
> the joining of two into one, to use a common cliché. If a marriage fails,
> and there are no kids, I would agree that absolutely nothing should be owed
> from one party to the other. If there are kids, you are still tied together
> whether you like it or not, and some provision has to made for the kid's
> upbringing. Not what we have now, obviously, but something. I don't
> believe pre-nups are a viable options for the average person.


I'm saying that I'm utterly tired of women being able to get away with
so much, on the implicit argument that they are the victims of men. I'm
saying that women (and men), should go into marriage with their eyes
open. I'm saying that we should have an end to the situation where
women are able to claim all the advantages that come from equality with
men, and then suddenly turn around and dispense with all the
DISadvantages of equality with men by pretending that they're poor
little frightened things who only did what some man told them to do.

And I don't think universal prenuptial contracts are impractical. Many
churches and synagogues have made some progress in saying that they will
not marry couples who have not gone through premarital counseling, via
programs organized by groups like Marriage Savers. Prenuptial contracts
are only an extension of that concept.

Good heavens, it might even be possible to get the legal profession (a
major part of the divorce industry) to go along. We could tell them
that what they would lose in divorce business, they would gain in
preparing prenuptial contracts. They could still make lots of money out
of the haggling between couples, and out of drawing up their little
pieces of paper. The difference would be that this would happen BEFORE
marriage, not BEFORE divorce.

[Max Burke]

> TeacherMama scribbled:

>> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message

>> Phil #3 wrote:

>>>> 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

>> 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.

That is EXACTLY what's being said by you and indyguy, and others.....

> 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.

*INCLUDING* the one who chose to be the SAH.
But your argument is that they shouldn't have to take the consequences
of that choice and insist that the other party (you know the one chose
to work to support the SAH in the marriage) has to 'compensate' the SAH
for their *MUTUAL DECISION* about their roles in the marriage.....
Then when it's asked what does the SAH have to do to 'compensate' the
one who chose to work you immediately start whining and bitching that
it's all about money and it's sad that things have to be that way!!!!!

> 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!?

Then why should the one who chose to work be left 'holding the bag' for
the SAH's lack of marketable skills after the marriage ends?

FOR ****S SAKE NO ONE should be left holding the bag!
When the divorce happens both get an equal share of the *marital
assets*, after that neither should be obligated to continue providing
the kind of support that they did before the breakup.

# Gimme the Plaza, the jet and $150 million, too . . .
Headline , New York Post, 13 Feb. 1990, reporting Ivana Trump's divorce
settlement demands of husband Donald.

--

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

[TeacherMama]

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

Well, Bob, I do have to call you on this one. It was not "women" who did
this, but a small group of very radical feminists. Many other women spoke
out against them--and many just went about their every lives, asuming that
the rants of the feminists would soon pass. I think almost everyone was
caught by surprise when they actually did get so much of their agenda put
into action. I don't know a single feminist! I don't know anyone who knows
any feminists. All women should not be placed in the same category as
feminists!


> > > 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.

Now this I tend to agree with. But not everyone by far who is in the groups
that are allowed special consideration take advantage of that special
consideration. We would do well to phase out the majority of the "hand out"
programs that have been developed over the past far-too-many years.

> > >
> >
> > 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?

I think, perhaps, she may not want to go into the angry reasons you post
about the pathway to today's unfair system. I, myself, would not speak to
my daughters the way you posted, because I want them to be proud of who they
are. I do not want them to feel as if they are part of a weak and selfish
gender who need to spend their lives atoning for the wrongs that were
perpetuated by "women" like them. I do not think that consistently speaking
of the sins of "women" is going to fix anything. Besides, who listened to
these feminists? Who actually enacted the legislation who gave them
legitimacy? It had to be men, because not many women were in governing
roles at that time. But we are talking about handsful of each gender among
many who did not participate in any way at all. And most people still let
the government make their decisions for them--until it touches their lives
personally in a negative way.

>
> 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.

I don't think Tiffany attacked you, Bob. She may just have been reacting to
the anger in your post.
>
>

[TeacherMama]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.

I guess I'd say if SAH mom went wandering off with Harry Humpem, then
expected the kids, CS , and alimony because she'd been stuck at home all
those years, she probably shouldn't be rewarded for her choices. Not the
non wage earner having no right to file a "fault" case--just not having the
right to reap benefits when the fault is on her (or his) side.

[Mel Gamble]

>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.

The spouse deciding to be a SAH may accept input from the other spouse. The
other spouse does NOT make the decision. *I* decide what *I* will do. *YOU*
decide what *YOU* will do. Accept your decisions unless there was a gun at
your head. You'll be a better person for it.

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>
>>Phil #3
>>
>>[snip]

[Mel Gamble]

>"Kenneth S." wrote
>> 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.
>
>I hate to sound as if I'm promoting the NOW agenda, but I have to ask the
>question. Are women assumed to be the victims of men, or are you saying
>that really men are the victims of women? If two people who get married are
>only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
>married?

The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even though
you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money and you
takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of the
car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to accept the
possibility of the bus.

Mel Gamble

>Basically, they've made a choice. It seems to me that marriage is
>the joining of two into one, to use a common cliché. If a marriage fails,
>and there are no kids, I would agree that absolutely nothing should be owed
>from one party to the other. If there are kids, you are still tied together
>whether you like it or not, and some provision has to made for the kid's
>upbringing. Not what we have now, obviously, but something. I don't
>believe pre-nups are a viable options for the average person.
>
>

[Mel Gamble]

>"TeacherMama" wrote
>> Quite frankly, Dave, I think false allegations of abuse
>> should be treated as any other perjury, and dealt with
>> criminally. These false allegations take away from the
>> seriousness of real abuse. To use them just to get an
>> advantage in a divorce situation is unconscionable!
>
>We have parallel minds on this.

I disagree. Perjury is a small thing in the grand scheme of the legal system.
False allegations of abuse are an attempt on the part of the accuser to have
the accused suffer the legal outcome of conviction - incarceration for X years.
The false accuser should be penalized to the same extent that we would punish
any other felon who had attempted to imprison another person for X years.

The fair result would be the same penalty that would have applied had the
accused been found guilty, only applied to the accuser.

Mel Gamble

[Moon Shyne]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> >"Kenneth S." wrote
> >> 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.
> >
> >I hate to sound as if I'm promoting the NOW agenda, but I have to ask the
> >question. Are women assumed to be the victims of men, or are you saying
> >that really men are the victims of women? If two people who get married are
> >only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
> >married?
>
> The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even though
> you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money and you
> takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of the
> car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to accept
the
> possibility of the bus.

And if the bus hits your car, they have to make good on the financial hit, as
well.

>
> Mel Gamble
>
> >Basically, they've made a choice. It seems to me that marriage is
> >the joining of two into one, to use a common cliché. If a marriage fails,
> >and there are no kids, I would agree that absolutely nothing should be owed
> >from one party to the other. If there are kids, you are still tied together
> >whether you like it or not, and some provision has to made for the kid's
> >upbringing. Not what we have now, obviously, but something. I don't
> >believe pre-nups are a viable options for the average person.
> >
> >
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

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

Tiffany didn't attack what she heard - she simply disagreed with it - are you
saying that if you ask someone's advice, you can't disagree with it?

Tell your
> daughter never to do that.

Why not tell your own kids what to do, and stay out of other people's kids'
lives?
>
>

[Tiffany]

Phil #3 > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > The Dave© > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I suppose, unlike you all, I do know some happy married people. AND they
> > have been married for some time. I also know divorced folks that didn't
> end
> > up on the Jerry Springer show. They divorced, treat each other with
> dignity
> > and the kids have had no ill affects as they continued to be parented by
> > both parents.
> > When you are surrounded by alot of the negative relationships, its easy
to
> > think the way you men are thinking. I guess it takes a certain type of
> > individual to move past the bad and still believe in good.
> > I for one, was in an abusive relationship for a short time. Short, only
> > because I had enough sense to get out. Should I then assume all men are
> > abusive?
> >
> > T
>
> So you know of no advantages for men to marry? Me neither, but I know of
> MANY disadvantages.
> Phil #3
>
>
>

Advantages being...... if being practical, insurance, financial, blah blah.
Mostly the advantage is..... and you can't disagree with this...... if you
are alone, you are LONELY, are you not? Being in a happy relationship is
good for the soul, for your health, ect. Marriage is a sign of commitment.
If you see no advantage, then don't marry but by forcing your views on your
children, in the end they may end up missing out on a lifetime of happiness
with someone who truelly loves them. Yes, love.... remember that?

I am not going to argue about marriage. I can understand why most here think
the way they do.

You didn't answer my question btw. Should I also assume all men are abusive?

[Indyguy1]

Phil#3 wrote:

<Snip to>

>So you know of no advantages for men to marry?

I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are happier isn't an
advantage in your eyes?

Me neither, but I know of
>MANY disadvantage

Some women feel the same way.

Mrs Indyguy

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

>One (of many) major flaw in your logic, Indyguy...

LOL, my logic is flawed in your eyes, because we disagree. That's rich.
>
>>Max wrote:
>>
>>Well Max, here are *my* answers, and I'm sure you'll hate them just as much
>>if
>>not more than you hate TM's. LOL.......
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Why dont YOU provide an answer for THIS point.
>>
>>>[here is the *complete* context; try some honesty when responding this
>>>time]
>>
>>BTW, TM was being honest and is well spoken, you just don't like what she
>has
>>to say on this subject.
>>
>>>
>>>Both make their choices *together*, both know they have to have to
>>>*sacrifice* something.
>>
>>Not necessarily true, for either party. In the early stages of marriage both
>>are assuming the marriage will NOT end. They aren't thinking about divorce.
>>They aren't thinking about a SAH status as individual financial ruin. They
>>aren't thinking about working 9-5 as a detriment to parenting. What they
>are
>>thinking about is what is good for the family as a WHOLE.
>>
>>Just as a side note, more and more young women ARE thinking in these terms
>>today. My 20 year old D and 99.9% of her girlfriends are in college and
>>planning on careers, full time careers. They are not interested in or
>willing
>>to give up what they work for to be some guys nanny and maid. Just as men
>>have
>>wanted women to cross the gender divide and work full time outside the home,
>>women will now be demanding men too cross the divide and do 50% of the in
>>home
>>and child rearing duties and set THEIR careers back just the way women have
>>all
>>along.
>>
>>One of our neighbor's daughters graduated from college. The young woman will
>>be
>>starting medical school later this year. She is engaged to a 2nd yr medical
>>student. We were talking about having children and she voiced exactly what I
>>have said above. No way is she willing to give up any portion of her career
>>while her stbh advances his so they can have children. She feels all things
>>in
>>their marriage need to be equal. That's what you're looking for right Max?
>>She'll earn half the income and he can give up half of his career
>>advancement,
>>just like she will. Now he is free at any time to dump her and marry someone
>>willing to be his butt buddy mommy, but then he will face the consequences
>>if
>>things don't work out in their marriage. No one can have it both ways any
>>longer, not even men.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>Here are the justifcationS you're looking for.....
>>
>>1)When a SAH gives up their income, their advancement, their prime earning
>>years for the good of the family their intention is that the union will not
>>end.
>>
>>2)The ability to earn is an asset of the marriage just as much as the
>marital
>>home is. In fact in many families it is the largest asset.
>>
>>3)It is unreasonable to expect one party to walk away with all the financial
>>marbles, they give up that right when they marry, as the marriage joins them
>>in
>>every respect during the union. If people don't like that then they need to
>>stay single.
>>
>>4)You and or others have talked about what the wage earner sacraficed in the
>>way of parenting to earn the income. The BIG differance with this is
>>parenting
>>pays ZIPPO, in cold hard cash. The wage earner would then walk away with the
>>main ability to earn and the SAH would have to start from scratch. Not gonna
>>happen, no matter how unfair you think it is.
>>
>>5) As a tax payer I don't want to have to pay for ANYONES ex to be able to
>>eat
>>and have a roof over their head. Their spouse agreed to let them stay home
>so
>>it's their job to take care of bussiness until their ex can do it on their
>>own,
>>not mine.
>>
>>8) If not for the SAH doing the vast majority, if not all, of the child
>>rearing
>>and home duties, that income earner would NOT have advanced and been able to
>>have that picture perfect home and family, or atleast not the way they ended
>>up
>>having it by having a SAH in their life.
>>
>>>
>>>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,
>>
>>Yep. That is what SHOULD be happening in every family out there. BOTH should
>>work and BOTH should take 50% of the financial hit in their careers. But you
>>DON'T start that at the end of the marriage you start it at the beginning
>and
>>BOTH suffer the consequenses throughout the entire marriage. Young men of
>>today
>>need to hold onto their hats for a really bumpy ride if they don't like this
>>or
>>they will end up alone or with a CS and SS payments if their marriage fails.
>
>>
>> or pay childcare expenses to a
>>>third party so they can continue to have a full time career;
>>
>>Just like millions of couples and single parents do daily.
>>
>> They will
>>>also have housing, education, and health expenses, the same as the SAH
>>>would have.
>>
>>Alrighty then, lets' just split all of the actual expenses, I have no
>problem
>>with that. But note I said ALL, not just the ones either feels like they
>want
>>to support or the ones that fall on their half of the time share. And this
>is
>>where the whole idea of no CS changing hands starts to unravel. I can see
>the
>>fights over who buys the notebook paper... the parent who is with the child
>>when the request is made or the parent who will have the child when they
>need
>>to bring the paper to school.
>>
>>I think one thing dual income divorcing couples need to do, if they are
>going
>>to do 50/50 with no CS changing hands, is have the parenting agreement
>>detailed
>>down to who pays how much for each and every item, activity, etc., based on
>>what their % of their combined total income is.
>>
>>IOW if one parent earns 100K and the other 50K the % would be 75% for the
>>higher earner and 25% for the lower earner. Just because the child is with
>>each
>>parent 50% of the time that doesn't mean each should pay 50%. They should
>pay
>>their portion based on their portion of their income.
>>
>>>
>>>[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.....
>>
>>I disagree. I see it the exact opposite way. They SHOULD have to support
>>their
>>ex until such time said ex get's up to snuff in the abilty to support
>>themselves. That SAH gave up their financial security for the good of the
>>family and worked their ass off basically for room and board. Even most
>live
>>in maids receive a paycheck, to either save or squander, on top of room and
>>board.
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable lifestyle. You
>>build it together you should split it together. Neither will have exactly
>the
>>same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one shouldn't be
>flipping
>>burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.
>
>It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the burgers would
>have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had never taken
>place. Prove it.

There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage earner would
be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH spouse at home
raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of everything with
the exception of earning the money.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>>You may not
>>like
>>it, but it is fair and equitable for BOTH spouses to have equal financial
>>footing. ANYTHING aquired during the marriage should be split at the end of
>>the
>>marriage. This includes income until both are on equal footing.
>>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>
>>> # 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Sunny]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:35:13 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> wrote:

>Why not tell your own kids what to do, and stay out of other people's kids'
>lives?

Sometimes, bad parents put their child's emotional welfare at risk.
Like your children, for example. We tried to warn you, and now they
are screwed up beyond repair. Strangers on Usenet were more concerned
about your kids than you were.

[Sunny]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:32:53 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> wrote:

>If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of the
>> car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to accept
>the
>> possibility of the bus.
>
>And if the bus hits your car, they have to make good on the financial hit, as
>well.

Wrong. I was rear-ended by a bus. REAR-ENDED, on a snowy day. Came up
behind me and smashed me into a light pole, spun me around and hit me
again in the front. Whose fault is it when you are rear-ended?
Normally, the one who rear-ends you is at fault. UNLESS, I found out
by taking it to court,, it is a city bus. I did nothing illegal - I
had the right of way, and the bus was speeding - but surprise, *I*
had to pay the city bus company $1275 to take the dent out of their
bumper. Meanwhile MY car was totalled. I had to buy a new car.

[Sunny]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:58:57 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> wrote:


>> 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.

The reason no-fault divorces were initiated was because "fault"
divorces back the courts up for years and years and YEARS with
ex-spouses blaming each other for every petty transgression under the
sun. To get rid of this overlitigation, they made it no-fault. Didn't
work perfectly, though, because we still have folks who continue to
abuse the system to seek revenge on their exes by hauling them to
court over, and over, and over, and over, and --- I've lost count. How
many times is it now?

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

>. that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN HER
>OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home unless I
>lock
>you in.

Ok, then...... Let's say your spouse was being a nagging old hen because during
a thunder storm the satalite dish fell over and she harped on you until you
agreed to go outside and fix it. You want to make her happy and you don't want
to listen to her gripe. You go out to fix the dish. You get hit by lightening.
You are are then blind. You have no one to blame but yourself, correct? You
have no ill will against her because YOU made the choice. She did nothing wrong
and you just made an immature choice. You stay married to her and love her just
as much as you always did, correct? Unless she was holding a gun to your head
when she opened the door and handed you the metal ladder that fatefull night,
right?

>Correct. It is a choice made every minute of every day that the SAH is free
>to
>leave and doesn't.
>

Ditto for the wage earner. They don't want a SAH spouse then they are free to
leave *as soon as their spouse attempts to be a SAH*. If they stay they are
agreeing to the roles. They agree to the roles then they shoulder some of the
consequences those roles level at the time of divorce.



Mrs Indyguy

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

> If two people who get married are
>>only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
>>married?
>
>The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even
>though
>you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money and you
>takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of the
>car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to accept
>the
>possibility of the bus.

After typing this into the Mel to english translator, this reads........


I'm in it for me and me alone.

Mrs Indyguy


>
>Mel Gamble

[The Dave©]

"Mel Gamble" wrote
> >"TeacherMama" wrote
> >> Quite frankly, Dave, I think false allegations of abuse
> >> should be treated as any other perjury, and dealt with
> >> criminally. These false allegations take away from the
> >> seriousness of real abuse. To use them just to get an
> >> advantage in a divorce situation is unconscionable!
> >
> >We have parallel minds on this.
>
> I disagree.

Actually, we agree. I read a little bit more into TM's statement than what
she wrote, but the way I read it said that she favored something very
similar to what you said. Maybe it's semantics, or whatever, but I do agree
that false allegations should be treated severely as if the actual
allegation had occured.

Perjury is a small thing in the grand scheme of the legal system.
> False allegations of abuse are an attempt on the part of the accuser to
have
> the accused suffer the legal outcome of conviction - incarceration for X
years.
> The false accuser should be penalized to the same extent that we would
punish
> any other felon who had attempted to imprison another person for X years.
>
> The fair result would be the same penalty that would have applied had the
> accused been found guilty, only applied to the accuser.
>
> Mel Gamble

[The Dave©]

"Mel Gamble" wrote
> SAH's should only be "protected" if they can prove someone
> held a gun to thier head when the decision was made to BE a
> SAH. Adults make thier own decisions.

What if it was the husband's idea that she stay at home to raise the kids?

> Adults USED TO reap the rewards of those decisions or suffer
> the consequences, depending on the quality of the decision. Adults
> who WANT to be protected from the negative outcomes of thier
> decisions should purchase insurance. In a sane society, only children
> need to be protected, but we can't even do that right...

[The Dave©]

"Phil #3" wrote
> > 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.

While I don't think I could advise them to never get married, I will advise
them to be careful and what kinds of things to watch out for and what to
consider.

> > 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.

Ouch!

[The Dave©]

"Tiffany" wrote
> 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.

Personally, I agree with you. Ideally, both spouses should have between
$1000 and $2000 of their own put aside safely "just in case". But, whenever
a man suggests it, he gets chastised and accused of many different things.
Hiding money, not being comitted, etc. When a woman does it, she's being
prudent and think ahead. Why the double standard?

> 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.

No, it isn't the end of the world, but why have kids if you don't want to
raise them?

[TeacherMama]

"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:58:57 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> The reason no-fault divorces were initiated was because "fault"
> divorces back the courts up for years and years and YEARS with
> ex-spouses blaming each other for every petty transgression under the
> sun. To get rid of this overlitigation, they made it no-fault. Didn't
> work perfectly, though, because we still have folks who continue to
> abuse the system to seek revenge on their exes by hauling them to
> court over, and over, and over, and over, and --- I've lost count. How
> many times is it now?

From what I was reading yesterday, fault divorces focused on the faults of
the partners within the marriage. Dividing the marital assets was the
reason. No fault divorces focus upon the partners faults as parents.
Custody and child support are the reason. I don't really know what it has
done to the backlog in courts. I do know that there is a far, far higher
percentage of divorces now.

[Indyguy1]

The Dave wrote:

>"Indyguy1" wrote
>> IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
>> our society even more throwaway driven.
>
>I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the attitude
>"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain why they're
>not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.

I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of their marriage
but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again when they
remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than they were
the first time around.

They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to or dont
want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.

Mrs Indyguy


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

TM wrote:

>"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:58:57 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> The reason no-fault divorces were initiated was because "fault"
>> divorces back the courts up for years and years and YEARS with
>> ex-spouses blaming each other for every petty transgression under the
>> sun. To get rid of this overlitigation, they made it no-fault. Didn't
>> work perfectly, though, because we still have folks who continue to
>> abuse the system to seek revenge on their exes by hauling them to
>> court over, and over, and over, and over, and --- I've lost count. How
>> many times is it now?
>
> I don't really know what it has
>done to the backlog in courts. I do know that there is a far, far higher
>percentage of divorces now.

The actual court time to get divorced is now reduced. No more demanding court
time to prove grounds. But more court time to hear more cases because divorce
is so much easier to attain.

Can we say, "MAJOR backfire?*

Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[TeacherMama]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Mel Gamble" wrote
> > >"TeacherMama" wrote
> > >> Quite frankly, Dave, I think false allegations of abuse
> > >> should be treated as any other perjury, and dealt with
> > >> criminally. These false allegations take away from the
> > >> seriousness of real abuse. To use them just to get an
> > >> advantage in a divorce situation is unconscionable!
> > >
> > >We have parallel minds on this.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> Actually, we agree. I read a little bit more into TM's statement than
what
> she wrote, but the way I read it said that she favored something very
> similar to what you said. Maybe it's semantics, or whatever, but I do
agree
> that false allegations should be treated severely as if the actual
> allegation had occured.

Absolutely, Dave. Punishments severe enough to actually dissuade anyone
from perpetrating such evil!

[TeacherMama]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Only as long as it remains true...
>
> >"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.
>
> ... that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER
THAN HER
> OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home unless I
lock
> you in.

So is that how you would expect partners in a business to operate, too? Me
for me, and you for you, and to heck with working together for the benefit
of all?

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...

> Well, Bob, I do have to call you on this one. It was not "women" who did
> this, but a small group of very radical feminists. Many other women spoke
> out against them--and many just went about their every lives, asuming that
> the rants of the feminists would soon pass. I think almost everyone was
> caught by surprise when they actually did get so much of their agenda put
> into action.

I agree. And that is why some women are actively trying to turn back some
of the NOW agenda. Some women are going so far as aligning themselves with
father's issues groups to accomplish this goal. NOW attacks those women
just a vehemently as they attack men.

I don't know a single feminist! I don't know anyone who knows
> any feminists. All women should not be placed in the same category as
> feminists!

Sure you do. There are conservative feminists who criticize feminist who
adopt a male model of caeerism and achievement as female goals. There are
liberal feminists who see all people as equals and believe oppression exists
because of our socialization processes. There are radical feminists (the
NOW mindset) who see oppression of women as fundemental and stemming from
male dominance. There are socialist feminists who like women's oppression
to class structure. There are individual feminists who advocate equal
treatment of men and women as individuals under just laws. There are equity
feminists who want fair treatment of women without discrimination and
acknowledge all of the battlesw have been won. There are gender feminiists
who see women as a subordinate class that is tyrannized and vicitmized by
men.

My guess is you are an individual feminist, also referred to as an
ifeminist. I consider myself to be an ifeminist.

> Now this I tend to agree with. But not everyone by far who is in the
groups
> that are allowed special consideration take advantage of that special
> consideration. We would do well to phase out the majority of the "hand
out"
> programs that have been developed over the past far-too-many years.

And the Supreme Court has the same opinion. Since not all members of
minorities have taken advantage of affirmative action in education over the
last 40 years, the Supreme voted to extend it another 25 years.

> I think, perhaps, she may not want to go into the angry reasons you post
> about the pathway to today's unfair system. I, myself, would not speak to
> my daughters the way you posted, because I want them to be proud of who
they
> are. I do not want them to feel as if they are part of a weak and selfish
> gender who need to spend their lives atoning for the wrongs that were
> perpetuated by "women" like them. I do not think that consistently
speaking
> of the sins of "women" is going to fix anything. Besides, who listened to
> these feminists? Who actually enacted the legislation who gave them
> legitimacy? It had to be men, because not many women were in governing
> roles at that time. But we are talking about handsful of each gender
among
> many who did not participate in any way at all. And most people still let
> the government make their decisions for them--until it touches their lives
> personally in a negative way.

If reciting factual historic information is an expression of anger, then I
plead guilty. However, I don't see where I used an inflammatory language or
put any kind of spin on the facts. I would say my comments fit more in the
category of a message that was not what she wanted to hear.

> I don't think Tiffany attacked you, Bob. She may just have been reacting
to
> the anger in your post.

I agree. But she did attack the message. She also displayed neo-modernism
thinking that is taught today on our schools where factual reality is set
aside or altered to emphasize the need to promote the cause, objective,
beliefs, agenda, etc. which becomes more important than the truth.
Protecting children from reality is a disservice because in the real world
their spoon-fed opinions will run counter to the mainstream.

[TeacherMama]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> The Dave wrote:
>
> >"Indyguy1" wrote
> >> IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
> >> our society even more throwaway driven.
> >
> >I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the
attitude
> >"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain why
they're
> >not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.
>
> I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of their
marriage
> but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again when
they
> remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than they
were
> the first time around.
>
> They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to or
dont
> want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.

And the idea of working things out, struggling through the tough times, has
disappeared, to a great extent, from our society. It's like the new mantra
is "If it doesn't feel good, don't do it!" My nephew is in his mid/late
20's and he has changed careers at least 5 times because "It just isn't fun
any more."

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Well, Bob, I do have to call you on this one. It was not "women" who
did
> > this, but a small group of very radical feminists. Many other women
spoke
> > out against them--and many just went about their every lives, asuming
that
> > the rants of the feminists would soon pass. I think almost everyone was
> > caught by surprise when they actually did get so much of their agenda
put
> > into action.
>
> I agree. And that is why some women are actively trying to turn back some
> of the NOW agenda. Some women are going so far as aligning themselves
with
> father's issues groups to accomplish this goal. NOW attacks those women
> just a vehemently as they attack men.
>
> I don't know a single feminist! I don't know anyone who knows
> > any feminists. All women should not be placed in the same category as
> > feminists!
>
> Sure you do. There are conservative feminists who criticize feminist who
> adopt a male model of caeerism and achievement as female goals. There are
> liberal feminists who see all people as equals and believe oppression
exists
> because of our socialization processes. There are radical feminists (the
> NOW mindset) who see oppression of women as fundemental and stemming from
> male dominance. There are socialist feminists who like women's oppression
> to class structure. There are individual feminists who advocate equal
> treatment of men and women as individuals under just laws. There are
equity
> feminists who want fair treatment of women without discrimination and
> acknowledge all of the battlesw have been won. There are gender
feminiists
> who see women as a subordinate class that is tyrannized and vicitmized by
> men.
>
> My guess is you are an individual feminist, also referred to as an
> ifeminist. I consider myself to be an ifeminist.
>
> > Now this I tend to agree with. But not everyone by far who is in the
> groups
> > that are allowed special consideration take advantage of that special
> > consideration. We would do well to phase out the majority of the "hand
> out"
> > programs that have been developed over the past far-too-many years.
>
> And the Supreme Court has the same opinion. Since not all members of
> minorities have taken advantage of affirmative action in education over
the
> last 40 years, the Supreme voted to extend it another 25 years.
>
> > I think, perhaps, she may not want to go into the angry reasons you post
> > about the pathway to today's unfair system. I, myself, would not speak
to
> > my daughters the way you posted, because I want them to be proud of who
> they
> > are. I do not want them to feel as if they are part of a weak and
selfish
> > gender who need to spend their lives atoning for the wrongs that were
> > perpetuated by "women" like them. I do not think that consistently
> speaking
> > of the sins of "women" is going to fix anything. Besides, who listened
to
> > these feminists? Who actually enacted the legislation who gave them
> > legitimacy? It had to be men, because not many women were in governing
> > roles at that time. But we are talking about handsful of each gender
> among
> > many who did not participate in any way at all. And most people still
let
> > the government make their decisions for them--until it touches their
lives
> > personally in a negative way.
>
> If reciting factual historic information is an expression of anger, then I
> plead guilty. However, I don't see where I used an inflammatory language
or
> put any kind of spin on the facts. I would say my comments fit more in
the
> category of a message that was not what she wanted to hear.

__________________________________________________ __________________________
______________
Look back at your post, Bob. You lay this at the feet of "women"
("...women got what they wanted....) An entire gender. If you had said
"radical feminists" I would not have had a problem with your post. It was
not "women"--the gender. It was radical feminists.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________

>
> > I don't think Tiffany attacked you, Bob. She may just have been
reacting
> to
> > the anger in your post.
>
> I agree. But she did attack the message. She also displayed
neo-modernism
> thinking that is taught today on our schools where factual reality is set
> aside or altered to emphasize the need to promote the cause, objective,
> beliefs, agenda, etc. which becomes more important than the truth.
> Protecting children from reality is a disservice because in the real world
> their spoon-fed opinions will run counter to the mainstream.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
____________
Protecting children from reality is, indeed, a great disservice. As is
applying the characteristics of one set within a group to the entire group.
Thus my objection to "women" being blamed for what "radical feminists" did.
I will also say that the rewriting of history to fit the agendas of today is
not confined to this generation, either. It was one of my dad's biggest
complaints when we were in school!
__________________________________________________ __________________________
________________

[Bob Whiteside]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> The Dave wrote:
>
> >"Indyguy1" wrote
> >> IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
> >> our society even more throwaway driven.
> >
> >I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the
attitude
> >"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain why
they're
> >not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.
>
> I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of their
marriage
> but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again when
they
> remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than they
were
> the first time around.
>
> They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to or
dont
> want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.

That's exactly why my ex filed for divorce. She was not happy. She
believed it is the husband's role to make his wife happy. And since I was
not making her happy, it was my fault. When I tried to explain happiness
comes from within and is based on how a person feels about themselves, and
all I could do was help create an environment that would foster happiness,
she told me I was wrong.

Every list you see that shows the top reasons for initiating divorce
includes this same theme. Women file for divorce because they feel they are
not being fulfilled, feel like they need to find themselves, feel like they
are growing apart from their spouse, feel a need to achieve happiness, etc.
All of these reasons for divorce point fingers at men for not making women
feel good about themselves.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> TM wrote:
>
> >"Sunny" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 19:58:57 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> The reason no-fault divorces were initiated was because "fault"
> >> divorces back the courts up for years and years and YEARS with
> >> ex-spouses blaming each other for every petty transgression under the
> >> sun. To get rid of this overlitigation, they made it no-fault. Didn't
> >> work perfectly, though, because we still have folks who continue to
> >> abuse the system to seek revenge on their exes by hauling them to
> >> court over, and over, and over, and over, and --- I've lost count. How
> >> many times is it now?
> >
> > I don't really know what it has
> >done to the backlog in courts. I do know that there is a far, far higher
> >percentage of divorces now.
>
> The actual court time to get divorced is now reduced. No more demanding
court
> time to prove grounds. But more court time to hear more cases because
divorce
> is so much easier to attain.
>
> Can we say, "MAJOR backfire?*

The change from fault based divorce to no-fault divorce had the underlying
effect of changing what is litigated. Under fault-based divorce one of the
parties had to allege and prove fault. Litigation under fault based divorce
was about the fault accusation. And child custody was aligned with the
finding of fault. Obviously under this system, the "at fault" parent was
not going to make a good custodial parent. And the parent who was not at
fault was the best parent for custody. There were two flaws in this system.
First, if both parties wanted a divorce, and there were no actual "grounds"
for fault as defined in the law, then one of the parties was allowed to
make-up the grounds and the other party would agree to it in court.
Trade-offs were made in divorce settlement factors in exchange for one party
admitting to a false allegation. And second, if both parties admitted they
wanted a divorce the law prevented them from divorcing because divorce could
only be granted if one party was found to be at fault.

Under no-fault divorce the litigation increased because issues like child
custody, child support, alimony, the property settlement, access to
children, etc. were wide open for variable rulings. Since there was no
fault being assigned to drive assignment of these items of contention, the
fight over the outcomes of divorce became the center of litigation. This in
turn created more litigation because so many factors became variables.

No fault divorce is not the reason the divorce rate has increased. What
caused the divorce rate to increase was under the no fault divorce concept
women were virtually guaranteed sole custody 9 out of 10 times. Women could
get sole custody without having to prove fault, and women could still get
sole custody even if they were the party who committed the wrongs within the
marriage. This allowed women to walk away from men with the knowledge they
would get custody almost by default and also get predictable CS awards based
on CS guidelines. These predictable outcomes are what has increased the
divorce rate.

In state's where joint custody has become the norm, the divorce rate has
started to drop. Sole custody is no longer a lock in those states and women
are filing for fewer divorces. Changing the custody laws will reduce the
divorce rate much more than returning to a fault-based system.

[Mel Gamble]

And therefore....

>Mel wrote:
>
>>One (of many) major flaw in your logic, Indyguy...
>
>LOL, my logic is flawed in your eyes, because we disagree. That's rich.

your "logic"...

>>>Max wrote:
>>>
>>>Well Max, here are *my* answers, and I'm sure you'll hate them just as much
>>>if
>>>not more than you hate TM's. LOL.......
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why dont YOU provide an answer for THIS point.
>>>
>>>>[here is the *complete* context; try some honesty when responding this
>>>>time]
>>>
>>>BTW, TM was being honest and is well spoken, you just don't like what she
>>has
>>>to say on this subject.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Both make their choices *together*, both know they have to have to
>>>>*sacrifice* something.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily true, for either party. In the early stages of marriage
>both
>>>are assuming the marriage will NOT end. They aren't thinking about divorce.
>>>They aren't thinking about a SAH status as individual financial ruin. They
>>>aren't thinking about working 9-5 as a detriment to parenting. What they
>>are
>>>thinking about is what is good for the family as a WHOLE.
>>>
>>>Just as a side note, more and more young women ARE thinking in these terms
>>>today. My 20 year old D and 99.9% of her girlfriends are in college and
>>>planning on careers, full time careers. They are not interested in or
>>willing
>>>to give up what they work for to be some guys nanny and maid. Just as men
>>>have
>>>wanted women to cross the gender divide and work full time outside the
>home,
>>>women will now be demanding men too cross the divide and do 50% of the in
>>>home
>>>and child rearing duties and set THEIR careers back just the way women have
>>>all
>>>along.
>>>
>>>One of our neighbor's daughters graduated from college. The young woman
>will
>>>be
>>>starting medical school later this year. She is engaged to a 2nd yr medical
>>>student. We were talking about having children and she voiced exactly what
>I
>>>have said above. No way is she willing to give up any portion of her career
>>>while her stbh advances his so they can have children. She feels all things
>>>in
>>>their marriage need to be equal. That's what you're looking for right Max?
>>>She'll earn half the income and he can give up half of his career
>>>advancement,
>>>just like she will. Now he is free at any time to dump her and marry
>someone
>>>willing to be his butt buddy mommy, but then he will face the consequences
>>>if
>>>things don't work out in their marriage. No one can have it both ways any
>>>longer, not even men.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Here are the justifcationS you're looking for.....
>>>
>>>1)When a SAH gives up their income, their advancement, their prime earning
>>>years for the good of the family their intention is that the union will not
>>>end.
>>>
>>>2)The ability to earn is an asset of the marriage just as much as the
>>marital
>>>home is. In fact in many families it is the largest asset.
>>>
>>>3)It is unreasonable to expect one party to walk away with all the
>financial
>>>marbles, they give up that right when they marry, as the marriage joins
>them
>>>in
>>>every respect during the union. If people don't like that then they need to
>>>stay single.
>>>
>>>4)You and or others have talked about what the wage earner sacraficed in
>the
>>>way of parenting to earn the income. The BIG differance with this is
>>>parenting
>>>pays ZIPPO, in cold hard cash. The wage earner would then walk away with
>the
>>>main ability to earn and the SAH would have to start from scratch. Not
>gonna
>>>happen, no matter how unfair you think it is.
>>>
>>>5) As a tax payer I don't want to have to pay for ANYONES ex to be able to
>>>eat
>>>and have a roof over their head. Their spouse agreed to let them stay home
>>so
>>>it's their job to take care of bussiness until their ex can do it on their
>>>own,
>>>not mine.
>>>
>>>8) If not for the SAH doing the vast majority, if not all, of the child
>>>rearing
>>>and home duties, that income earner would NOT have advanced and been able
>to
>>>have that picture perfect home and family, or atleast not the way they
>ended
>>>up
>>>having it by having a SAH in their life.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>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,
>>>
>>>Yep. That is what SHOULD be happening in every family out there. BOTH
>should
>>>work and BOTH should take 50% of the financial hit in their careers. But
>you
>>>DON'T start that at the end of the marriage you start it at the beginning
>>and
>>>BOTH suffer the consequenses throughout the entire marriage. Young men of
>>>today
>>>need to hold onto their hats for a really bumpy ride if they don't like
>this
>>>or
>>>they will end up alone or with a CS and SS payments if their marriage
>fails.
>>
>>>
>>> or pay childcare expenses to a
>>>>third party so they can continue to have a full time career;
>>>
>>>Just like millions of couples and single parents do daily.
>>>
>>> They will
>>>>also have housing, education, and health expenses, the same as the SAH
>>>>would have.
>>>
>>>Alrighty then, lets' just split all of the actual expenses, I have no
>>problem
>>>with that. But note I said ALL, not just the ones either feels like they
>>want
>>>to support or the ones that fall on their half of the time share. And this
>>is
>>>where the whole idea of no CS changing hands starts to unravel. I can see
>>the
>>>fights over who buys the notebook paper... the parent who is with the child
>>>when the request is made or the parent who will have the child when they
>>need
>>>to bring the paper to school.
>>>
>>>I think one thing dual income divorcing couples need to do, if they are
>>going
>>>to do 50/50 with no CS changing hands, is have the parenting agreement
>>>detailed
>>>down to who pays how much for each and every item, activity, etc., based on
>>>what their % of their combined total income is.
>>>
>>>IOW if one parent earns 100K and the other 50K the % would be 75% for the
>>>higher earner and 25% for the lower earner. Just because the child is with
>>>each
>>>parent 50% of the time that doesn't mean each should pay 50%. They should
>>pay
>>>their portion based on their portion of their income.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>[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.....
>>>
>>>I disagree. I see it the exact opposite way. They SHOULD have to support
>>>their
>>>ex until such time said ex get's up to snuff in the abilty to support
>>>themselves. That SAH gave up their financial security for the good of the
>>>family and worked their ass off basically for room and board. Even most
>>live
>>>in maids receive a paycheck, to either save or squander, on top of room and
>>>board.
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable lifestyle.
>You
>>>build it together you should split it together. Neither will have exactly
>>the
>>>same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one shouldn't be
>>flipping
>>>burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.
>>
>>It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the burgers would
>>have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had never
>taken
>>place. Prove it.
>
>There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage earner would
>be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH spouse at
>home
>raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of everything with
>the exception of earning the money.

that she would be earning some magical amount if she hadn't been a SAH is built
of hoooey. You remain true to form.

You tell us we must accept your argument even though you tell us it has no
basis.

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>Mel Gamble
>>
>>>You may not
>>>like
>>>it, but it is fair and equitable for BOTH spouses to have equal financial
>>>footing. ANYTHING aquired during the marriage should be split at the end of
>>>the
>>>marriage. This includes income until both are on equal footing.
>>>
>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>>
>>>> # 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....
>>>>
>>>>--

[The Dave©]

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
> And the parent who was not at
> fault was the best parent for custody.

So, theoretically, if the divorce truly is "no fault", then joint custody
should be a given. It's not, I know, but the logic would indicate so.

[Mel Gamble]

Exactly, Kenneth.

>I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
>people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
>until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.
>
> The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic relations
>law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
>Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups in
>the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people, embracing
>all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians, but certainly
>EXCLUDING heterosexual men.
>
> So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via no-fault
>divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man that
>she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to stay
>home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
>made her do it. And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
>the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
>her husband.

And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for, there's no
investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if she'd
stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But she always
has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.

Mel Gamble

> I suppose it's called the empowerment of women. Too bad that it's at
>the expense of men and children.
>
>Mel Gamble wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>> >
>>
>> SAH's should only be "protected" if they can prove someone held a gun to
>thier
>> head when the decision was made to BE a SAH. Adults make thier own
>decisions.
>> Adults USED TO reap the rewards of those decisions or suffer the
>consequences,
>> depending on the quality of the decision. Adults who WANT to be protected
>from
>> the negative outcomes of thier decisions should purchase insurance. In a
>sane
>> society, only children need to be protected, but we can't even do that
>right...
>>
>> Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

>"Mel Gamble" wrote
>> SAH's should only be "protected" if they can prove someone
>> held a gun to thier head when the decision was made to BE a
>> SAH. Adults make thier own decisions.
>
>What if it was the husband's idea that she stay at home to raise the kids?
>
>> Adults USED TO reap the rewards of those decisions or suffer
>> the consequences, depending on the quality of the decision. Adults
>> who WANT to be protected from the negative outcomes of thier
>> decisions should purchase insurance. In a sane society, only children
>> need to be protected, but we can't even do that right...

What if it was my idea that you hang yourself? Does that mean we won't see you
posting anymore? Or will you make the final decision (no pun intended) on your
own....just like the SAH's do?

THE LAW DOESN'T ALLOW CHILDREN TO MARRY - WOMEN WHO MARRY ARE "ADULTS"...we
should be willing to treat them as such.

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

For the children out there: If you grow up and get into a marriage with
someone who FORCES you to do things you don't want to do.......GET THE HELL
OUT.

For the adults out there who are in a marriage with someone who FORCES you to
do things you don't want to do.........GET THE HELL OUT.

For the adults out there who WERE in a marriage with someone who FORCED you to
do things you didn't want to do, but you stayed anyway.........OOOOPS!!!!

Mel Gamble

>Mel wrote:
>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>The spouse deciding to be a SAH may accept input from the other spouse. The
>>other spouse does NOT make the decision. *I* decide what *I* will do.
>*YOU*
>>decide what *YOU* will do. Accept your decisions unless there was a gun at
>>your head. You'll be a better person for it.
>>
>
>Ahhhh.. I see. Do what I say but don't blame me for your listening to me.
>Gottcha. Maybe this type of passive agressive attitude about partnership is
>why
>so many marriages fail.
>
>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>>Mel Gamble
>>
>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>
>>>>Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>[snip]

[Mel Gamble]

>"Mel Gamble" wrote
>> *I* decide what *I* will do. *YOU*
>> decide what *YOU* will do.
>
>I don't recommend marriage, or any close relationship, in your future. It
>WILL fail.

As will yours if you think you can force your spouse to do things against her
will.

Idiot.

Mel Gamble

[TeacherMama]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Bob Whiteside" wrote
> > And the parent who was not at
> > fault was the best parent for custody.
>
> So, theoretically, if the divorce truly is "no fault", then joint custody
> should be a given. It's not, I know, but the logic would indicate so.

You would certainly think so, wouldn't you. But the whole custody thing
didn't crop up immediately when no-fault came into being. It grew into
being as the issues of supporting the children came to the forefront. The
whole system of cs that we see today evolved over a period of time, as
people realized how profitable it was to hold up the children as victims.
Of course, nobody wants children to live in poverty--but the system we see
today capitalized on that and began to portray NCPs as who objected to large
awards as uncaring ogres who didn't care if their children lived in poverty.

[Mel Gamble]

>Mel wrote:
>
>> If two people who get married are
>>>only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
>>>married?
>>
>>The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even
>>though
>>you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money and
>you
>>takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of the
>>car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to accept
>>the
>>possibility of the bus.
>
>After typing this into the Mel to english translator, this reads........
>
>
>I'm in it for me and me alone.
>
>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>>
>>Mel Gamble

Your translator is broken. Should have read.......

"I don't let other people make my decisions for me."

Or.......

"I don't make bad decisions for me just because somebody else wants me to."

Or.......

"I'm an adult."

See??? Broken.

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

Oh, I forgot to add in my previous reply to this post where I stated that your
translator is broken......

>Mel wrote:
>
>> If two people who get married are
>>>only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of getting
>>>married?
>>
>>The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even
>>though
>>you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money and
>you
>>takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of the
>>car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to accept
>>the
>>possibility of the bus.
>
>After typing this into the Mel to english translator, this reads........
>
>
>I'm in it for me and me alone.
>
>Mrs Indyguy

You should always suspect a broken logic module in your translator when you
hear that whining sound coming from it....

Mel Gamble

>>Mel Gamble
>
>
>

[TeacherMama]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> And therefore....
>
> >Mel wrote:

<snip>

> >>>Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable
lifestyle.
> >You
> >>>build it together you should split it together. Neither will have
exactly
> >>the
> >>>same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one shouldn't be
> >>flipping
> >>>burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.
> >>
> >>It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the burgers
would
> >>have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had never
> >taken
> >>place. Prove it.
> >
> >There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage earner
would
> >be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH spouse
at
> >home
> >raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of everything
with
> >the exception of earning the money.
>
> that she would be earning some magical amount if she hadn't been a SAH is
built
> of hoooey. You remain true to form.

So you prefer to believe that every SAH parent would likely have been
earning minimum wage even after 20 years in the work force, Mel? Is there
no position between "She would have been earning as much as her ex" and "She
would have been earning minimum wage"?

[Mel Gamble]

Let's see here.... : )

>Mel wrote:
>
>>. that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN
>HER
>>OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home unless I
>>lock
>>you in.
>
>Ok, then...... Let's say your spouse was being a nagging old hen because
>during
>a thunder storm the satalite dish fell over and she harped on you until you
>agreed to go outside and fix it. You want to make her happy and you don't
>want
>to listen to her gripe. You go out to fix the dish. You get hit by
>lightening.
>You are are then blind. You have no one to blame but yourself, correct? You
>have no ill will against her because YOU made the choice. She did nothing
>wrong
>and you just made an immature choice. You stay married to her and love her
>just
>as much as you always did, correct? Unless she was holding a gun to your head
>when she opened the door and handed you the metal ladder that fatefull night,
>right?

I go out in a lightning storm, climb a metal ladder to the roof where I work on
something wired to ground..... Hmmm, you must think my decision-making skills
as poor as those of the ladies you whine for. They are not. I would not have
gone out into the storm. See, your example fails the logic test.

>>Correct. It is a choice made every minute of every day that the SAH is free
>>to
>>leave and doesn't.
>>
>
>Ditto for the wage earner. They don't want a SAH spouse then they are free to
>leave *as soon as their spouse attempts to be a SAH*. If they stay they are
>agreeing to the roles. They agree to the roles then they shoulder some of the
>consequences those roles level at the time of divorce.

They are only able to change their own role. The wage earner can't change to
being in a marriage with no SAH.....the SAH can. If I tell you what a bitch
you are - and you ARE a bitch - and that I want you to continue participating
in the newsgroup so that I can continue to belittle your whining and lack of
logic, are you continuing to participate because I told you to? Or are you
continuing because you are an adult capable of making your own choices?

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>

[Mel Gamble]

Back in the days when remaining in a marriage with a SAH wasn't such a risky
business for the wage-earner, I might have agreed with you, Teach. But now
your asking if I would allow a business pardner to talk me into making a
business decision that has a 50% chance of causing the business to fail within
10 years. Sorry, I refuse. I will NOT be your SAH if I think I'm going to
suffer such a financial set-back by doing so if YOU decide to leave. I will
NOT put MY life in your hands that way. Any business pardner who would can
look at bankruptcy as the cost of bad decision-making.

Cinderella can't afford her coach anymore - the government forced so many
changes in the design that the horses can no longer pull it, wouldn't be
allowed to if they could because of the pollution factor. And the fees to
license it are more than she can afford. Little girl dreams are a thing of the
past. It's sad.....but true.

Mel Gamble

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> Only as long as it remains true...
>>
>> >"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.
>>
>> ... that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER
>THAN HER
>> OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home unless I
>lock
>> you in.
>
>So is that how you would expect partners in a business to operate, too? Me
>for me, and you for you, and to heck with working together for the benefit
>of all?
>
>
>
>

[Mel Gamble]

>The Dave wrote:
>
>>"Indyguy1" wrote
>>> IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
>>> our society even more throwaway driven.
>>
>>I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the attitude
>>"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain why they're
>>not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.
>
>I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of their
>marriage
>but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again when they
>remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than they were
>the first time around.
>
>They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to or dont
>want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.
>
>Mrs Indyguy
>

But when these failures leave a marriage, Mrs. Gimmeguy thinks they should be
treated as accomplished business executives...

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

THAT....

>Max wrote:
>
>>> TeacherMama scribbled:
>>
>>>> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Phil #3 wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>That is EXACTLY what's being said by you and indyguy, and others.....
>
>Huh? I never said, and don't generally feel, women are victims of men. I also
>don't feel doing what is mutually agreeed on between a couple during a
>marriage, to be an immature choice. Actually *I* feel an immature choice
>would
>be to marry and then not compromise or take one's partners wishes into
>consideration.
>
>It seems that what you are saying here is that even if BOTH want one to be a
>SAH in the event that things don't work out it is only the one that became
>the
>SAH that should shoulder any and all of the consequences. To me that is
>immature and selfish thinking.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>*INCLUDING* the one who chose to be the SAH.
>>But your argument is that they shouldn't have to take the consequences
>>of that choice and insist that the other party (you know the one chose
>>to work to support the SAH in the marriage) has to 'compensate' the SAH
>>for their *MUTUAL DECISION* about their roles in the marriage.....
>>Then when it's asked what does the SAH have to do to 'compensate' the
>>one who chose to work you immediately start whining and bitching that
>>it's all about money and it's sad that things have to be that way!!!!!
>
>Hold on. The SAH already got a good portion of their consequences during the
>marrige while being a SAH. They gave up their prime earning years and all
>that
>comes with those earning years. Those are things no amount of money can ever
>fully compensate for.
>
>The wage earning spouse got the benefits from the SAH status of their spouse.
>THEN if the marriage ends YOU still want the SAH to suffer the aftermath
>consequences alone.
>
>So you tell me at what point should the wage earning partner have to shoulder
>ANY of the consequences, seeing as they don't during the marriage and you
>don't
>feel they should have to after the marriage ends?
>
>>
>>> 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!?
>>
>>Then why should the one who chose to work be left 'holding the bag' for
>>the SAH's lack of marketable skills after the marriage ends?
>
>They aren't holding that bag alone. They both loose out. The SAH is the one
>that takes the greater hit, IMHO. LT marriages that end leave SAH's not only
>with no income but usually at an less marketable age.
>
>My H's cousins ex works midnights at a casino, as a cage teller. She's 57
>years
>old. She was a well paid legal secy before she married. But her skills are so
>outdated no one would even see her for an interview for that type of
>position.
>Her ex made her life a living hell any time she showed interest in seeking
>employment during the marriage,

************************************************** ****************
>she bowed to his wishes because she loved him
>and wanted him to be happy.
************************************************** ****************

was her mistake, and her choice to do or not to do. Now you want HIM to pay
for HER mistake.

>But when he was done with her he figured, like
>you
>apparently do, she should stop leaching off of him and take care of herself.

Just as she could have figured if SHE were the one to be "done with" him.

>>FOR ****S SAKE NO ONE should be left holding the bag!
>
>That's right. They created that bag together for many years and they should
>BOTH still be holding it if the marriage ends.

So if she had been the SAH and he had been out robbing banks.....do you think
she should serve half of his sentence or a full sentence of her own???

>The things a SAH gives up are far more precious than just the cash.

THAT depends on the particular SAH. "Giving up" a career at McDonald's isn't
the same as giving up a career as an exec at Max Factor. Yet you seem to think
they are of equal value if they are given up to SAH for the same man.

>No amount
>of money can make up for the lost years of experience and advancement.

No twisting of logic can prove there would have been "years of experience and
advancement".

>But
>the
>cash is the necessary element to live.

And it's sooooo handy to be able to get it without having to work for it.

>>When the divorce happens both get an equal share of the *marital
>>assets*, after that neither should be obligated to continue providing
>>the kind of support that they did before the breakup.
>
>Oh sure, like most wage earners pay enough in support to keep the SAH in the
>exact same SOL they had during the marriage. (major eye roll)
>
>But I do understand you train of thought. Here it is in a nut shell, correct
>me
>if I am wrong......
>
>For SAHs:
>
>Anyone who agrees with their partner to be a SAH has made an immature choice.
>If their marriage ends they alone should face the financial consequences. A
>SAHs contributions to the family hold little value to the wage earner and the
>losses the SAH reap from the agreed upon status are theirs alone to shoulder.
>
>For Wage Earners:
>
>All they earn is theirs and theirs alone.

Only when they are no longer married...

>They didn't hold a *real* gun to
>their spouses head and force them to be a SAH so, wage earners should not be
>held responsible for choices they agreed upon druing their marriage. Because
>the agreement was the wage earner would remain working outside the home and
>their partner wouldn't, they get to walk away with the only abilty to earn at
>the level they BOTH agreed to and established during a LT marriage.
>
>I hope the next gerneration of couples will look very different than what we
>have seen in the past.

Thinking like yours is why there WON'T BE a next generation of (married)
couples.

>I'd see this as a good thing for BOTH men and women.
>Women will retain their careers and men will end up doing 50% of the child
>rearing, home duties and take their share of career set backs for doing so,
>like women have been expected to do in the past. WHEN this happens then yeah,
>what each earns will be theirs to keep, in the event of a divorce. If the
>playing field is level all along then it will be level in the end.
>
>But there is an added bonus for the men. If they are infact doing 50% of the
>child rearing then 50/50 shared custody will be more the norm. And that's
>what
>most men want any way, right? So they won't mind actually doing it during the
>marriage. They will be thrilled they get to clean up the projectile vommit
>at
>3am when the kids are sick. They will relish leaving work early to sit in the
>Dr's office and wait 2 hours with a crying sick child. They will be ecstatic
>not to take the clients out for cocktails after work, because they have to
>bake
> cupcakes and run the cake walk at the pre-school. Not seeing the big game
>won't be missed because they'll be all warm and fuzzy at the mall getting Jr
>the new shoes he needs for Monday.
>
>SIGH... I can see it now. Men all over the country doing their 50% at home
>and
>being so very happy they don't have to pay their lazy SAH spouse one red cent
>if they divorce. I just get chills thinking about it. ;)

You just get tingly thinking about other people's money...

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>
>

[TeacherMama]

Oh, Mel--you are in a mood today! You and I have debated this before and
never reached a common conclusion. Perhaps I have just run into a different
quality of SAH's than you have. I know it's different when you're the one
who's been burned.


"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Back in the days when remaining in a marriage with a SAH wasn't such a
risky
> business for the wage-earner, I might have agreed with you, Teach. But
now
> your asking if I would allow a business pardner to talk me into making a
> business decision that has a 50% chance of causing the business to fail
within
> 10 years. Sorry, I refuse. I will NOT be your SAH if I think I'm going
to
> suffer such a financial set-back by doing so if YOU decide to leave. I
will
> NOT put MY life in your hands that way. Any business pardner who would
can
> look at bankruptcy as the cost of bad decision-making.
>
> Cinderella can't afford her coach anymore - the government forced so many
> changes in the design that the horses can no longer pull it, wouldn't be
> allowed to if they could because of the pollution factor. And the fees to
> license it are more than she can afford. Little girl dreams are a thing
of the
> past. It's sad.....but true.
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Only as long as it remains true...
> >>
> >> >"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.
> >>
> >> ... that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER
> >THAN HER
> >> OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home
unless I
> >lock
> >> you in.
> >
> >So is that how you would expect partners in a business to operate, too?
Me
> >for me, and you for you, and to heck with working together for the
benefit
> >of all?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[TeacherMama]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> >Mel wrote:
> >
> >> If two people who get married are
> >>>only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of
getting
> >>>married?
> >>
> >>The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even
> >>though
> >>you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money
and
> >you
> >>takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of
the
> >>car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to
accept
> >>the
> >>possibility of the bus.
> >
> >After typing this into the Mel to english translator, this reads........
> >
> >
> >I'm in it for me and me alone.
> >
> >Mrs Indyguy
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Mel Gamble
>
> Your translator is broken. Should have read.......
>
> "I don't let other people make my decisions for me."
>
> Or.......
>
> "I don't make bad decisions for me just because somebody else wants me
to."
>
> Or.......
>
> "I'm an adult."
>
> See??? Broken.
>
> Mel Gamble

I don't see "We're married, let's make decisions for our family together,
Darling." in there anywhere, Mel.

[TeacherMama]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Exactly, Kenneth.
>
> >I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
> >people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
> >until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.
> >
> > The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic relations
> >law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
> >Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups in
> >the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people, embracing
> >all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians,

Wow!! I was not aware that one-legged lesbians had an official
minority-status group of their own!! I learn something new every day!!

but certainly
> >EXCLUDING heterosexual men.

And that, unfortunately, is true.


> >
> > So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via no-fault
> >divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man that
> >she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to stay
> >home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
> >made her do it.

That is why I only consider a long-term SAH situation to be one that,
perhaps, needs attention. And I don't believe, any more that you do, that
hubby made her to it.


And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
> >the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
> >her husband.

If a SAH wants to break up the family to go find herself--let her do it at
her own expense. Unless there is something going on that would harm her or
the children, or unless hubby is boffing his new secretary. But, then ,
we're back to "fault", aren't we? And we jsut don't do that these days!!

>
> And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for, there's
no
> investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if she'd
> stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But she
always
> has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.

Geesh, Mel!! Where do you come up with this stuff!!

[Mel Gamble]

Only because "Friendly" will be leaving tomorrow...

>Oh, Mel--you are in a mood today! You and I have debated this before and
>never reached a common conclusion. Perhaps I have just run into a different
>quality of SAH's than you have. I know it's different when you're the one
>who's been burned.

I've already started educating my daughter. We were talking yesterday about
giving away the puppies. I told her that someday I might "give her away".
"But I'm not a puppy!!!". So I explained to her how things "used to be", when
a man would ask a girls father for her hand in marriage and the father would
walk her down the aisle in front of all and that was the symbolic act of
"giving her away" to the new husband. I explained to her that it USED TO BE
thought that women needed to be taken care of, just like puppies, and that they
went from being taken care of by thier fathers to being taken care of by thier
husbands. And I told her that things aren't like that for most people now -
that most people think women can take care of themselves. And I will make sure
that she is able to take care of herself. She will be able to depend on a man
IF SHE WANTS TO, but she will NOT grow up thinking it's something she has to
do....or has a right to do.

But she wants to be a Princess for Halloween this year. I told her I wasn't
going to start making a costume yet with so much time left for her to change
her mind...

Mel Gamble

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> Back in the days when remaining in a marriage with a SAH wasn't such a
>risky
>> business for the wage-earner, I might have agreed with you, Teach. But
>now
>> your asking if I would allow a business pardner to talk me into making a
>> business decision that has a 50% chance of causing the business to fail
>within
>> 10 years. Sorry, I refuse. I will NOT be your SAH if I think I'm going
>to
>> suffer such a financial set-back by doing so if YOU decide to leave. I
>will
>> NOT put MY life in your hands that way. Any business pardner who would
>can
>> look at bankruptcy as the cost of bad decision-making.
>>
>> Cinderella can't afford her coach anymore - the government forced so many
>> changes in the design that the horses can no longer pull it, wouldn't be
>> allowed to if they could because of the pollution factor. And the fees to
>> license it are more than she can afford. Little girl dreams are a thing
>of the
>> past. It's sad.....but true.
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>>
>> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Only as long as it remains true...
>> >>
>> >> >"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.
>> >>
>> >> ... that the SAH is prevented from leaving the home BY SOMETHING OTHER
>> >THAN HER
>> >> OWN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN. My choice isn't keeping you in the home
>unless I
>> >lock
>> >> you in.
>> >
>> >So is that how you would expect partners in a business to operate, too?
>Me
>> >for me, and you for you, and to heck with working together for the
>benefit
>> >of all?

[Mel Gamble]

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> >Mel wrote:
>> >
>> >> If two people who get married are
>> >>>only to watch out for their own interests, what is the purpose of
>getting
>> >>>married?
>> >>
>> >>The same as the purpose of getting into a car to go watch a movie, even
>> >>though
>> >>you know the car may be hit by a bus on the way. You pays your money
>and
>> >you
>> >>takes your chances. If you don't want to be hit by a bus - stay out of
>the
>> >>car. If you're going to get in the car...you'd better be willing to
>accept
>> >>the
>> >>possibility of the bus.
>> >
>> >After typing this into the Mel to english translator, this reads........
>> >
>> >
>> >I'm in it for me and me alone.
>> >
>> >Mrs Indyguy
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Mel Gamble
>>
>> Your translator is broken. Should have read.......
>>
>> "I don't let other people make my decisions for me."
>>
>> Or.......
>>
>> "I don't make bad decisions for me just because somebody else wants me
>to."
>>
>> Or.......
>>
>> "I'm an adult."
>>
>> See??? Broken.
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>
>I don't see "We're married, let's make decisions for our family together,
>Darling." in there anywhere, Mel.
>

That's because I didn't make a statement to that effect. See - your translator
is working fine, Indyguy's is broken.

Mel Gamble

[Bob Whiteside]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...

> Cinderella can't afford her coach anymore - the government forced so many
> changes in the design that the horses can no longer pull it, wouldn't be
> allowed to if they could because of the pollution factor. And the fees to
> license it are more than she can afford. Little girl dreams are a thing
of the
> past. It's sad.....but true.

There is the other side of this discussion where women complain men have
Peter Pan Syndrome - meaning men refuse to commit, men refuse to settle
down, and men refuse to "grow up." Of course, women define men growing up
as men finally giving women what they want.

Women just have trouble accepting that Peter Pan is no naive boy, but
instead a very wise man.

[Mel Gamble]

I prefer reality...

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> And therefore....
>>
>> >Mel wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >>>Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable
>lifestyle.
>> >You
>> >>>build it together you should split it together. Neither will have
>exactly
>> >>the
>> >>>same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one shouldn't be
>> >>flipping
>> >>>burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.
>> >>
>> >>It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the burgers
>would
>> >>have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had never
>> >taken
>> >>place. Prove it.
>> >
>> >There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage earner
>would
>> >be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH spouse
>at
>> >home
>> >raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of everything
>with
>> >the exception of earning the money.
>>
>> that she would be earning some magical amount if she hadn't been a SAH is
>built
>> of hoooey. You remain true to form.
>
>So you prefer to believe that every SAH parent would likely have been
>earning minimum wage even after 20 years in the work force, Mel? Is there
>no position between "She would have been earning as much as her ex" and "She
>would have been earning minimum wage"?

which is that we'll never know. How can anybody reasonably say that when Hugh
Hefner marries a 20-year-old waitress from one of his clubs and divorces her 20
years later when he's 90 and she's 40, that the $2 million per year that she
gets in spousal support is to make up for the "earning power" that she would
have had if she had continued as a waitress at the club for another 20 years?
Maybe she would have worked up to head waitress. Maybe she'd have worked all
the way up to club manager, but I don't think the person managing a Playboy
club is pulling $2 million per year.

And maybe she'd have fallen for a truck driver the next year, quit the club to
go have 5 kids and be a SAH for them on his 25K income.....why do we have to
put her into the first "maybe" future" instead of the second? Why do we have
to assume that she "suffered" for being Hugh's SAH instead of assuming she
avoided the misery of being the trucker's wife?

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

>
>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> Exactly, Kenneth.
>>
>> >I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
>> >people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
>> >until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.
>> >
>> > The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic relations
>> >law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
>> >Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups in
>> >the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people, embracing
>> >all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians,
>
>Wow!! I was not aware that one-legged lesbians had an official
>minority-status group of their own!! I learn something new every day!!
>
>but certainly
>> >EXCLUDING heterosexual men.
>
>And that, unfortunately, is true.
>
>
>> >
>> > So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via no-fault
>> >divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man that
>> >she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to stay
>> >home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
>> >made her do it.
>
>That is why I only consider a long-term SAH situation to be one that,
>perhaps, needs attention. And I don't believe, any more that you do, that
>hubby made her to it.
>
>
> And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
>> >the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
>> >her husband.
>
>If a SAH wants to break up the family to go find herself--let her do it at
>her own expense. Unless there is something going on that would harm her or
>the children, or unless hubby is boffing his new secretary. But, then ,
>we're back to "fault", aren't we? And we jsut don't do that these days!!
>
>>
>> And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for, there's
>no
>> investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if she'd
>> stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But she
>always
>> has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.
>
>Geesh, Mel!! Where do you come up with this stuff!!

Every coin has a flip-side, Teach. Science teaches us that it might land on
heads twice in a row, maybe will three times in a row. When somebody starts
trying to get us to believe that that coin would land on heads 2,500,000 times
out of 2,500,000 times.....it's time to take a closer look at that coin.

Mel Gamble

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

<snip to>
>>I hope the next gerneration of couples will look very different than what we
>>have seen in the past.
>
>Thinking like yours is why there WON'T BE a next generation of (married)
>couples.

WHY Mel? What is no unattractive about what I typed below? What is so horrible
about men and women each taking 50% of the at home duties? What is wrong with
BOTH men and women splitting the career sacrafices? Why should women continue
to work outside the home and do the vast majority of child rearing and at home
duties, and the men don't have to pick up their 50%?

You know we can go back and forth on SS, CS, etc. But here you have a totally
equal arrangement for a married couple and you say it would be the end of
couples.

Maybe I took your above comment wrong, but if I didn't you clearly don't want
equality in marriages. You want the old fashioned marriage where the man was
king and his wife was his servant. Is that what you really want Mel? Is that
what you want for your daughter?


>
>>I'd see this as a good thing for BOTH men and women.
>>Women will retain their careers and men will end up doing 50% of the child
>>rearing, home duties and take their share of career set backs for doing so,
>>like women have been expected to do in the past. WHEN this happens then
>yeah,
>>what each earns will be theirs to keep, in the event of a divorce. If the
>>playing field is level all along then it will be level in the end.
>>
>>But there is an added bonus for the men. If they are infact doing 50% of the
>>child rearing then 50/50 shared custody will be more the norm. And that's
>>what
>>most men want any way, right? So they won't mind actually doing it during
>the
>>marriage. They will be thrilled they get to clean up the projectile vommit
>>at
>>3am when the kids are sick. They will relish leaving work early to sit in
>the
>>Dr's office and wait 2 hours with a crying sick child. They will be ecstatic
>>not to take the clients out for cocktails after work, because they have to
>>bake
>> cupcakes and run the cake walk at the pre-school. Not seeing the big game
>>won't be missed because they'll be all warm and fuzzy at the mall getting Jr
>>the new shoes he needs for Monday.
>>
>>SIGH... I can see it now. Men all over the country doing their 50% at home
>>and
>>being so very happy they don't have to pay their lazy SAH spouse one red
>cent
>>if they divorce. I just get chills thinking about it. ;)
>
>You just get tingly thinking about other people's money...

Nah, money doesn't get to me the way the thought of men doing what society has
dictated women do for many many years.

And I don't think the changes I proposed would be the end of marriage. Maybe
the end of marital dictatorships, but hell those need to go anyway.

Mrs Indyguy


>
>Mel Gamble
>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> TeacherMama > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "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.
> >
> > Suppose it wasn't an individual decision, frazil? Suppose both parents
> > decided together that one would stay home and do all the domestic things
> > needed in the marriage, and the other would bring in the money? Together
> > they built what they have at the time of divorce. Why should only the SAH
> > parent suffer from a decision they made together?
>
> First, even if both parents decide that one is going to stay at home,
> ultimately it is the SAH's decision. For if they disagree the other parent
> can't force the putative SAH to not be a stay at home, and work out side the
> home. IOW, you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.
>
> Also, just for grins, we always her how being a SAH is work. As that work
> was, as they put it, uncompensate, they should be compensated with SS
> because of their inability to work at a level that would provide them with a
> SOL reasonable close to that to which they have gown accustomed. I
> disagree, they had a roof over their head, food in the stomach, and all the
> other trappings that the working-outside-the house spouse earned.

Except for a paycheck, of course.

Second,
> many people experience a lay-off in their choosen career.

And collect unemployment insurance while they get back on their feet.......

A SAH, career,
> is being a SAH. If they get laid-off by divorce, they either start a new
> career, or find another position as a SAH.

Do they get a paycheck while they're working their career? Do they get
unemployment benefits in the case of a layoff? Do they get holidays off with
pay? 2 weeks vacation per year, during which they do not have to do their
career work? Do they get to clock out at 5, and stop working?

If they need to change careers,
> they should expect to experience a decrease in their level of compensation,
> as all people do when they switch careers. :-)
>
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > "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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:35:13 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> > wrote:
>
> >Why not tell your own kids what to do, and stay out of other people's kids'
> >lives?
>
> Sometimes, bad parents put their child's emotional welfare at risk.
> Like your children, for example. We tried to warn you, and now they
> are screwed up beyond repair. Strangers on Usenet were more concerned
> about your kids than you were.

You're in a minority - my children are just fine, thanks for your concern :-)

>

[TeacherMama]

"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> TeacherMama > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "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.
> >
> > Suppose it wasn't an individual decision, frazil? Suppose both parents
> > decided together that one would stay home and do all the domestic things
> > needed in the marriage, and the other would bring in the money?
Together
> > they built what they have at the time of divorce. Why should only the
SAH
> > parent suffer from a decision they made together?
>
> First, even if both parents decide that one is going to stay at home,
> ultimately it is the SAH's decision. For if they disagree the other
parent
> can't force the putative SAH to not be a stay at home, and work out side
the
> home. IOW, you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.
>
> Also, just for grins, we always hear how being a SAH is work. As that
work
> was, as they put it, uncompensated, they should be compensated with SS
> because of their inability to work at a level that would provide them with
a
> SOL reasonable close to that to which they have gown accustomed.

Actually, I've never even mentioned 'similar SOL'. What I have said is that
a SAH in a long-term relationship should not have to live in a
roach-infested hovel at near poverty level while the wage-earner gets to
keep the SOL they both worked for together. The children should not have to
spend 50% of their time in poverty, and 50% in their accustomed SOL. The
COUPLE worked to get to where they are--not just the wage earner.

I
> disagree, they had a roof over their head, food in the stomach, and all
the
> other trappings that the working-outside-the house spouse earned.

They both earned it, Fraz. Each in their own role. The SAH was not a
servant to be dismissed when the wage earner was tired of her, but 1/2 of a
team that functioned together.


Second,
> many people experience a lay-off in their choosen career. A SAH, career,
> is being a SAH. If they get laid-off by divorce, they either start a new
> career, or find another position as a SAH. If they need to change
careers,
> they should expect to experience a decrease in their level of
compensation,
> as all people do when they switch careers. :-)

I think Moon's comments cover this part quite well. =c)

[TeacherMama]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Only because "Friendly" will be leaving tomorrow...
>
> >Oh, Mel--you are in a mood today! You and I have debated this before and
> >never reached a common conclusion. Perhaps I have just run into a
different
> >quality of SAH's than you have. I know it's different when you're the
one
> >who's been burned.
>
> I've already started educating my daughter. We were talking yesterday
about
> giving away the puppies. I told her that someday I might "give her away".
> "But I'm not a puppy!!!". So I explained to her how things "used to be",
when
> a man would ask a girls father for her hand in marriage and the father
would
> walk her down the aisle in front of all and that was the symbolic act of
> "giving her away" to the new husband. I explained to her that it USED TO
BE
> thought that women needed to be taken care of, just like puppies, and that
they
> went from being taken care of by thier fathers to being taken care of by
thier
> husbands. And I told her that things aren't like that for most people
now -
> that most people think women can take care of themselves. And I will make
sure
> that she is able to take care of herself. She will be able to depend on a
man
> IF SHE WANTS TO, but she will NOT grow up thinking it's something she has
to
> do....or has a right to do.

I have also been educating my own daughters, Mel. Just as you have. I have
told them, as my father told me, to make sure they can support themselves,
because, at some point, they will most likely have to do so. Independence
is indispensible these days!

>
> But she wants to be a Princess for Halloween this year. I told her I
wasn't
> going to start making a costume yet with so much time left for her to
change
> her mind...

And they do change their minds a lot, don't they? <chuckle>
>

[TeacherMama]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> I prefer reality...
>
> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> And therefore....
> >>
> >> >Mel wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >>>Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable
> >lifestyle.
> >> >You
> >> >>>build it together you should split it together. Neither will have
> >exactly
> >> >>the
> >> >>>same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one shouldn't be
> >> >>flipping
> >> >>>burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.
> >> >>
> >> >>It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the
burgers
> >would
> >> >>have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had
never
> >> >taken
> >> >>place. Prove it.
> >> >
> >> >There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage
earner
> >would
> >> >be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH
spouse
> >at
> >> >home
> >> >raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of
everything
> >with
> >> >the exception of earning the money.
> >>
> >> that she would be earning some magical amount if she hadn't been a SAH
is
> >built
> >> of hoooey. You remain true to form.
> >
> >So you prefer to believe that every SAH parent would likely have been
> >earning minimum wage even after 20 years in the work force, Mel? Is
there
> >no position between "She would have been earning as much as her ex" and
"She
> >would have been earning minimum wage"?
>
> which is that we'll never know. How can anybody reasonably say that when
Hugh
> Hefner marries a 20-year-old waitress from one of his clubs and divorces
her 20
> years later when he's 90 and she's 40, that the $2 million per year that
she
> gets in spousal support is to make up for the "earning power" that she
would
> have had if she had continued as a waitress at the club for another 20
years?
> Maybe she would have worked up to head waitress. Maybe she'd have worked
all
> the way up to club manager, but I don't think the person managing a
Playboy
> club is pulling $2 million per year.
>
> And maybe she'd have fallen for a truck driver the next year, quit the
club to
> go have 5 kids and be a SAH for them on his 25K income.....why do we have
to
> put her into the first "maybe" future" instead of the second? Why do we
have
> to assume that she "suffered" for being Hugh's SAH instead of assuming she
> avoided the misery of being the trucker's wife?

So, honestly, Mel, you really think it is ok that a SAH be forced to move
from a 4 bedroom house to a one bedroom apartment and work 2 jobs to support
her children the 50% of the time she has them? She maintained the house and
raised the kids for 15 years, and now is turned out like a no-longer-needed
maid--and even a maid would have better job prospects than her! You really
think it is ok to do that? What if your daughter doesn't listen to your
advice, becomes a SAH mom, (the movement is growing) and gets dumped by her
hubby after 15 years? What would you want to do to that guy?

[Moon Shyne]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > TeacherMama > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "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.
> > >
> > > Suppose it wasn't an individual decision, frazil? Suppose both parents
> > > decided together that one would stay home and do all the domestic things
> > > needed in the marriage, and the other would bring in the money?
> Together
> > > they built what they have at the time of divorce. Why should only the
> SAH
> > > parent suffer from a decision they made together?
> >
> > First, even if both parents decide that one is going to stay at home,
> > ultimately it is the SAH's decision. For if they disagree the other
> parent
> > can't force the putative SAH to not be a stay at home, and work out side
> the
> > home. IOW, you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.
> >
> > Also, just for grins, we always hear how being a SAH is work. As that
> work
> > was, as they put it, uncompensated, they should be compensated with SS
> > because of their inability to work at a level that would provide them with
> a
> > SOL reasonable close to that to which they have gown accustomed.
>
> Actually, I've never even mentioned 'similar SOL'. What I have said is that
> a SAH in a long-term relationship should not have to live in a
> roach-infested hovel at near poverty level while the wage-earner gets to
> keep the SOL they both worked for together. The children should not have to
> spend 50% of their time in poverty, and 50% in their accustomed SOL. The
> COUPLE worked to get to where they are--not just the wage earner.
>
> I
> > disagree, they had a roof over their head, food in the stomach, and all
> the
> > other trappings that the working-outside-the house spouse earned.
>
> They both earned it, Fraz. Each in their own role. The SAH was not a
> servant to be dismissed when the wage earner was tired of her, but 1/2 of a
> team that functioned together.
>
>
> Second,
> > many people experience a lay-off in their choosen career. A SAH, career,
> > is being a SAH. If they get laid-off by divorce, they either start a new
> > career, or find another position as a SAH. If they need to change
> careers,
> > they should expect to experience a decrease in their level of
> compensation,
> > as all people do when they switch careers. :-)
>
> I think Moon's comments cover this part quite well. =c)

Thanks, Teach :-)

>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I prefer reality...
> >
> > >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> And therefore....
> > >>
> > >> >Mel wrote:
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >> >>>Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable
> > >lifestyle.
> > >> >You
> > >> >>>build it together you should split it together. Neither will have
> > >exactly
> > >> >>the
> > >> >>>same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one shouldn't
be
> > >> >>flipping
> > >> >>>burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the
> burgers
> > >would
> > >> >>have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had
> never
> > >> >taken
> > >> >>place. Prove it.
> > >> >
> > >> >There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage
> earner
> > >would
> > >> >be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH
> spouse
> > >at
> > >> >home
> > >> >raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of
> everything
> > >with
> > >> >the exception of earning the money.
> > >>
> > >> that she would be earning some magical amount if she hadn't been a
SAH
> is
> > >built
> > >> of hoooey. You remain true to form.
> > >
> > >So you prefer to believe that every SAH parent would likely have been
> > >earning minimum wage even after 20 years in the work force, Mel? Is
> there
> > >no position between "She would have been earning as much as her ex" and
> "She
> > >would have been earning minimum wage"?
> >
> > which is that we'll never know. How can anybody reasonably say that
when
> Hugh
> > Hefner marries a 20-year-old waitress from one of his clubs and divorces
> her 20
> > years later when he's 90 and she's 40, that the $2 million per year that
> she
> > gets in spousal support is to make up for the "earning power" that she
> would
> > have had if she had continued as a waitress at the club for another 20
> years?
> > Maybe she would have worked up to head waitress. Maybe she'd have
worked
> all
> > the way up to club manager, but I don't think the person managing a
> Playboy
> > club is pulling $2 million per year.
> >
> > And maybe she'd have fallen for a truck driver the next year, quit the
> club to
> > go have 5 kids and be a SAH for them on his 25K income.....why do we
have
> to
> > put her into the first "maybe" future" instead of the second? Why do we
> have
> > to assume that she "suffered" for being Hugh's SAH instead of assuming
she
> > avoided the misery of being the trucker's wife?
>
> So, honestly, Mel, you really think it is ok that a SAH be forced to move
> from a 4 bedroom house to a one bedroom apartment and work 2 jobs to
support
> her children the 50% of the time she has them?

This is what is called setting up a false premise to frame an argument. The
more typical scenario is the SAHM is awarded the family home, and then gets
alimony to help her be able to afford to keep the house. The court would
rule the ex-husband has to pay her alimony so she can maintain her previous
lifesyle.

The arguments that women will be left "high and dry" are based on poster's
personal concerns for maintaining their status quo versus how judges
actually rule.

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Dave wrote:
> >
> > >"Indyguy1" wrote
> > >> IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
> > >> our society even more throwaway driven.
> > >
> > >I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the
> attitude
> > >"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain why
> they're
> > >not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.
> >
> > I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of their
> marriage
> > but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again when
> they
> > remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than they
> were
> > the first time around.
> >
> > They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to or
> dont
> > want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.
>
> That's exactly why my ex filed for divorce. She was not happy. She
> believed it is the husband's role to make his wife happy. And since I was
> not making her happy, it was my fault. When I tried to explain happiness
> comes from within and is based on how a person feels about themselves, and
> all I could do was help create an environment that would foster happiness,
> she told me I was wrong.
>
> Every list you see that shows the top reasons for initiating divorce
> includes this same theme. Women file for divorce because they feel they are
> not being fulfilled, feel like they need to find themselves, feel like they
> are growing apart from their spouse, feel a need to achieve happiness, etc.
> All of these reasons for divorce point fingers at men for not making women
> feel good about themselves.

That was pretty much the way it was with me too. My ex now is married
to another man, and I AM curious about whether she is any happier. From
what my daughter tells me about my ex's current husband, I doubt it.

However, I found out when I was married to her that my ex had a strong
visceral instinct for the strength of her negotiating position, and that
was the determining factor in how she behaved. She's more than 10 years
older than when she decided she wanted a divorce from me, and she was
too old to have more children when she remarried. So I expect her
negotiating position vis-a-vis her current husband is much weaker than
it was with me. And there's nothing like the absence of alternatives to
make someone decide to be happy with what they've got!

[Kenneth S.]

One-legged lesbian women have a special status with ME, TeacherMama. I
haven't yet dated one, and so I have a special personal affirmative
action program going for them.

And I happen to know that any one-legged lesbian women who are ALSO
African-American or Hispanic are immediately awarded magna cum laude
degrees from the University of Michigan, without even having to take the
exams.


TeacherMama wrote:
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Exactly, Kenneth.
> >
> > >I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
> > >people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
> > >until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.
> > >
> > > The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic relations
> > >law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
> > >Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups in
> > >the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people, embracing
> > >all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians,
>
> Wow!! I was not aware that one-legged lesbians had an official
> minority-status group of their own!! I learn something new every day!!
>
> but certainly
> > >EXCLUDING heterosexual men.
>
> And that, unfortunately, is true.
>
> > >
> > > So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via no-fault
> > >divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man that
> > >she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to stay
> > >home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
> > >made her do it.
>
> That is why I only consider a long-term SAH situation to be one that,
> perhaps, needs attention. And I don't believe, any more that you do, that
> hubby made her to it.
>
> And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
> > >the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
> > >her husband.
>
> If a SAH wants to break up the family to go find herself--let her do it at
> her own expense. Unless there is something going on that would harm her or
> the children, or unless hubby is boffing his new secretary. But, then ,
> we're back to "fault", aren't we? And we jsut don't do that these days!!
>
> >
> > And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for, there's
> no
> > investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if she'd
> > stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But she
> always
> > has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.
>
> Geesh, Mel!! Where do you come up with this stuff!!

[Tiffany]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Dave wrote:
> >
> > >"Indyguy1" wrote
> > >> IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
> > >> our society even more throwaway driven.
> > >
> > >I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the
> attitude
> > >"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain why
> they're
> > >not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.
> >
> > I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of their
> marriage
> > but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again when
> they
> > remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than they
> were
> > the first time around.
> >
> > They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to or
> dont
> > want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.
>
> That's exactly why my ex filed for divorce. She was not happy. She
> believed it is the husband's role to make his wife happy. And since I was
> not making her happy, it was my fault. When I tried to explain happiness
> comes from within and is based on how a person feels about themselves, and
> all I could do was help create an environment that would foster happiness,
> she told me I was wrong.
>
> Every list you see that shows the top reasons for initiating divorce
> includes this same theme. Women file for divorce because they feel they
are
> not being fulfilled, feel like they need to find themselves, feel like
they
> are growing apart from their spouse, feel a need to achieve happiness,
etc.
> All of these reasons for divorce point fingers at men for not making women
> feel good about themselves.
>
>

I wonder how many of those that divorce for that reason are SAHM's? Just
thinking, the lack of career, a life outside the home.... I sure would be
unhappy. So, thats why I wouldn't do it. lol

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> > rthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > The Dave wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Indyguy1" wrote
> > > > >> IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
> > > > >> our society even more throwaway driven.
> > > > >
> > > > >I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the
> > > attitude
> > > > >"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain
why
> > > they're
> > > > >not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.
> > > >
> > > > I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of
their
> > > marriage
> > > > but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again
> when
> > > they
> > > > remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than
> they
> > > were
> > > > the first time around.
> > > >
> > > > They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to
or
> > > dont
> > > > want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.
> > >
> > > That's exactly why my ex filed for divorce. She was not happy. She
> > > believed it is the husband's role to make his wife happy. And since I
> was
> > > not making her happy, it was my fault. When I tried to explain
> happiness
> > > comes from within and is based on how a person feels about themselves,
> and
> > > all I could do was help create an environment that would foster
> happiness,
> > > she told me I was wrong.
> > >
> > > Every list you see that shows the top reasons for initiating divorce
> > > includes this same theme. Women file for divorce because they feel
they
> > are
> > > not being fulfilled, feel like they need to find themselves, feel like
> > they
> > > are growing apart from their spouse, feel a need to achieve happiness,
> > etc.
> > > All of these reasons for divorce point fingers at men for not making
> women
> > > feel good about themselves.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I wonder how many of those that divorce for that reason are SAHM's? Just
> > thinking, the lack of career, a life outside the home.... I sure would
be
> > unhappy. So, thats why I wouldn't do it. lol
>
> The general assumption being presented in these discussions is women are
> somehow oppressed by being relegated to being SAHM's.

Oppressed? I don't recall saying that. I don't recall reading that. What I
say being said is that when SAHM's in a long term marriage find themselves
having to become a part of the job market again they are at a distinct
disadvantage compared to the wage earner. Since the two of them together
arrived at where they are when divorce rears its ugly head, one should not
lose what they both worked together to gain simply beause her role was not
the one that earned money.

Not one of the women
> who argue that perspective acknowledge that women get some sense of
> satisfaction out of being a SAHM and actually enjoy it.

We weren't discussing whether or not either partner enjoyed the role they
had decided together to fulfill in the marriage.

They ignore the
> fact women like to stay home, be homemakers, and not have to work.

SAHs do work, Bob.


Yet
> research shows that women who are SAHM's and married to corporate
executives
> are the most satisfied group of all married women.
>
>

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I prefer reality...
> > >
> > > >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> And therefore....
> > > >>
> > > >> >Mel wrote:
> > > >
> > > ><snip>
> > > >
> > > >> >>>Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable
> > > >lifestyle.
> > > >> >You
> > > >> >>>build it together you should split it together. Neither will
have
> > > >exactly
> > > >> >>the
> > > >> >>>same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one
shouldn't
> be
> > > >> >>flipping
> > > >> >>>burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the
> > burgers
> > > >would
> > > >> >>have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had
> > never
> > > >> >taken
> > > >> >>place. Prove it.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage
> > earner
> > > >would
> > > >> >be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH
> > spouse
> > > >at
> > > >> >home
> > > >> >raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of
> > everything
> > > >with
> > > >> >the exception of earning the money.
> > > >>
> > > >> that she would be earning some magical amount if she hadn't been a
> SAH
> > is
> > > >built
> > > >> of hoooey. You remain true to form.
> > > >
> > > >So you prefer to believe that every SAH parent would likely have been
> > > >earning minimum wage even after 20 years in the work force, Mel? Is
> > there
> > > >no position between "She would have been earning as much as her ex"
and
> > "She
> > > >would have been earning minimum wage"?
> > >
> > > which is that we'll never know. How can anybody reasonably say that
> when
> > Hugh
> > > Hefner marries a 20-year-old waitress from one of his clubs and
divorces
> > her 20
> > > years later when he's 90 and she's 40, that the $2 million per year
that
> > she
> > > gets in spousal support is to make up for the "earning power" that she
> > would
> > > have had if she had continued as a waitress at the club for another 20
> > years?
> > > Maybe she would have worked up to head waitress. Maybe she'd have
> worked
> > all
> > > the way up to club manager, but I don't think the person managing a
> > Playboy
> > > club is pulling $2 million per year.
> > >
> > > And maybe she'd have fallen for a truck driver the next year, quit the
> > club to
> > > go have 5 kids and be a SAH for them on his 25K income.....why do we
> have
> > to
> > > put her into the first "maybe" future" instead of the second? Why do
we
> > have
> > > to assume that she "suffered" for being Hugh's SAH instead of assuming
> she
> > > avoided the misery of being the trucker's wife?
> >
> > So, honestly, Mel, you really think it is ok that a SAH be forced to
move
> > from a 4 bedroom house to a one bedroom apartment and work 2 jobs to
> support
> > her children the 50% of the time she has them?
>
> This is what is called setting up a false premise to frame an argument.
The
> more typical scenario is the SAHM is awarded the family home, and then
gets
> alimony to help her be able to afford to keep the house. The court would
> rule the ex-husband has to pay her alimony so she can maintain her
previous
> lifesyle.

This whole discussion started based on the premise that a solution to the
system today would be 50-50 custody, equal division of assets, everyone goes
their own way. So they wouldn't be receiving the marital house.

I've already stated several times that, in today's system, SAHs are in
pretty good shape.


> The arguments that women will be left "high and dry" are based on poster's
> personal concerns for maintaining their status quo versus how judges
> actually rule.

I've also not said anything about maintianing the status quo--not even a
possibility considering a divorce sahtters the stauts quo. And I'm not a
SAHM, except during the summer when school is out.
>
>

[TeacherMama]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> One-legged lesbian women have a special status with ME, TeacherMama. I
> haven't yet dated one, and so I have a special personal affirmative
> action program going for them.
>
> And I happen to know that any one-legged lesbian women who are ALSO
> African-American or Hispanic are immediately awarded magna cum laude
> degrees from the University of Michigan, without even having to take the
> exams.

Wow!! Sounds like the chance of a lifetime!! And I don't fit inot any of
the categories!! (Well, the "women" category, but none of the subcategories
of the "women" category) Bummer!!

>
>
> TeacherMama wrote:
> >
> > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Exactly, Kenneth.
> > >
> > > >I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
> > > >people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
> > > >until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.
> > > >
> > > > The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic
relations
> > > >law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
> > > >Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups
in
> > > >the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people,
embracing
> > > >all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians,
> >
> > Wow!! I was not aware that one-legged lesbians had an official
> > minority-status group of their own!! I learn something new every day!!
> >
> > but certainly
> > > >EXCLUDING heterosexual men.
> >
> > And that, unfortunately, is true.
> >
> > > >
> > > > So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via
no-fault
> > > >divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man
that
> > > >she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to
stay
> > > >home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
> > > >made her do it.
> >
> > That is why I only consider a long-term SAH situation to be one that,
> > perhaps, needs attention. And I don't believe, any more that you do,
that
> > hubby made her to it.
> >
> > And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
> > > >the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
> > > >her husband.
> >
> > If a SAH wants to break up the family to go find herself--let her do it
at
> > her own expense. Unless there is something going on that would harm her
or
> > the children, or unless hubby is boffing his new secretary. But, then ,
> > we're back to "fault", aren't we? And we jsut don't do that these
days!!
> >
> > >
> > > And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for,
there's
> > no
> > > investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if
she'd
> > > stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But
she
> > always
> > > has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.
> >
> > Geesh, Mel!! Where do you come up with this stuff!!

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > One-legged lesbian women have a special status with ME, TeacherMama. I
> > haven't yet dated one, and so I have a special personal affirmative
> > action program going for them.
> >
> > And I happen to know that any one-legged lesbian women who are ALSO
> > African-American or Hispanic are immediately awarded magna cum laude
> > degrees from the University of Michigan, without even having to take the
> > exams.
>
> Wow!! Sounds like the chance of a lifetime!! And I don't fit inot any of
> the categories!! (Well, the "women" category, but none of the
subcategories
> of the "women" category) Bummer!!

Just tell everyone who asks you are an undocumented foreign national who is
conflicted with their status as a pre-op transsexual and deep personal need
to gain acceptance for alternative lifestyle choices and an alternative
immigration status while trying to establish self-esteem by becoming a
diverse voter in the next election. You'll fit right in!

[Max Burke]

> Indyguy1 scribbled:

>> Max 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.
>>>>> Phil #3

>>>> 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.

>>> TM wrote:
>>> No, Kenneth, that's not what's being said.

>> That is EXACTLY what's being said by you and indyguy, and others.....

> Huh? I never said, and don't generally feel, women are victims of
> men.

See your comments below.....

> I also don't feel doing what is mutually agreeed on between a
> couple during a marriage, to be an immature choice.

Claiming that one party who decides to be the SAH needs 'protection'
from those choices is where the immaturity comes in......

> Actually *I* feel
> an immature choice would be to marry and then not compromise or take
> one's partners wishes into consideration.

ROTFLOL:
Sure; And as we all know that never happens when the majority of *women*
say why they wanted a divorce....

> It seems that what you are saying here is that even if BOTH want one
> to be a SAH in the event that things don't work out it is only the
> one that became the SAH that should shoulder any and all of the
> consequences. To me that is immature and selfish thinking.

Strawaman. Oh and BS as well......
The Immaturity and selfishness in this debate is those of you that say
The SAH needs 'protection' from the consequences of the choice they
made to BE THE SAH.

>>> 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.

>> *INCLUDING* the one who chose to be the SAH.
>> But your argument is that they shouldn't have to take the
>> consequences
>> of that choice and insist that the other party (you know the one
>> chose
>> to work to support the SAH in the marriage) has to 'compensate' the
>> SAH
>> for their *MUTUAL DECISION* about their roles in the marriage.....
>> Then when it's asked what does the SAH have to do to 'compensate' the
>> one who chose to work you immediately start whining and bitching that
>> it's all about money and it's sad that things have to be that
>> way!!!!!

> Hold on. The SAH already got a good portion of their consequences
> during the marriage while being a SAH. They gave up their prime
> earning years and all that comes with those earning years. Those are
> things no amount of money can ever fully compensate for.

There you go. You have just proved Kenneth's point......

That 'argument' cuts both ways.....
The working partner already got a good portion of their consequences
during the marriage by giving up quality time with their children; That
is something that no amount of money or having to support the SAH post
divorce can EVER compensate for......

But when both make mutually agreed choices on what their roles are to be
in the marriage BOTH are (or should be) aware of the consequences of the
mutual agreement. Whining and bitching after the divorce that either
shouldn't have to face those consequences and they deserve to be
compensated for choices willingly made is just being immature and
selfish.

> The wage earning spouse got the benefits from the SAH status of their
> spouse.

And the SAH got the benefit of being able to spend time with the
children in the home because the working spouse provided the income for
them to live on.....

> THEN if the marriage ends YOU still want the SAH to suffer
> the aftermath consequences alone.

More BS, and a strawman assertion....
You, on the other hand, want the working partner to suffer their
consequences alone......

> So you tell me at what point should the wage earning partner have to
> shoulder ANY of the consequences, seeing as they don't during the
> marriage and you don't feel they should have to after the marriage
> ends?

At the point they realise being a working parent means they have to give
up what the SAH has; You know giving up being able to spend most of
their time with their own children by working to provide for those
children. That consequence starts right from the birth day of each and
every child.

>>> 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!?

>> Then why should the one who chose to work be left 'holding the bag'
>> for the SAH's lack of marketable skills after the marriage ends?

> They aren't holding that bag alone. They both loose out. The SAH is
> the one that takes the greater hit, IMHO.

So you dont think giving up spending time with your growing children is
all that important? That it's no where near as much a sacrifice as
giving up a career to care for your children is? You know, like ALL
SAH's do?

> LT marriages that end leave
> SAH's not only with no income but usually at an less marketable age.

They have their half of the marital assets; They can earn income by
working at whatever work is available to them, *including* flipping
burgers, answering phones, or being a checkout operator at the local
supermarket.

> My H's cousins ex works midnights at a casino, as a cage teller.
> She's 57 years old. She was a well paid legal secy before she
> married. But her skills are so outdated no one would even see her for
> an interview for that type of position.

Well gee why didn't she keep up her skills while married by doing part
time work, contract work in her ' chosen profession? Even better why
didn't she 'go back to school' and enhance her legal skills......

If SAH's make NO EFFORT to keep up their career skills while married,
then they have NO right to demand that option of their ex once they are
divorced.
And dont say they cant do that while married; The opportunities to do
that are their and always have been.....

> Her ex made her life a living
> hell any time she showed interest in seeking employment during the
> marriage, she bowed to his wishes because she loved him and wanted
> him to be happy. But when he was done with her he figured, like you
> apparently do, she should stop leaching off of him and take care of
> herself.

Why *shouldn't she?

>> FOR ****S SAKE NO ONE should be left holding the bag!

> That's right. They created that bag together for many years and they
> should BOTH still be holding it if the marriage ends.

Then stop claiming one has to compensate the other for holding the
bag.......

> The things a SAH gives up are far more precious than just the cash.

Here we go again.....

The things the working partner gives up are ALSO far more precious than
working full time. You know like spending time with the children when
they're growing up.

> No amount of money can make up for the lost years of experience and
> advancement.

No amount of money can make up for the lost years of experiencing your
children growing up that the working partner sacrifices.

> But the cash is the necessary element to live.

Then get a job at MacDonald's, or the local supermarket; Go to night
school.......

>> When the divorce happens both get an equal share of the *marital
>> assets*, after that neither should be obligated to continue providing
>> the kind of support that they did before the breakup.

> Oh sure, like most wage earners pay enough in support to keep the SAH
> in the exact same SOL they had during the marriage. (major eye roll)

Of course they dont; Neither should they have to.
The marriage is OVER.
SAH's should not expect the SOL they had during the marriage carries on
after the divorce just because they chose to be the SAH.....


> But I do understand you train of thought. Here it is in a nut shell,
> correct me if I am wrong......

> For SAHs:
> Anyone who agrees with their partner to be a SAH has made an immature
> choice.

BS.
Strawman.

> If their marriage ends they alone should face the financial
> consequences.

BS.
Strawman.

> A SAHs contributions to the family hold little value to
> the wage earner

BS.
Strawman.

> and the losses the SAH reap from the agreed upon
> status are theirs alone to shoulder.

What losses? When they chose to BE an SAH they knew what that involved.
Whining and bitching when the divorce happens twenty years later that
they didn't expect that, or understand what being an SAH meant to their
'earning potential' in the job market is just being immature, selfish,
and *stupid.*

> For Wage Earners:
> All they earn is theirs and theirs alone.

BS.
Strawman.
During the marriage it is the *shared income* of both, because that is
what the wage earner AND the SAH agreed to.

> They didn't hold a *real*
> gun to their spouses head and force them to be a SAH

They dont hold *any type of 'gun'* It's a *mutually agreed upon
decision of BOTH parties remember.....

> so, wage earners
> should not be held responsible for choices they agreed upon during
> their marriage.

BS.
Strawman.

Wage earners are responsible for their choices *while the marriage
still exists"
Once the marriage has ended then no they're not, because the marriage
contract and the choices made on the basis of that contract no longer
exist.
That is why I see no need for the SAH to continue to provide to the wage
earner after the divorce what they provided while the marriage still
existed, any more than the wage earner has to continue provide to the
SAH after the divorce what they provided while the marriage existed.

> Because the agreement was the wage earner would
> remain working outside the home and their partner wouldn't,

BS.

> they get
> to walk away with the only ability to earn at the level they BOTH
> agreed to and established during a LT marriage.

Well gee they have been working to support the SAH while married to the
SAH. That was the mutually agreed choice of BOTH parties. Once those
choices are made 'null and void' by a divorce there is no need for the
wage earner to continue to support the SAH. The marriage is OVER!

> I hope the next gerneration of couples will look very different than
> what we have seen in the past.
> I'd see this as a good thing for BOTH
> men and women. Women will retain their careers and men will end up
> doing 50% of the child rearing, home duties and take their share of
> career set backs for doing so, like women have been expected to do in
> the past.

ROTFLOL
You make it sound like child rearing and housekeeping is a bad thing to
do with your life......

> WHEN this happens then yeah, what each earns will be theirs
> to keep, in the event of a divorce. If the playing field is level all
> along then it will be level in the end.

Then explain why YOU want such an uneven playing field NOW that favours
the SAH.....

> But there is an added bonus for the men. If they are infact doing 50%
> of the child rearing then 50/50 shared custody will be more the norm.
> And that's what most men want any way, right? So they won't mind
> actually doing it during the marriage. They will be thrilled they
> get to clean up the projectile vommit at 3am when the kids are sick.
> They will relish leaving work early to sit in the Dr's office and
> wait 2 hours with a crying sick child. They will be ecstatic not to
> take the clients out for cocktails after work, because they have to
> bake cupcakes and run the cake walk at the pre-school. Not seeing the
> big game won't be missed because they'll be all warm and fuzzy at the
> mall getting Jr the new shoes he needs for Monday.
> SIGH... I can see it now. Men all over the country doing their 50% at
> home and being so very happy they don't have to pay their lazy SAH
> spouse one red cent if they divorce. I just get chills thinking about
> it. ;)

Does Dad Do Housework? Barriers to His Participation
By Steve Duncan
MSU Extension Service

07/27/01 BOZEMAN - No one at my home likes to do housework. We follow
the Erma Bombeck adage: Housework, if done properly, can kill you. We
have framed this statement and placed it in our family room--the scene
of the greatest household destruction.

Studies confirm what wives and mothers have always known--they get
saddled with most of the housework. Even when both husbands and wives
work outside the home, domestic duties are not divided equally. Research
going back three decades shows small increases in men's participation in
domestic activity, but most of the increases have been in childcare.

Findings from a new study likewise won't surprise most wives and
mothers--doing most of the housework is depressing. Based on responses
of 581 men and 608 women surveyed in 1990 and 1994, doing most of the
housework leads to anxiety, discouragement, depression and worry.

The study's author, Chloe Bird, a professor of community health and
sociology at Brown University, hastens to add that her study is "not
about household labour making people suicidal." However, a lack of
shared
responsibility increases a woman's feelings of inequity, and inequity
and the psychological distress it causes can harm intimate
relationships.

Are men the problem here? A number of studies show that men really want
to increase their involvement in caring for the home and the kids. While
the finger of blame is often pointed at men (and sometimes justifiably
so) there is also another side of the story.

New research of 622 dual-earner mothers suggests that women may actually
be inhibiting the more equitable distribution of housework they seek.
Sarah Allen and Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University and authors of
the study call this process "maternal gatekeeping."

Maternal gatekeeping is a collection of beliefs and behaviours that
inhibit a collaborative effort between men and women on household tasks
and child care. It shows itself in families in at least three ways.

First, a mother may set rigid housekeeping standards. This standard
setting may actually reflect her reluctance to relinquish responsibility
for household chores. She may respond to her husband's involvement in
unsupportive ways, such as by "criticizing, redoing or demeaning her
husband's efforts because he did not do it her way," despite the fact
that he did the job just fine.

Second, a mother may largely base her self-perception and identity on
how she thinks others view her housekeeping and mothering. She may view
equal partnership with her husband in housekeeping and childcare as a
threat to her self-respect and self-identity as a woman. Mothers with
these beliefs who then share the housekeeping role equally with their
husbands may experience guilt, regret and ambivalence, and may feel they
are neglecting their motherly role.

Third, a mother may have beliefs about what moms and dads should and
should not do in the home. Mothers who believe that housekeeping is
primarily "women's work" may be more hesitant to share that role. They
may do more monitoring and managing of their husband's efforts, to their
husband's consternation.

The study found that the mothers classified as "gatekeepers"--those who
scored high on a material gatekeeping measure-- did 5 more hours of
family work per week and had a less equal division of labour than
mothers
classified as "collaborators"---those who scored lowest on the measure.
In this study, 21 percent of the mothers were gatekeepers, similar to
what others have found.

If you are a wife and mother and have been frustrated by what seems to
be your husband's (or children's) reluctance to share responsibility for
household tasks, you might benefit from considering how well the
following items describe you. These items were adapted from the Allen
and Hawkins study.

I frequently redo some household tasks my husband hasn't done
well.

It's too hard to teach family members the skills necessary to do
the jobs right, so I'd rather do them myself.

My husband doesn't really know how to do a lot of the household
chores...so it's just easier if I do them.

I have higher standards than my husband for how well cared for the
house should be.

I like being in charge when it comes to domestic responsibilities.

If visitors dropped by unexpectedly and my house was a mess, I
would be embarrassed.

When my children look well groomed in public, I feel extra proud
of them.

I believe that people make judgments about how good a wife/mother
I am based on how well cared for my house and kids are.

I care about what my neighbours, extended family and friends think
about the way I perform my household tasks.

I believe that most women enjoy caring for their homes, and men
just don't like that stuff.

I believe that for a lot of reasons, it's harder for men than for
women to do housework and child care

If these items sound very much like you, you may indeed be a gatekeeper.
If you desire to change or reduce your gatekeeping tendencies, one
strategy would be to meet with your husband (and children, where
appropriate), make a detailed list of all the household chores and
decide on your own arrangement for sharing housework. Then let go.
Otherwise, you may need to simply get used to doing most of the work.
http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/home/42199fam.html




# Why should men commit to marriage when women are so unwilling to show
commitment OF marriage to the men they DO marry.....


--

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

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > One-legged lesbian women have a special status with ME, TeacherMama. I
> > > haven't yet dated one, and so I have a special personal affirmative
> > > action program going for them.
> > >
> > > And I happen to know that any one-legged lesbian women who are ALSO
> > > African-American or Hispanic are immediately awarded magna cum laude
> > > degrees from the University of Michigan, without even having to take the
> > > exams.
> >
> > Wow!! Sounds like the chance of a lifetime!! And I don't fit inot any of
> > the categories!! (Well, the "women" category, but none of the
> subcategories
> > of the "women" category) Bummer!!
>
> Just tell everyone who asks you are an undocumented foreign national who is
> conflicted with their status as a pre-op transsexual and deep personal need
> to gain acceptance for alternative lifestyle choices and an alternative
> immigration status while trying to establish self-esteem by becoming a
> diverse voter in the next election. You'll fit right in!

Oh, and be sure to get one of those certificates that Mexican
consulates in the U.S. are now making available to let everyone know
that, although you sneaked over the border, you're a good person, and
should get a drivers' license, etc. That should help, when you show it
to the admissions people at the University of Michigan.

[Tiffany]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> > rthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > The Dave wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Indyguy1" wrote
> > > > >> IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
> > > > >> our society even more throwaway driven.
> > > > >
> > > > >I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the
> > > attitude
> > > > >"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain
why
> > > they're
> > > > >not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.
> > > >
> > > > I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of
their
> > > marriage
> > > > but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again
> when
> > > they
> > > > remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than
> they
> > > were
> > > > the first time around.
> > > >
> > > > They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to
or
> > > dont
> > > > want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.
> > >
> > > That's exactly why my ex filed for divorce. She was not happy. She
> > > believed it is the husband's role to make his wife happy. And since I
> was
> > > not making her happy, it was my fault. When I tried to explain
> happiness
> > > comes from within and is based on how a person feels about themselves,
> and
> > > all I could do was help create an environment that would foster
> happiness,
> > > she told me I was wrong.
> > >
> > > Every list you see that shows the top reasons for initiating divorce
> > > includes this same theme. Women file for divorce because they feel
they
> > are
> > > not being fulfilled, feel like they need to find themselves, feel like
> > they
> > > are growing apart from their spouse, feel a need to achieve happiness,
> > etc.
> > > All of these reasons for divorce point fingers at men for not making
> women
> > > feel good about themselves.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I wonder how many of those that divorce for that reason are SAHM's? Just
> > thinking, the lack of career, a life outside the home.... I sure would
be
> > unhappy. So, thats why I wouldn't do it. lol
>
> The general assumption being presented in these discussions is women are
> somehow oppressed by being relegated to being SAHM's. Not one of the
women
> who argue that perspective acknowledge that women get some sense of
> satisfaction out of being a SAHM and actually enjoy it. They ignore the
> fact women like to stay home, be homemakers, and not have to work. Yet
> research shows that women who are SAHM's and married to corporate
executives
> are the most satisfied group of all married women.
>
>

You know.... there is always 'research' or 'statitics' but that doesn't
always make it truth. Especially if that research is done by the government.

[Tiffany]

Max Burke > wrote in message
...
> > Indyguy1 scribbled:
>
> >> Max wrote:
>


Snipped

>
> Does Dad Do Housework? Barriers to His Participation
> By Steve Duncan
> MSU Extension Service
>
> 07/27/01 BOZEMAN - No one at my home likes to do housework. We follow
> the Erma Bombeck adage: Housework, if done properly, can kill you. We
> have framed this statement and placed it in our family room--the scene
> of the greatest household destruction.
>
> Studies confirm what wives and mothers have always known--they get
> saddled with most of the housework. Even when both husbands and wives
> work outside the home, domestic duties are not divided equally. Research
> going back three decades shows small increases in men's participation in
> domestic activity, but most of the increases have been in childcare.
>
> Findings from a new study likewise won't surprise most wives and
> mothers--doing most of the housework is depressing. Based on responses
> of 581 men and 608 women surveyed in 1990 and 1994, doing most of the
> housework leads to anxiety, discouragement, depression and worry.
>
> The study's author, Chloe Bird, a professor of community health and
> sociology at Brown University, hastens to add that her study is "not
> about household labour making people suicidal." However, a lack of
> shared
> responsibility increases a woman's feelings of inequity, and inequity
> and the psychological distress it causes can harm intimate
> relationships.
>
> Are men the problem here? A number of studies show that men really want
> to increase their involvement in caring for the home and the kids. While
> the finger of blame is often pointed at men (and sometimes justifiably
> so) there is also another side of the story.
>
> New research of 622 dual-earner mothers suggests that women may actually
> be inhibiting the more equitable distribution of housework they seek.
> Sarah Allen and Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University and authors of
> the study call this process "maternal gatekeeping."
>
> Maternal gatekeeping is a collection of beliefs and behaviours that
> inhibit a collaborative effort between men and women on household tasks
> and child care. It shows itself in families in at least three ways.
>
> First, a mother may set rigid housekeeping standards. This standard
> setting may actually reflect her reluctance to relinquish responsibility
> for household chores. She may respond to her husband's involvement in
> unsupportive ways, such as by "criticizing, redoing or demeaning her
> husband's efforts because he did not do it her way," despite the fact
> that he did the job just fine.
>
> Second, a mother may largely base her self-perception and identity on
> how she thinks others view her housekeeping and mothering. She may view
> equal partnership with her husband in housekeeping and childcare as a
> threat to her self-respect and self-identity as a woman. Mothers with
> these beliefs who then share the housekeeping role equally with their
> husbands may experience guilt, regret and ambivalence, and may feel they
> are neglecting their motherly role.
>
> Third, a mother may have beliefs about what moms and dads should and
> should not do in the home. Mothers who believe that housekeeping is
> primarily "women's work" may be more hesitant to share that role. They
> may do more monitoring and managing of their husband's efforts, to their
> husband's consternation.
>
> The study found that the mothers classified as "gatekeepers"--those who
> scored high on a material gatekeeping measure-- did 5 more hours of
> family work per week and had a less equal division of labour than
> mothers
> classified as "collaborators"---those who scored lowest on the measure.
> In this study, 21 percent of the mothers were gatekeepers, similar to
> what others have found.
>
> If you are a wife and mother and have been frustrated by what seems to
> be your husband's (or children's) reluctance to share responsibility for
> household tasks, you might benefit from considering how well the
> following items describe you. These items were adapted from the Allen
> and Hawkins study.
>
> I frequently redo some household tasks my husband hasn't done
> well.
>
> It's too hard to teach family members the skills necessary to do
> the jobs right, so I'd rather do them myself.
>
> My husband doesn't really know how to do a lot of the household
> chores...so it's just easier if I do them.
>
> I have higher standards than my husband for how well cared for the
> house should be.
>
> I like being in charge when it comes to domestic responsibilities.
>
> If visitors dropped by unexpectedly and my house was a mess, I
> would be embarrassed.
>
> When my children look well groomed in public, I feel extra proud
> of them.
>
> I believe that people make judgments about how good a wife/mother
> I am based on how well cared for my house and kids are.
>
> I care about what my neighbours, extended family and friends think
> about the way I perform my household tasks.
>
> I believe that most women enjoy caring for their homes, and men
> just don't like that stuff.
>
> I believe that for a lot of reasons, it's harder for men than for
> women to do housework and child care
>
> If these items sound very much like you, you may indeed be a gatekeeper.
> If you desire to change or reduce your gatekeeping tendencies, one
> strategy would be to meet with your husband (and children, where
> appropriate), make a detailed list of all the household chores and
> decide on your own arrangement for sharing housework. Then let go.
> Otherwise, you may need to simply get used to doing most of the work.
> http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/home/42199fam.html
>
>
>
>

So I wonder about how men feel about women who do 'their' chores..... yard
work for example. I would bet my last penny that men are NOT satisfied with
the way their wives do those types of chores. It is just human nature, in a
sense. But to use housework as an excuse for anxiety, depression.... that is
a crock of ****. Interesting article though, as I see that type of behavior
with my Mom who always complains that her husband doesn't help around the
house but then he does and she bitches its not good enough. I watch that
carefully with my daughter. Yes, she could do the chores much better then
she does but hey, everything takes practice. So I will continue to let her
practice. lol

[TeacherMama]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Max Burke > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Indyguy1 scribbled:
> >
> > >> Max wrote:
> >
>
>
> Snipped
>
> >
> > Does Dad Do Housework? Barriers to His Participation
> > By Steve Duncan
> > MSU Extension Service
> >
> > 07/27/01 BOZEMAN - No one at my home likes to do housework. We follow
> > the Erma Bombeck adage: Housework, if done properly, can kill you. We
> > have framed this statement and placed it in our family room--the scene
> > of the greatest household destruction.
> >
> > Studies confirm what wives and mothers have always known--they get
> > saddled with most of the housework. Even when both husbands and wives
> > work outside the home, domestic duties are not divided equally. Research
> > going back three decades shows small increases in men's participation in
> > domestic activity, but most of the increases have been in childcare.
> >
> > Findings from a new study likewise won't surprise most wives and
> > mothers--doing most of the housework is depressing. Based on responses
> > of 581 men and 608 women surveyed in 1990 and 1994, doing most of the
> > housework leads to anxiety, discouragement, depression and worry.
> >
> > The study's author, Chloe Bird, a professor of community health and
> > sociology at Brown University, hastens to add that her study is "not
> > about household labour making people suicidal." However, a lack of
> > shared
> > responsibility increases a woman's feelings of inequity, and inequity
> > and the psychological distress it causes can harm intimate
> > relationships.
> >
> > Are men the problem here? A number of studies show that men really want
> > to increase their involvement in caring for the home and the kids. While
> > the finger of blame is often pointed at men (and sometimes justifiably
> > so) there is also another side of the story.
> >
> > New research of 622 dual-earner mothers suggests that women may actually
> > be inhibiting the more equitable distribution of housework they seek.
> > Sarah Allen and Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University and authors of
> > the study call this process "maternal gatekeeping."
> >
> > Maternal gatekeeping is a collection of beliefs and behaviours that
> > inhibit a collaborative effort between men and women on household tasks
> > and child care. It shows itself in families in at least three ways.
> >
> > First, a mother may set rigid housekeeping standards. This standard
> > setting may actually reflect her reluctance to relinquish responsibility
> > for household chores. She may respond to her husband's involvement in
> > unsupportive ways, such as by "criticizing, redoing or demeaning her
> > husband's efforts because he did not do it her way," despite the fact
> > that he did the job just fine.
> >
> > Second, a mother may largely base her self-perception and identity on
> > how she thinks others view her housekeeping and mothering. She may view
> > equal partnership with her husband in housekeeping and childcare as a
> > threat to her self-respect and self-identity as a woman. Mothers with
> > these beliefs who then share the housekeeping role equally with their
> > husbands may experience guilt, regret and ambivalence, and may feel they
> > are neglecting their motherly role.
> >
> > Third, a mother may have beliefs about what moms and dads should and
> > should not do in the home. Mothers who believe that housekeeping is
> > primarily "women's work" may be more hesitant to share that role. They
> > may do more monitoring and managing of their husband's efforts, to their
> > husband's consternation.
> >
> > The study found that the mothers classified as "gatekeepers"--those who
> > scored high on a material gatekeeping measure-- did 5 more hours of
> > family work per week and had a less equal division of labour than
> > mothers
> > classified as "collaborators"---those who scored lowest on the measure.
> > In this study, 21 percent of the mothers were gatekeepers, similar to
> > what others have found.
> >
> > If you are a wife and mother and have been frustrated by what seems to
> > be your husband's (or children's) reluctance to share responsibility for
> > household tasks, you might benefit from considering how well the
> > following items describe you. These items were adapted from the Allen
> > and Hawkins study.
> >
> > I frequently redo some household tasks my husband hasn't done
> > well.
> >
> > It's too hard to teach family members the skills necessary to do
> > the jobs right, so I'd rather do them myself.
> >
> > My husband doesn't really know how to do a lot of the household
> > chores...so it's just easier if I do them.
> >
> > I have higher standards than my husband for how well cared for the
> > house should be.
> >
> > I like being in charge when it comes to domestic responsibilities.
> >
> > If visitors dropped by unexpectedly and my house was a mess, I
> > would be embarrassed.
> >
> > When my children look well groomed in public, I feel extra proud
> > of them.
> >
> > I believe that people make judgments about how good a wife/mother
> > I am based on how well cared for my house and kids are.
> >
> > I care about what my neighbours, extended family and friends think
> > about the way I perform my household tasks.
> >
> > I believe that most women enjoy caring for their homes, and men
> > just don't like that stuff.
> >
> > I believe that for a lot of reasons, it's harder for men than for
> > women to do housework and child care
> >
> > If these items sound very much like you, you may indeed be a gatekeeper.
> > If you desire to change or reduce your gatekeeping tendencies, one
> > strategy would be to meet with your husband (and children, where
> > appropriate), make a detailed list of all the household chores and
> > decide on your own arrangement for sharing housework. Then let go.
> > Otherwise, you may need to simply get used to doing most of the work.
> > http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/home/42199fam.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> So I wonder about how men feel about women who do 'their' chores..... yard
> work for example. I would bet my last penny that men are NOT satisfied
with
> the way their wives do those types of chores. It is just human nature, in
a
> sense. But to use housework as an excuse for anxiety, depression.... that
is
> a crock of ****. Interesting article though, as I see that type of
behavior
> with my Mom who always complains that her husband doesn't help around the
> house but then he does and she bitches its not good enough. I watch that
> carefully with my daughter. Yes, she could do the chores much better then
> she does but hey, everything takes practice. So I will continue to let her
> practice. lol

I'm with you, Tiffany. My daughters can practice to their little hearts'
content!! <chuckle> And I have discovered that my dear husband is MUCH
better at mopping and vacuuming than I am!!

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...

> >
> > The general assumption being presented in these discussions is women are
> > somehow oppressed by being relegated to being SAHM's. Not one of the
> women
> > who argue that perspective acknowledge that women get some sense of
> > satisfaction out of being a SAHM and actually enjoy it. They ignore the
> > fact women like to stay home, be homemakers, and not have to work. Yet
> > research shows that women who are SAHM's and married to corporate
> executives
> > are the most satisfied group of all married women.
> >
> >
>
> You know.... there is always 'research' or 'statitics' but that doesn't
> always make it truth. Especially if that research is done by the
government.

Almost 70% of the wives of male executives do not hold paid jobs outside the
home. They get their incomes completely from their husbands. These women
oppose other women getting advantages at work because they threaten their
husbands' income and because those programs discount their contribution.
These women work hard to support their husband and support the company.
That is their job - to help their husband advance. (These findings were the
result of research done at the University of Michigan Graduate School of
Business Administration, not the government.)

I believe that wives of executives (the Welch's), politicians (the
Clinton's), professional athletes (the Jordan's), and other high profile
earners stay with their husbands even when they are caught fooling around.
To leave would destroy the advantages these women get by being married to
these men.

[Tiffany]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > >
> > > The general assumption being presented in these discussions is women
are
> > > somehow oppressed by being relegated to being SAHM's. Not one of the
> > women
> > > who argue that perspective acknowledge that women get some sense of
> > > satisfaction out of being a SAHM and actually enjoy it. They ignore
the
> > > fact women like to stay home, be homemakers, and not have to work.
Yet
> > > research shows that women who are SAHM's and married to corporate
> > executives
> > > are the most satisfied group of all married women.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You know.... there is always 'research' or 'statitics' but that doesn't
> > always make it truth. Especially if that research is done by the
> government.
>
> Almost 70% of the wives of male executives do not hold paid jobs outside
the
> home. They get their incomes completely from their husbands. These women
> oppose other women getting advantages at work because they threaten their
> husbands' income and because those programs discount their contribution.
> These women work hard to support their husband and support the company.
> That is their job - to help their husband advance. (These findings were
the
> result of research done at the University of Michigan Graduate School of
> Business Administration, not the government.)
>
> I believe that wives of executives (the Welch's), politicians (the
> Clinton's), professional athletes (the Jordan's), and other high profile
> earners stay with their husbands even when they are caught fooling around.
> To leave would destroy the advantages these women get by being married to
> these men.
>
>

Its all about the money. lol

[Melissa hernandez]

hi. i'm wonderind if i could get some advice from you. i left my husband
with our 3yr. old son to another state because i was scared of him and
he filed for divorce and won custody of the son. I obtained a good
lawyer for 5000.00 and am awaiting court in the state i left to see if i
can get my rights back. This is an abusive man with aggravated assault
charges pending against him as we speak and he only wanted my son for
revenged against me for leaving him. I hope you can help me out some
way. I'm scared as hell about going to court which is next week and am
just wondering what you think my chances are.

[TeacherMama]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > One-legged lesbian women have a special status with ME, TeacherMama.
I
> > > > haven't yet dated one, and so I have a special personal affirmative
> > > > action program going for them.
> > > >
> > > > And I happen to know that any one-legged lesbian women who are ALSO
> > > > African-American or Hispanic are immediately awarded magna cum laude
> > > > degrees from the University of Michigan, without even having to take
the
> > > > exams.
> > >
> > > Wow!! Sounds like the chance of a lifetime!! And I don't fit inot
any of
> > > the categories!! (Well, the "women" category, but none of the
> > subcategories
> > > of the "women" category) Bummer!!
> >
> > Just tell everyone who asks you are an undocumented foreign national who
is
> > conflicted with their status as a pre-op transsexual and deep personal
need
> > to gain acceptance for alternative lifestyle choices and an alternative
> > immigration status while trying to establish self-esteem by becoming a
> > diverse voter in the next election. You'll fit right in!
>
> Oh, and be sure to get one of those certificates that Mexican
> consulates in the U.S. are now making available to let everyone know
> that, although you sneaked over the border, you're a good person, and
> should get a drivers' license, etc. That should help, when you show it
> to the admissions people at the University of Michigan.

That definitely sounds much easier than becoming a one-legged lesbian!!

[The Dave©]

"Tiffany" wrote
> Its all about the money. lol

Money is a VERY powerful motivator.

[Sunny]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:34:58 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> wrote:

>
>"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:35:13 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Why not tell your own kids what to do, and stay out of other people's kids'
>> >lives?
>>
>> Sometimes, bad parents put their child's emotional welfare at risk.
>> Like your children, for example. We tried to warn you, and now they
>> are screwed up beyond repair. Strangers on Usenet were more concerned
>> about your kids than you were.
>
>You're in a minority - my children are just fine, thanks for your concern :-)

That's not what I heard.

[Sunny]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:06:24 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> wrote:

>Do they get a paycheck while they're working their career? Do they get
>unemployment benefits in the case of a layoff? Do they get holidays off with
>pay? 2 weeks vacation per year, during which they do not have to do their
>career work? Do they get to clock out at 5, and stop working?

Do unemployed dads get to pay child support when they're laid off and
out of work? No! They get hauled into court by their nasty exes.

[Moon Shyne]

"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:34:58 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sunny" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:35:13 -0500, "Moon Shyne"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why not tell your own kids what to do, and stay out of other people's
kids'
> >> >lives?
> >>
> >> Sometimes, bad parents put their child's emotional welfare at risk.
> >> Like your children, for example. We tried to warn you, and now they
> >> are screwed up beyond repair. Strangers on Usenet were more concerned
> >> about your kids than you were.
> >
> >You're in a minority - my children are just fine, thanks for your concern
:-)
>
> That's not what I heard.

Fortunately, reality trumps the voices in your head any day of the week

(Watch, Mary will *have* to reply yet again, because she just can't help
herself)


>

[TeacherMama]

What does your lawyer say?

"Melissa hernandez" > wrote in message
...
> hi. i'm wonderind if i could get some advice from you. i left my husband
> with our 3yr. old son to another state because i was scared of him and
> he filed for divorce and won custody of the son. I obtained a good
> lawyer for 5000.00 and am awaiting court in the state i left to see if i
> can get my rights back. This is an abusive man with aggravated assault
> charges pending against him as we speak and he only wanted my son for
> revenged against me for leaving him. I hope you can help me out some
> way. I'm scared as hell about going to court which is next week and am
> just wondering what you think my chances are.
>

[Phil #3]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Phil#3 wrote:
>
> <Snip to>
>
> >So you know of no advantages for men to marry?
>
> I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are happier isn't
an
> advantage in your eyes?

Not at all. I'd rather die happy than live unhappy.

>
> Me neither, but I know of
> >MANY disadvantage
>
> Some women feel the same way.

I know, I am in a relationship with one who feels much the same way I do
about it and we're happy living apart, sharing what we want, when we want.
She has her life into which I don't intrude and try to bend her desires and
she returns the favor. We are both happy. Neither of us see the need to fix
what ain't broken.
Phil #3

>
> Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>

[Tiffany]

Phil #3 > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Dave© > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I suppose, unlike you all, I do know some happy married people. AND
> they
> > > > have been married for some time. I also know divorced folks that
> didn't
> > > end
> > > > up on the Jerry Springer show. They divorced, treat each other with
> > > dignity
> > > > and the kids have had no ill affects as they continued to be
parented
> by
> > > > both parents.
> > > > When you are surrounded by alot of the negative relationships, its
> easy
> > to
> > > > think the way you men are thinking. I guess it takes a certain type
of
> > > > individual to move past the bad and still believe in good.
> > > > I for one, was in an abusive relationship for a short time. Short,
> only
> > > > because I had enough sense to get out. Should I then assume all men
> are
> > > > abusive?
> > > >
> > > > T
> > >
> > > So you know of no advantages for men to marry? Me neither, but I know
of
> > > MANY disadvantages.
> > > Phil #3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Advantages being...... if being practical, insurance, financial, blah
> blah.
> > Mostly the advantage is..... and you can't disagree with this...... if
> you
> > are alone, you are LONELY, are you not?
>
> Oh, but you are entirely wrong. I have been "alone" for over a decade and
I
> wouldn't change it for the world.
> My best day married could not even compare with my worst day single.
> I rarely ever get a feeling of being "alone"; I got over that when I
> realized that I could not depend on my parents to pull me out of any type
of
> jam, financial or otherwise. I had to stand on *my* two feet and make
> decisions for my own life. I've made a lot of mistakes along the way and
the
> main one was believing I 'needed' someone to share my life with.
>
> >Being in a happy relationship is
> > good for the soul, for your health, ect.
>
> I disagree. I am happier alone than I every was married. I am calmer, more
> rational and much more at ease.
> I have never been 'sick', other than catching the flu or a cold every few
> years. I did have 3 minor operations, one was entirely voluntary
> (vasectomy).
>
> >Marriage is a sign of commitment.
>
> No, marriage is more akin to 'going steady' in middle school.
> With marriage 'contracts' being unworthy of the paper and ink it takes to
> write a license, I'd certainly not call it "commitment".
> With the current numbers of divorces, I'd say marriage is not only *not* a
> sign of commitment, calling something that has a near 50% chance of ending
> within 10 years "a commitment" is temporary insanity, at best.
>
> > If you see no advantage, then don't marry but by forcing your views on
> your
> > children, in the end they may end up missing out on a lifetime of
> happiness
> > with someone who truelly loves them. Yes, love.... remember that?
>
> I am no more "forcing" my views on my children any more than society is by
> portraying marriage as more normal or better than single.
> I simply want them to realize that marriage is not what it is portrayed to
> be. There is no "marriage contract", no "until death do us part", no
> "honor", "love" or anything else portrayed by marriage. It is simply a
legal
> undertaking, easily and quickly ended at the behest of either one even if
> there is no valid reason to end it. Both must choose to marry but it only
> takes one to divorce. By avoiding giving another the choice to control
their
> life, the life they make is entirely their own; happy or otherwise.
> You are assuming that marriage equals happiness. It doesn't. You seem to
> assume that marriage lasts a lifetime. They rarely do.
> Using today's standards, I would have to say "love" is a temporary
condition
> relieved by lack of money, tedium of contact and differing goals and
> viewpoints. Of course, my opinion of "love" is one where each consider the
> other's hapiness to be more important than their own. I don't see that
> happening much, if at all.
>
> >
> > I am not going to argue about marriage. I can understand why most here
> think
> > the way they do.
>
> No argument. I asked for an advantage but apparently there are none which
> was my original statement.
> I have everything I want (that I can afford) and do not have to fear being
> forced into giving it away just because someone else changed their mind.
>
> >
> > You didn't answer my question btw. Should I also assume all men are
> abusive?
>
> It was rhetorical and therefore deserved no answer but if you insist, my
> answer if "of course not because, by far, most men aren't".
> Phil #3
>
>
>
>

But I am sure (if I was so inclined) I could find statistics that would say
a large percentage of men are abusive. lol

I did tell you advantages to marriage. You just don't see it as advantages.
Can you honestly tell me you are not lonely at times? Or do you have a
female companion you lay down in the sack with time and again?

And since when is marriage portrayed as normal? For gods sake, when was the
last time you watched tv? Marriage is portrayed as a joke! Could be why the
younger folks don't see marriage as the life long commitment it should be.

T

[Bob Whiteside]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...


> But I am sure (if I was so inclined) I could find statistics that would
say
> a large percentage of men are abusive. lol

Absolutely. Except the statistics you will find show men are equality
abusive to women as women are abusive to men. And the men who are abuusive
are not the fathers of the women's children. The abusers are boyfriends and
stepfathers who women allow to enter into their lives and have access to
them and their children.

>
> I did tell you advantages to marriage. You just don't see it as
advantages.

So repeat them again for all of us men to understand. And try not to coach
them in terms of how women benefit from marriage and be real clear on how
men benefit from marriage.

> Can you honestly tell me you are not lonely at times? Or do you have a
> female companion you lay down in the sack with time and again?

Typical woman sexist logic. Men need to have sex with women to avoid
feeling lonely. What a hoot! Women have a grossly inflated image of their
sexuality and it's impact on men. What about all the women who are
desperate to be with a man because there are fewer men than women
demographically as we age? Perhaps when you get a little older you'll be
giving it away too, so you won't feel lonely.

>
> And since when is marriage portrayed as normal? For gods sake, when was
the
> last time you watched tv? Marriage is portrayed as a joke! Could be why
the
> younger folks don't see marriage as the life long commitment it should be.

Now that is perceptive!

[Max Burke]

> Tiffany scribbled:

>> Max Burke > wrote in message
>> Does Dad Do Housework? Barriers to His Participation
>> By Steve Duncan
>> MSU Extension Service
>>
>> 07/27/01 BOZEMAN - No one at my home likes to do housework. We
>> follow the Erma Bombeck adage: Housework, if done properly, can kill
>> you. We have framed this statement and placed it in our family
>> room--the scene
>> of the greatest household destruction.
>>
>> Studies confirm what wives and mothers have always known--they get
>> saddled with most of the housework. Even when both husbands and wives
>> work outside the home, domestic duties are not divided equally.
>> Research going back three decades shows small increases in men's
>> participation in domestic activity, but most of the increases have
>> been in childcare.
>>
>> Findings from a new study likewise won't surprise most wives and
>> mothers--doing most of the housework is depressing. Based on
>> responses
>> of 581 men and 608 women surveyed in 1990 and 1994, doing most of the
>> housework leads to anxiety, discouragement, depression and worry.
>>
>> The study's author, Chloe Bird, a professor of community health and
>> sociology at Brown University, hastens to add that her study is "not
>> about household labour making people suicidal." However, a lack of
>> shared
>> responsibility increases a woman's feelings of inequity, and inequity
>> and the psychological distress it causes can harm intimate
>> relationships.
>>
>> Are men the problem here? A number of studies show that men really
>> want to increase their involvement in caring for the home and the
>> kids. While the finger of blame is often pointed at men (and
>> sometimes justifiably so) there is also another side of the story.
>>
>> New research of 622 dual-earner mothers suggests that women may
>> actually be inhibiting the more equitable distribution of housework
>> they seek. Sarah Allen and Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University
>> and authors of the study call this process "maternal gatekeeping."
>>
>> Maternal gatekeeping is a collection of beliefs and behaviours that
>> inhibit a collaborative effort between men and women on household
>> tasks and child care. It shows itself in families in at least three
>> ways.
>>
>> First, a mother may set rigid housekeeping standards. This standard
>> setting may actually reflect her reluctance to relinquish
>> responsibility for household chores. She may respond to her
>> husband's involvement in unsupportive ways, such as by "criticizing,
>> redoing or demeaning her husband's efforts because he did not do it
>> her way," despite the fact that he did the job just fine.
>>
>> Second, a mother may largely base her self-perception and identity on
>> how she thinks others view her housekeeping and mothering. She may
>> view equal partnership with her husband in housekeeping and
>> childcare as a threat to her self-respect and self-identity as a
>> woman. Mothers with these beliefs who then share the housekeeping
>> role equally with their husbands may experience guilt, regret and
>> ambivalence, and may feel they are neglecting their motherly role.
>>
>> Third, a mother may have beliefs about what moms and dads should and
>> should not do in the home. Mothers who believe that housekeeping is
>> primarily "women's work" may be more hesitant to share that role.
>> They may do more monitoring and managing of their husband's efforts,
>> to their husband's consternation.
>>
>> The study found that the mothers classified as "gatekeepers"--those
>> who scored high on a material gatekeeping measure-- did 5 more hours
>> of family work per week and had a less equal division of labour than
>> mothers
>> classified as "collaborators"---those who scored lowest on the
>> measure. In this study, 21 percent of the mothers were gatekeepers,
>> similar to what others have found.
>>
>> If you are a wife and mother and have been frustrated by what seems
>> to
>> be your husband's (or children's) reluctance to share responsibility
>> for household tasks, you might benefit from considering how well the
>> following items describe you. These items were adapted from the Allen
>> and Hawkins study.
>>
>> I frequently redo some household tasks my husband hasn't done
>> well.
>>
>> It's too hard to teach family members the skills necessary to do
>> the jobs right, so I'd rather do them myself.
>>
>> My husband doesn't really know how to do a lot of the household
>> chores...so it's just easier if I do them.
>>
>> I have higher standards than my husband for how well cared for the
>> house should be.
>>
>> I like being in charge when it comes to domestic responsibilities.
>>
>> If visitors dropped by unexpectedly and my house was a mess, I
>> would be embarrassed.
>>
>> When my children look well groomed in public, I feel extra proud
>> of them.
>>
>> I believe that people make judgments about how good a wife/mother
>> I am based on how well cared for my house and kids are.
>>
>> I care about what my neighbours, extended family and friends think
>> about the way I perform my household tasks.
>>
>> I believe that most women enjoy caring for their homes, and men
>> just don't like that stuff.
>>
>> I believe that for a lot of reasons, it's harder for men than for
>> women to do housework and child care
>>
>> If these items sound very much like you, you may indeed be a
>> gatekeeper. If you desire to change or reduce your gatekeeping
>> tendencies, one strategy would be to meet with your husband (and
>> children, where appropriate), make a detailed list of all the
>> household chores and
>> decide on your own arrangement for sharing housework. Then let go.
>> Otherwise, you may need to simply get used to doing most of the work.
>> http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/home/42199fam.html


> So I wonder about how men feel about women who do 'their' chores.....
> yard work for example.

Mostly we're glad someone else is doing it...... ;-)

> I would bet my last penny that men are NOT
> satisfied with the way their wives do those types of chores.

Have you *ever asked *a man, any man* if they would have that
'dissatisfied' reaction, or are you backing this 'bet' because it is the
way you react when the men in your life do your work and you're
dissatisfied with their work?

> It is
> just human nature, in a sense.

Female human nature yes.....

> But to use housework as an excuse for
> anxiety, depression.... that is a crock of ****.

And your basis for holding that POV is? Like do you have any
independently verifiable cites and references that led you to hold this
belief?
Or are you saying as you think it's a 'crock of ****' it must be a
'crock of ****'.....

> Interesting article
> though, as I see that type of behavior with my Mom who always
> complains that her husband doesn't help around the house but then he
> does and she bitches its not good enough.

ROTFLOL.....
You say the behaviour of women and housework is a 'crock of ****' then
in your next paragraph say your very own mother behaves exactly as
described in the article......

BTW to get the debate 'back on topic' do you believe that when an SAH
willingly and with agreement of their partner gives up their career,
that this is a greater sacrifice than the sacrifice of the wage earner
who gives up 'quality time' with their children while the children are
growing up, just so they can provide for the children's AND SAH's needs?
Do you think that they should be compensated for that loss by the SAH
once the divorce happens, or should they have no 'recourse' because that
is the choice they made?

# Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your
children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be
responsible so the woman don't have to be.


--

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

[Mel Gamble]

>Ya lost me on that one, Mel.........which coin is landing on heads 2,500,000
>times?

Those who argue that the SAH would missed out on a career track equal to that
traversed by the working spouse and never something much less are saying that
odds are ALWAYS that the woman would have done very well if the marriage had
not occurred.

She has an equal chance of having flowered or floundered - but we will never
know whether she'd have made her own fortune or ended up on a street corner.
And yet many insist that we must treat her as if it was only the marriage that
kept her from flowering. They insist on ignoring the odds that she would have
failed if left to her own devices.

Mel Gamble

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Exactly, Kenneth.
>> >>
>> >> >I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
>> >> >people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
>> >> >until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.
>> >> >
>> >> > The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic
>relations
>> >> >law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
>> >> >Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups
>in
>> >> >the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people, embracing
>> >> >all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians,
>> >
>> >Wow!! I was not aware that one-legged lesbians had an official
>> >minority-status group of their own!! I learn something new every day!!
>> >
>> >but certainly
>> >> >EXCLUDING heterosexual men.
>> >
>> >And that, unfortunately, is true.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via no-fault
>> >> >divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man that
>> >> >she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to
>stay
>> >> >home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
>> >> >made her do it.
>> >
>> >That is why I only consider a long-term SAH situation to be one that,
>> >perhaps, needs attention. And I don't believe, any more that you do,
>that
>> >hubby made her to it.
>> >
>> >
>> > And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
>> >> >the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
>> >> >her husband.
>> >
>> >If a SAH wants to break up the family to go find herself--let her do it
>at
>> >her own expense. Unless there is something going on that would harm her
>or
>> >the children, or unless hubby is boffing his new secretary. But, then ,
>> >we're back to "fault", aren't we? And we jsut don't do that these days!!
>> >
>> >>
>> >> And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for,
>there's
>> >no
>> >> investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if
>she'd
>> >> stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But
>she
>> >always
>> >> has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.
>> >
>> >Geesh, Mel!! Where do you come up with this stuff!!
>>
>> Every coin has a flip-side, Teach. Science teaches us that it might land
>on
>> heads twice in a row, maybe will three times in a row. When somebody
>starts
>> trying to get us to believe that that coin would land on heads 2,500,000
>times
>> out of 2,500,000 times.....it's time to take a closer look at that coin.
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mel Gamble]

Simple...

>Mel wrote:
>
><snip to>
>>>I hope the next gerneration of couples will look very different than what
>we
>>>have seen in the past.
>>
>>Thinking like yours is why there WON'T BE a next generation of (married)
>>couples.
>
>WHY Mel? What is no unattractive about what I typed below? What is so
>horrible
>about men and women each taking 50% of the at home duties? What is wrong with
>BOTH men and women splitting the career sacrafices? Why should women continue
>to work outside the home and do the vast majority of child rearing and at
>home
>duties, and the men don't have to pick up their 50%?

.... the equal marriage your postulate will require that many laws and many
societal preconceptions be changed - that will take a LONG time. In the
meantime, the thinking you've been standing behind in this thread is going to
scare boys/men away from marriage. The next generation is going to be a series
of loose, casual relationships because of the dangers to men in marriage. And
that change in the form of common relationships means that your utopia is
unlikely to ever unfold.

>You know we can go back and forth on SS, CS, etc. But here you have a totally
>equal arrangement for a married couple and you say it would be the end of
>couples.

No, I said the end would come BEFORE that arrangement could be implemented.

>Maybe I took your above comment wrong, but if I didn't you clearly don't want
>equality in marriages.

How in the HELL did you get that out of the simple comment I made above???????

>You want the old fashioned marriage where the man was
>king and his wife was his servant. Is that what you really want Mel? Is that
>what you want for your daughter?

Actually, I want your utopia, but your insistance on sticking with the current
status quo along the way will blow up any chance of getting there.

>>>I'd see this as a good thing for BOTH men and women.
>>>Women will retain their careers and men will end up doing 50% of the child
>>>rearing, home duties and take their share of career set backs for doing so,
>>>like women have been expected to do in the past. WHEN this happens then
>>yeah,
>>>what each earns will be theirs to keep, in the event of a divorce. If the
>>>playing field is level all along then it will be level in the end.
>>>
>>>But there is an added bonus for the men. If they are infact doing 50% of
>the
>>>child rearing then 50/50 shared custody will be more the norm. And that's
>>>what
>>>most men want any way, right? So they won't mind actually doing it during
>>the
>>>marriage. They will be thrilled they get to clean up the projectile vommit
>>>at
>>>3am when the kids are sick. They will relish leaving work early to sit in
>>the
>>>Dr's office and wait 2 hours with a crying sick child. They will be
>ecstatic
>>>not to take the clients out for cocktails after work, because they have to
>>>bake
>>> cupcakes and run the cake walk at the pre-school. Not seeing the big game
>>>won't be missed because they'll be all warm and fuzzy at the mall getting
>Jr
>>>the new shoes he needs for Monday.
>>>
>>>SIGH... I can see it now. Men all over the country doing their 50% at home
>>>and
>>>being so very happy they don't have to pay their lazy SAH spouse one red
>>cent
>>>if they divorce. I just get chills thinking about it. ;)
>>
>>You just get tingly thinking about other people's money...
>
>Nah, money doesn't get to me the way the thought of men doing what society
>has
>dictated women do for many many years.
>
>And I don't think the changes I proposed would be the end of marriage. Maybe
>the end of marital dictatorships, but hell those need to go anyway.

Again, it isn't the "changes I proposed" that will end marriage - it's sticking
with the husband-killer laws we have NOW that will end it.

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>>
>>Mel Gamble
>>
>>>Mrs Indyguy

[Mel Gamble]

So what?

>"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> TeacherMama > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "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.
>> >
>> > Suppose it wasn't an individual decision, frazil? Suppose both parents
>> > decided together that one would stay home and do all the domestic things
>> > needed in the marriage, and the other would bring in the money?
>Together
>> > they built what they have at the time of divorce. Why should only the
>SAH
>> > parent suffer from a decision they made together?
>>
>> First, even if both parents decide that one is going to stay at home,
>> ultimately it is the SAH's decision. For if they disagree the other parent
>> can't force the putative SAH to not be a stay at home, and work out side
>the
>> home. IOW, you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.
>>
>> Also, just for grins, we always her how being a SAH is work. As that work
>> was, as they put it, uncompensate, they should be compensated with SS
>> because of their inability to work at a level that would provide them with
>a
>> SOL reasonable close to that to which they have gown accustomed. I
>> disagree, they had a roof over their head, food in the stomach, and all the
>> other trappings that the working-outside-the house spouse earned.
>
>Except for a paycheck, of course.

You insist that neither spouse is able to make unilateral decisions, so any
decision on how that paycheck is spent is, by the same logic, exactly what the
SAH wanted done with it.

>Second,
>> many people experience a lay-off in their choosen career.
>
>And collect unemployment insurance while they get back on their feet.......

I am currently collecting the maximum benefit in my state. It's not much more
than I - or the divorced SAH - would earn at McDonald's or saying "Hi, how are
you today" to people entering Walmart. So your SAH has an equal
opportunity....

> A SAH, career,
>> is being a SAH. If they get laid-off by divorce, they either start a new
>> career, or find another position as a SAH.
>
>Do they get a paycheck while they're working their career?

Depending on the working pardner they choose to hitch their wagon to, they get
a HUGE paycheck for what they are doing. Imagine, getting a $5 million mansion
and a yacht for doing the same job that nets somebody else a small apartment
and a bus pass....

>Do they get
>unemployment benefits in the case of a layoff?

Layoff? What do you mean - changing pardners and then resuming the SAH job?
If you mean ENDING the SAH job, they have the opportunity to go to work for
minimum wage or more. And in NO state does unemployment compare to alimony, at
least not in duration... Are you suggesting that alimony should be limited to
6 months of minimum wage and then she's on her own without another cent?

>Do they get holidays off with
>pay?

Same ones the worker takes off...

>2 weeks vacation per year, during which they do not have to do their
>career work?

How many couples take their houses on vacation with them???? Picking from the
menu at a restaurant doesn't qualify as cooking. Calling the bellhop doesn't
qualify as doing the laundry. What "career work" does the SAH take on
vacation???

>Do they get to clock out at 5, and stop working?

No...they get to clock out at 9:00 and back in at 10:00...then back out again
at 11:00 and back in at 11:30...then back out again, and back in again and back
out again and back in again....and they pick the schedule instead of having it
dictated to them.... Sounds good to me...

Now what were you whining about again????

Mel Gamble

> If they need to change careers,
>> they should expect to experience a decrease in their level of compensation,
>> as all people do when they switch careers. :-)
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > >
>> > > > "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.

[Mel Gamble]

You see?...

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> Only because "Friendly" will be leaving tomorrow...
>>
>> >Oh, Mel--you are in a mood today! You and I have debated this before and
>> >never reached a common conclusion. Perhaps I have just run into a
>different
>> >quality of SAH's than you have. I know it's different when you're the
>one
>> >who's been burned.
>>
>> I've already started educating my daughter. We were talking yesterday
>about
>> giving away the puppies. I told her that someday I might "give her away".
>> "But I'm not a puppy!!!". So I explained to her how things "used to be",
>when
>> a man would ask a girls father for her hand in marriage and the father
>would
>> walk her down the aisle in front of all and that was the symbolic act of
>> "giving her away" to the new husband. I explained to her that it USED TO
>BE
>> thought that women needed to be taken care of, just like puppies, and that
>they
>> went from being taken care of by thier fathers to being taken care of by
>thier
>> husbands. And I told her that things aren't like that for most people
>now -
>> that most people think women can take care of themselves. And I will make
>sure
>> that she is able to take care of herself. She will be able to depend on a
>man
>> IF SHE WANTS TO, but she will NOT grow up thinking it's something she has
>to
>> do....or has a right to do.
>
>I have also been educating my own daughters, Mel. Just as you have. I have
>told them, as my father told me, to make sure they can support themselves,
>because, at some point, they will most likely have to do so. Independence
>is indispensible these days!

.... it's not that I'm "in a mood". It's just making sure your kids live their
lives in a manner that recognizes the reality of what the whining of some has
gotten all of us. I wish I could tell her to follow Cinderella's lead - she's
already got the evil (step) mother...it would be great if she could expect to
meet up with Prince Charming. But Prince Charming has had his throne stolen by
a liberal government who thinks it should be melted down an divied up among
those who hollered loudest for a share of it. The King knows that the Prince
cannot follow in daddy's footsteps and has not raised him in the princely ways.
My daughter's Prince Charming has been legislated away.... I just want her to
grow up knowing how to deal with that reality. I don't call it "being in a
mood", I call it "Eyes wide open".

>> But she wants to be a Princess for Halloween this year. I told her I
>wasn't
>> going to start making a costume yet with so much time left for her to
>change
>> her mind...
>
>And they do change their minds a lot, don't they? <chuckle>

Two weeks ago, it was a witch....

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

What "50%" are you talking about???? ...

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> I prefer reality...
>>
>> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> And therefore....
>> >>
>> >> >Mel wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> >>>Nor does it allow BOTH spouses to walk away with an equitable
>> >lifestyle.
>> >> >You
>> >> >>>build it together you should split it together. Neither will have
>> >exactly
>> >> >>the
>> >> >>>same lifestyle they enjoyed during the marriage but one shouldn't be
>> >> >>flipping
>> >> >>>burgers for minimum wage while the other pulls down 6 figures.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It requires the unfounded assumption that the one flipping the
>burgers
>> >would
>> >> >>have been earning that 6-figure income by now if the marriage had
>never
>> >> >taken
>> >> >>place. Prove it.
>> >> >
>> >> >There are no givens. Just like there is no way to prove the wage
>earner
>> >would
>> >> >be were they are today, career wise, if they didn't have the SAH
>spouse
>> >at
>> >> >home
>> >> >raising the kids, taking care of the home, and doing most of
>everything
>> >with
>> >> >the exception of earning the money.
>> >>
>> >> that she would be earning some magical amount if she hadn't been a SAH
>is
>> >built
>> >> of hoooey. You remain true to form.
>> >
>> >So you prefer to believe that every SAH parent would likely have been
>> >earning minimum wage even after 20 years in the work force, Mel? Is
>there
>> >no position between "She would have been earning as much as her ex" and
>"She
>> >would have been earning minimum wage"?
>>
>> which is that we'll never know. How can anybody reasonably say that when
>Hugh
>> Hefner marries a 20-year-old waitress from one of his clubs and divorces
>her 20
>> years later when he's 90 and she's 40, that the $2 million per year that
>she
>> gets in spousal support is to make up for the "earning power" that she
>would
>> have had if she had continued as a waitress at the club for another 20
>years?
>> Maybe she would have worked up to head waitress. Maybe she'd have worked
>all
>> the way up to club manager, but I don't think the person managing a
>Playboy
>> club is pulling $2 million per year.
>>
>> And maybe she'd have fallen for a truck driver the next year, quit the
>club to
>> go have 5 kids and be a SAH for them on his 25K income.....why do we have
>to
>> put her into the first "maybe" future" instead of the second? Why do we
>have
>> to assume that she "suffered" for being Hugh's SAH instead of assuming she
>> avoided the misery of being the trucker's wife?
>
>So, honestly, Mel, you really think it is ok that a SAH be forced to move
>from a 4 bedroom house to a one bedroom apartment and work 2 jobs to support
>her children the 50% of the time she has them?

I might be willing to share my income if she were willing to share the kids
after the marriage ends, but Indyguy is arguing the legitimacy of sharing the
income (spousal support) under CURRENT custody arrangements (and probably where
there aren't even any kids to have custody of). Let me provide a home for my
kids - equal to the former marital home, as all you girls argue for - half the
time and THEN ask for SS FROM WHAT'S LEFT OVER. But don't ask for SS while
refusing me equal parenting.

>She maintained the house and
>raised the kids for 15 years,

Yes, that is the ASSUMPTION...

>and now is turned out like a no-longer-needed
>maid--

And why must we look at it like this? Why can't we look at it as she just
"failed to fulfill" the husband, since that works so well for the wife? Why
are we even talking as if the husband ending the marriage is a common
occurrence? Why don't we discuss the more-usual occurrence of the wife leaving
because she "isn't fulfilled"?

>and even a maid would have better job prospects than her!

Why? If she had been doing a good job as a SAH, she should be able to
demonstrate a high degree of proficiency in all the aspects of a maid's job.
If she can't.....

>You really
>think it is ok to do that?

I really think it is the position women - or those they allow to speak for them
- have forced us into..... *I* don't think EITHER pardner should be able to
just walk for little or no reason. *I* don't think someone with little earning
power should automatically be "burdened" with custody of the children.

>What if your daughter doesn't listen to your
>advice, becomes a SAH mom, (the movement is growing) and gets dumped by her
>hubby after 15 years? What would you want to do to that guy?

If my daughter doesn't listen to my advice....I usually do something to help
her realize that she chose wrong. If my daughter doesn't listen to my advice,
I expect her to step up and accept the realistic consequences of whatever
poorly-thought-out move she makes. I can't keep my daughter from making EVERY
mistake that she might make. I won't condone her forcing someone else to pay
for her mistakes.

My daughter is human. I try to teach her how to get along with people, how to
be responsible, what to value. I will try to teach her how to pick and keep a
good mate when the time comes. If she fails ..... I hope I will have taught
her to just pick up her marbles and move on.

It might help if you understand where I'm coming from. I've had several MAJOR
setbacks in my life. I've lost jobs, I've lost families. I've moved on. I
can't say that if the government had given me the ability to dump ALL the
responsibility somewhere other than on myself AND make somebody else pay I
wouldn't have taken advantage of that ability. I CAN say that I don't think I
or anyone else SHOULD be given the unilateral ability to put the consequences
of MY mistakes on somebody else's shoulder's.

What would I want to do to that guy? If my daughter took advantage of some of
TODAY's laws - in spite of what I had taught her about right and wrong and
fairness - I MIGHT want to help him out of the hole my daughter put him in.....

I love my daughter, but I don't approve of her hitting other kids just because
it's allowed in her home...........

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

And, Bob, let's not forget that the woman who is married to a corporate
executive and is NOT a SAH, but rather works at McDonald's, does NOT live a
works-at-McDonald's lifestyle. Ditto for the rare role-reversal of the same
scenario. And even if she maintains her "career" during the marriage, there
are those who would say her after-marriage value is WAY above "Would you like
to supersize that?" level, even though that is still her career.

Mel Gamble

>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
>> rthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > The Dave wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >"Indyguy1" wrote
>> > > >> IMHO, no-fault divorce has done nothing but make
>> > > >> our society even more throwaway driven.
>> > > >
>> > > >I so agree with that. I have personally known many people with the
>> > attitude
>> > > >"I'm not happy, I want a divorce", but they can't really explain why
>> > they're
>> > > >not happy and they make virtually zero effort to fix it.
>> > >
>> > > I firmly believe that people like that aren't unhappy because of their
>> > marriage
>> > > but are unhappy with themselves. This is proven time and time again
>when
>> > they
>> > > remarry and find themselves no happier the second time around than
>they
>> > were
>> > > the first time around.
>> > >
>> > > They don't seek help to fix the marriage because they are unable to or
>> > dont
>> > > want to see themselves as the cause of their own discontent.
>> >
>> > That's exactly why my ex filed for divorce. She was not happy. She
>> > believed it is the husband's role to make his wife happy. And since I
>was
>> > not making her happy, it was my fault. When I tried to explain
>happiness
>> > comes from within and is based on how a person feels about themselves,
>and
>> > all I could do was help create an environment that would foster
>happiness,
>> > she told me I was wrong.
>> >
>> > Every list you see that shows the top reasons for initiating divorce
>> > includes this same theme. Women file for divorce because they feel they
>> are
>> > not being fulfilled, feel like they need to find themselves, feel like
>> they
>> > are growing apart from their spouse, feel a need to achieve happiness,
>> etc.
>> > All of these reasons for divorce point fingers at men for not making
>women
>> > feel good about themselves.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I wonder how many of those that divorce for that reason are SAHM's? Just
>> thinking, the lack of career, a life outside the home.... I sure would be
>> unhappy. So, thats why I wouldn't do it. lol
>
>The general assumption being presented in these discussions is women are
>somehow oppressed by being relegated to being SAHM's. Not one of the women
>who argue that perspective acknowledge that women get some sense of
>satisfaction out of being a SAHM and actually enjoy it. They ignore the
>fact women like to stay home, be homemakers, and not have to work. Yet
>research shows that women who are SAHM's and married to corporate executives
>are the most satisfied group of all married women.
>

[Mel Gamble]

??????????

>Mel wrote:
>
>....and you know what this does to your much talked about.....
>
>>For the children out there: If you grow up and get into a marriage with
>>someone who FORCES you to do things you don't want to do.......GET THE HELL
>>OUT.
>>
>>For the adults out there who are in a marriage with someone who FORCES you
>to
>>do things you don't want to do.........GET THE HELL OUT.
>>
>>For the adults out there who WERE in a marriage with someone who FORCED you
>>to
>>do things you didn't want to do, but you stayed anyway.........OOOOPS!!!!
>
>*maternal gatekeeper* theory, right?

You're losin' it. Ain't my theory. And what I wrote above doesn't have much
to do with it.

>Sends it righ to hell in a handbasket.
>
>Afterall, according to you, no matter the influence of your spouse YOU are
>the
>one responsible for your own choices and actions.

Hmmm - is there a gun to my head? NOPE : ) Guess whatever I did was MY
choice, based on MY options, guided by MY values.

>Therefore there is nothing
>to
>the *maternal gatekeeper* theory as it puts the blame of not rearing the
>children and not doing the housework on the mother when it is the father
>making
>the ultimate choice not to participate.

The father has the choice of knocking the mother out of the way so he can get
to the diaper first. That's not quite the same as the mother saying "I'm not
going to sit here and waste my talents being a SAH parent when I could be out
earning $200,000 every year. And you can't force me to." I don't expect you
to see the difference, but the point to this particular argument is that mommy
can keep me from doing the laundry by doing it herself while I'm at work a LOT
easier than I can keep her from going to work....legally at least.

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>

[Moon Shyne]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> ??????????
>
> >Mel wrote:
> >
> >....and you know what this does to your much talked about.....
> >
> >>For the children out there: If you grow up and get into a marriage with
> >>someone who FORCES you to do things you don't want to do.......GET THE HELL
> >>OUT.
> >>
> >>For the adults out there who are in a marriage with someone who FORCES you
> >to
> >>do things you don't want to do.........GET THE HELL OUT.
> >>
> >>For the adults out there who WERE in a marriage with someone who FORCED you
> >>to
> >>do things you didn't want to do, but you stayed anyway.........OOOOPS!!!!
> >
> >*maternal gatekeeper* theory, right?
>
> You're losin' it. Ain't my theory. And what I wrote above doesn't have much
> to do with it.
>
> >Sends it righ to hell in a handbasket.
> >
> >Afterall, according to you, no matter the influence of your spouse YOU are
> >the
> >one responsible for your own choices and actions.
>
> Hmmm - is there a gun to my head? NOPE : ) Guess whatever I did was MY
> choice, based on MY options, guided by MY values.
>
> >Therefore there is nothing
> >to
> >the *maternal gatekeeper* theory as it puts the blame of not rearing the
> >children and not doing the housework on the mother when it is the father
> >making
> >the ultimate choice not to participate.
>
> The father has the choice of knocking the mother out of the way so he can get
> to the diaper first. That's not quite the same as the mother saying "I'm not
> going to sit here and waste my talents being a SAH parent when I could be out
> earning $200,000 every year. And you can't force me to." I don't expect you
> to see the difference, but the point to this particular argument is that mommy
> can keep me from doing the laundry by doing it herself while I'm at work

Because you chose to leave your laundry around rather than take responsibility
for it by doing it yourself? Did someone hold a gun to your head, forcing you
to not take it with you, to do at your own convenience?

:-)

a LOT
> easier than I can keep her from going to work....legally at least.
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> >Mrs Indyguy
> >
>
>

[Mel Gamble]

>Phil #3 > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Phil#3 wrote:
And because he has chosen to remain unmarried....

>> >
>> > <Snip to>
>> >
>> > >So you know of no advantages for men to marry?
>> >
>> > I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are happier
>isn't
>> an
>> > advantage in your eyes?
>>
>> Not at all. I'd rather die happy than live unhappy.
>>
>> >
>> > Me neither, but I know of
>> > >MANY disadvantage
>> >
>> > Some women feel the same way.
>>
>> I know, I am in a relationship with one who feels much the same way I do
>> about it and we're happy living apart, sharing what we want, when we want.
>> She has her life into which I don't intrude and try to bend her desires
>and
>> she returns the favor. We are both happy. Neither of us see the need to
>fix
>> what ain't broken.
>> Phil #3
>>
>
>OK... ignore previous question. But you can almost be sure, she will feel
>different one day. ;)

the only cost to him will be emotional. Good point, Tiff.

Mel Gamble

[frazil]

Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > TeacherMama > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "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.
> > >
> > > Suppose it wasn't an individual decision, frazil? Suppose both
parents
> > > decided together that one would stay home and do all the domestic
things
> > > needed in the marriage, and the other would bring in the money?
Together
> > > they built what they have at the time of divorce. Why should only the
SAH
> > > parent suffer from a decision they made together?
> >
> > First, even if both parents decide that one is going to stay at home,
> > ultimately it is the SAH's decision. For if they disagree the other
parent
> > can't force the putative SAH to not be a stay at home, and work out side
the
> > home. IOW, you can lead the horse to water but you can't make it drink.
> >
> > Also, just for grins, we always her how being a SAH is work. As that
work
> > was, as they put it, uncompensate, they should be compensated with SS
> > because of their inability to work at a level that would provide them
with a
> > SOL reasonable close to that to which they have gown accustomed. I
> > disagree, they had a roof over their head, food in the stomach, and all
the
> > other trappings that the working-outside-the house spouse earned.
>
> Except for a paycheck, of course.

Its called the barter system.

>
> Second,
> > many people experience a lay-off in their choosen career.
>
> And collect unemployment insurance while they get back on their
feet.......

Only in covered jobs. For example, farm jobs are mostly exempt.

>
> A SAH, career,
> > is being a SAH. If they get laid-off by divorce, they either start a
new
> > career, or find another position as a SAH.
>
> Do they get a paycheck while they're working their career? Do they get
> unemployment benefits in the case of a layoff? Do they get holidays off
with
> pay? 2 weeks vacation per year, during which they do not have to do their
> career work? Do they get to clock out at 5, and stop working?

Do all jobs fit the criteria you list above, of course not.

>
> If they need to change careers,
> > they should expect to experience a decrease in their level of
compensation,
> > as all people do when they switch careers. :-)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tiffany]

Max Burke > wrote in message
...
> > Tiffany scribbled:
>
> >> Max Burke > wrote in message
> >> Does Dad Do Housework? Barriers to His Participation
> >> By Steve Duncan
> >> MSU Extension Service
> >>
> >> 07/27/01 BOZEMAN - No one at my home likes to do housework. We
> >> follow the Erma Bombeck adage: Housework, if done properly, can kill
> >> you. We have framed this statement and placed it in our family
> >> room--the scene
> >> of the greatest household destruction.
> >>
> >> Studies confirm what wives and mothers have always known--they get
> >> saddled with most of the housework. Even when both husbands and wives
> >> work outside the home, domestic duties are not divided equally.
> >> Research going back three decades shows small increases in men's
> >> participation in domestic activity, but most of the increases have
> >> been in childcare.
> >>
> >> Findings from a new study likewise won't surprise most wives and
> >> mothers--doing most of the housework is depressing. Based on
> >> responses
> >> of 581 men and 608 women surveyed in 1990 and 1994, doing most of the
> >> housework leads to anxiety, discouragement, depression and worry.
> >>
> >> The study's author, Chloe Bird, a professor of community health and
> >> sociology at Brown University, hastens to add that her study is "not
> >> about household labour making people suicidal." However, a lack of
> >> shared
> >> responsibility increases a woman's feelings of inequity, and inequity
> >> and the psychological distress it causes can harm intimate
> >> relationships.
> >>
> >> Are men the problem here? A number of studies show that men really
> >> want to increase their involvement in caring for the home and the
> >> kids. While the finger of blame is often pointed at men (and
> >> sometimes justifiably so) there is also another side of the story.
> >>
> >> New research of 622 dual-earner mothers suggests that women may
> >> actually be inhibiting the more equitable distribution of housework
> >> they seek. Sarah Allen and Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University
> >> and authors of the study call this process "maternal gatekeeping."
> >>
> >> Maternal gatekeeping is a collection of beliefs and behaviours that
> >> inhibit a collaborative effort between men and women on household
> >> tasks and child care. It shows itself in families in at least three
> >> ways.
> >>
> >> First, a mother may set rigid housekeeping standards. This standard
> >> setting may actually reflect her reluctance to relinquish
> >> responsibility for household chores. She may respond to her
> >> husband's involvement in unsupportive ways, such as by "criticizing,
> >> redoing or demeaning her husband's efforts because he did not do it
> >> her way," despite the fact that he did the job just fine.
> >>
> >> Second, a mother may largely base her self-perception and identity on
> >> how she thinks others view her housekeeping and mothering. She may
> >> view equal partnership with her husband in housekeeping and
> >> childcare as a threat to her self-respect and self-identity as a
> >> woman. Mothers with these beliefs who then share the housekeeping
> >> role equally with their husbands may experience guilt, regret and
> >> ambivalence, and may feel they are neglecting their motherly role.
> >>
> >> Third, a mother may have beliefs about what moms and dads should and
> >> should not do in the home. Mothers who believe that housekeeping is
> >> primarily "women's work" may be more hesitant to share that role.
> >> They may do more monitoring and managing of their husband's efforts,
> >> to their husband's consternation.
> >>
> >> The study found that the mothers classified as "gatekeepers"--those
> >> who scored high on a material gatekeeping measure-- did 5 more hours
> >> of family work per week and had a less equal division of labour than
> >> mothers
> >> classified as "collaborators"---those who scored lowest on the
> >> measure. In this study, 21 percent of the mothers were gatekeepers,
> >> similar to what others have found.
> >>
> >> If you are a wife and mother and have been frustrated by what seems
> >> to
> >> be your husband's (or children's) reluctance to share responsibility
> >> for household tasks, you might benefit from considering how well the
> >> following items describe you. These items were adapted from the Allen
> >> and Hawkins study.
> >>
> >> I frequently redo some household tasks my husband hasn't done
> >> well.
> >>
> >> It's too hard to teach family members the skills necessary to do
> >> the jobs right, so I'd rather do them myself.
> >>
> >> My husband doesn't really know how to do a lot of the household
> >> chores...so it's just easier if I do them.
> >>
> >> I have higher standards than my husband for how well cared for the
> >> house should be.
> >>
> >> I like being in charge when it comes to domestic responsibilities.
> >>
> >> If visitors dropped by unexpectedly and my house was a mess, I
> >> would be embarrassed.
> >>
> >> When my children look well groomed in public, I feel extra proud
> >> of them.
> >>
> >> I believe that people make judgments about how good a wife/mother
> >> I am based on how well cared for my house and kids are.
> >>
> >> I care about what my neighbours, extended family and friends think
> >> about the way I perform my household tasks.
> >>
> >> I believe that most women enjoy caring for their homes, and men
> >> just don't like that stuff.
> >>
> >> I believe that for a lot of reasons, it's harder for men than for
> >> women to do housework and child care
> >>
> >> If these items sound very much like you, you may indeed be a
> >> gatekeeper. If you desire to change or reduce your gatekeeping
> >> tendencies, one strategy would be to meet with your husband (and
> >> children, where appropriate), make a detailed list of all the
> >> household chores and
> >> decide on your own arrangement for sharing housework. Then let go.
> >> Otherwise, you may need to simply get used to doing most of the work.
> >> http://www.montana.edu/wwwpb/home/42199fam.html
>
>
> > So I wonder about how men feel about women who do 'their' chores.....
> > yard work for example.
>
> Mostly we're glad someone else is doing it...... ;-)
>
> > I would bet my last penny that men are NOT
> > satisfied with the way their wives do those types of chores.

Yes, I have spoken with men and they have said that. That is NOT my
reaction. I can't be unsatisfied with men in my life doing 'my' work and
they have never done 'my' work.

>
> Have you *ever asked *a man, any man* if they would have that
> 'dissatisfied' reaction, or are you backing this 'bet' because it is the
> way you react when the men in your life do your work and you're
> dissatisfied with their work?
>
> > It is
> > just human nature, in a sense.
>
> Female human nature yes.....

No sorry. Human nature.

>
> > But to use housework as an excuse for
> > anxiety, depression.... that is a crock of ****.
>
> And your basis for holding that POV is? Like do you have any
> independently verifiable cites and references that led you to hold this
> belief?
> Or are you saying as you think it's a 'crock of ****' it must be a
> 'crock of ****'.....

So you think a women can say that having to do housework causes her to be
depressed? Fine, if you like to think that way, go for it. But the end
result will be interesting. Say the female who has to do all the cleaning
saying her husband is to blame for her mental condition???

And yes, if I think it is a crokc of **** then IT IS. lol

>
> > Interesting article
> > though, as I see that type of behavior with my Mom who always
> > complains that her husband doesn't help around the house but then he
> > does and she bitches its not good enough.
>
> ROTFLOL.....
> You say the behaviour of women and housework is a 'crock of ****' then
> in your next paragraph say your very own mother behaves exactly as
> described in the article......

She behaves in some of the ways discribed in the article yes.
>
> BTW to get the debate 'back on topic'

No need, I have not really been in this debat e on SAH folks.

>do you believe that when an SAH
> willingly and with agreement of their partner gives up their career,
> that this is a greater sacrifice than the sacrifice of the wage earner
> who gives up 'quality time' with their children while the children are
> growing up, just so they can provide for the children's AND SAH's needs?
> Do you think that they should be compensated for that loss by the SAH
> once the divorce happens, or should they have no 'recourse' because that
> is the choice they made?

I think they shouldn't make that choice, because it will bite them in the
ass one day. I already stated that earlier in another post.
>
> # Expecting men to be treated fairly is not a bad lesson to teach your
> children. The problem today is that too many women want men to be
> responsible so the woman don't have to be.
>
>
> --
>

[Tiffany]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > But I am sure (if I was so inclined) I could find statistics that would
> say
> > a large percentage of men are abusive. lol
>
> Absolutely. Except the statistics you will find show men are equality
> abusive to women as women are abusive to men. And the men who are abuusive
> are not the fathers of the women's children. The abusers are boyfriends
and
> stepfathers who women allow to enter into their lives and have access to
> them and their children.

Regardless, there are alot of abusive men out there. Abusive women I am not
concerned about. I am not a lesbian.
>
> >
> > I did tell you advantages to marriage. You just don't see it as
> advantages.
>
> So repeat them again for all of us men to understand. And try not to
coach
> them in terms of how women benefit from marriage and be real clear on how
> men benefit from marriage.

Why do one or the other have to be the sole benifector of the marriage? I
see it as both partners benefiting.
>
> > Can you honestly tell me you are not lonely at times? Or do you have a
> > female companion you lay down in the sack with time and again?
>
> Typical woman sexist logic. Men need to have sex with women to avoid
> feeling lonely. What a hoot! Women have a grossly inflated image of
their
> sexuality and it's impact on men. What about all the women who are
> desperate to be with a man because there are fewer men than women
> demographically as we age? Perhaps when you get a little older you'll be
> giving it away too, so you won't feel lonely.

Even with the ocassional sexual fling, there will still be loneliness. If
you don't have someone in your life to count on, to be with, you tend to be
lonely.
>
> >
> > And since when is marriage portrayed as normal? For gods sake, when was
> the
> > last time you watched tv? Marriage is portrayed as a joke! Could be why
> the
> > younger folks don't see marriage as the life long commitment it should
be.
>
> Now that is perceptive!
>
>

[Tiffany]

Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> >Phil #3 > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Phil#3 wrote:
> And because he has chosen to remain unmarried....
>
> >> >
> >> > <Snip to>
> >> >
> >> > >So you know of no advantages for men to marry?
> >> >
> >> > I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are happier
> >isn't
> >> an
> >> > advantage in your eyes?
> >>
> >> Not at all. I'd rather die happy than live unhappy.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Me neither, but I know of
> >> > >MANY disadvantage
> >> >
> >> > Some women feel the same way.
> >>
> >> I know, I am in a relationship with one who feels much the same way I
do
> >> about it and we're happy living apart, sharing what we want, when we
want.
> >> She has her life into which I don't intrude and try to bend her desires
> >and
> >> she returns the favor. We are both happy. Neither of us see the need to
> >fix
> >> what ain't broken.
> >> Phil #3
> >>
> >
> >OK... ignore previous question. But you can almost be sure, she will feel
> >different one day. ;)
>
> the only cost to him will be emotional. Good point, Tiff.
>
> Mel Gamble

Emotional yes but that can be pretty upsetting to. It sounds like he has a
good thing for now.

T

[Tiffany]

Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> And, Bob, let's not forget that the woman who is married to a corporate
> executive and is NOT a SAH, but rather works at McDonald's, does NOT live
a
> works-at-McDonald's lifestyle. Ditto for the rare role-reversal of the
same
> scenario. And even if she maintains her "career" during the marriage,
there
> are those who would say her after-marriage value is WAY above "Would you
like
> to supersize that?" level, even though that is still her career.
>
> Mel Gamble
>


That is something that has probably not even happened. lol

[Phil #3]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Phil #3 > wrote in message
> ...
[snip]


> But I am sure (if I was so inclined) I could find statistics that would
say
> a large percentage of men are abusive. lol

Define "large" and include in your research 'abusive women' as well.

>
> I did tell you advantages to marriage. You just don't see it as
advantages.
> Can you honestly tell me you are not lonely at times? Or do you have a
> female companion you lay down in the sack with time and again?

I don't see what you posted as "advantages" but simply additional expenses
and/or non-applicable to the real world.
["Advantages being...... if being practical, insurance, financial, blah
blah. Mostly the advantage is..... and you can't disagree with this......
if you are alone, you are LONELY, are you not?"]
("Lonely" is a state of being and feeling alone, "lonesome" is a state of
mind, wherein one feels sad or dejected because of being alone)
I have not felt lonesome for a long time with one exception, my youngest
son, but that hasn't occurred often or frequently in the past few years and
would not be relieved by simply being married. I only have to finance my own
insurance which has not changed rates in over 20 years, I do not have to
finance a live in maid and babysitter. I have never had a problem finding
members of the opposite sex who are honest enough to admit they want a roll
in the hay, not a lifetime commitment.

No, I do not get lonely, at least not to the point that I feel 'badly' about
it and I haven't for over 10 years.
Yes, I have someone to "lay down in the sack with time and again", just like
married people (depending on the couple, maybe far more so). I also have
someone to spend time with when and *if* I choose.
As it is now, I come and go as I wish, I don't have to be quiet when I
arise, I go to bed when I'm tired, I make the coffee strong to suit my
tastes, never have to inform anyone I'm taking a shower, ("please don't
flush or start the laundry or dishwasher").....
Just about everything costs me half what it would, including insurance on
health and car, airline tickets, meals and even movies.
I don't have to put up with someone else's "mood" nor am I inhibited from
being in one if I so choose. (I can open up this NG and argue with any
number of women and I never have to say "I'm sorry" in order to get a little
bedroom action :))
AND there are no pantyhose over my shower rod and no array of cosmetics,
creams and lotions on both the dresser or bathroom counters. I don't have to
share a closet (or use the one down the hall), I can sleep on any side of
the bed, the thermostat stays where I put it, I don't have to ask where the
dent in the car came from, I don't have to wonder if the bills were paid, no
one forgets to give me messages and I don't have in-laws except for my
brother's wifes.

>
> And since when is marriage portrayed as normal? For gods sake, when was
the
> last time you watched tv?

Seriously? As a rule I tape "Married with Children", "Cheers" and
occasionally "Cheaters". Othewise, it's pretty much a waste of time (except
for the movie channels). I don't watch soaps, news, "Jerry", Oprah, or any
of the myriad of other women's channels. If I catch "MASH", I'll watch it,
but like the other serials above, I think I've seen them all at least 5
times.

>Marriage is portrayed as a joke! Could be why the
> younger folks don't see marriage as the life long commitment it should be.

"Should be" is not the problem. The problem is that marriage *IS* a joke as
done in real life.
It stopped being a life-long commitment 35-50 or so years back and became
something much less. I don't even think I'd term it a commitment at all,
judging from the number of married women who have tried to become just a
little too friendly or even propositioned me over the last 30 years. (And
I'm neither exceptionally good-looking nor rich).
Phil #3

>
> T
>
>

[Phil #3]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Phil #3 > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Phil#3 wrote:
> > >
> > > <Snip to>
> > >
> > > >So you know of no advantages for men to marry?
> > >
> > > I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are happier
> isn't
> > an
> > > advantage in your eyes?
> >
> > Not at all. I'd rather die happy than live unhappy.
> >
> > >
> > > Me neither, but I know of
> > > >MANY disadvantage
> > >
> > > Some women feel the same way.
> >
> > I know, I am in a relationship with one who feels much the same way I do
> > about it and we're happy living apart, sharing what we want, when we
want.
> > She has her life into which I don't intrude and try to bend her desires
> and
> > she returns the favor. We are both happy. Neither of us see the need to
> fix
> > what ain't broken.
> > Phil #3
> >
>
> OK... ignore previous question. But you can almost be sure, she will feel
> different one day. ;)
>
>

She may, but in the past 10 years she has held fast. Even if she should
change her mind, we won't have to go through the divorce and acrimony that
follows. We'd just stop seeing each other. She won't be able to claim false
charges of abuse to remove me from my home and she can't use children we
don't have as a tool to make me act according to her wishes, she can't lay
claim to my income...
Phil #3

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:

>Simple...
>
>>Mel wrote:
>>
>><snip to>
>>>>I hope the next gerneration of couples will look very different than what
>>we
>>>>have seen in the past.
>>>
>>>Thinking like yours is why there WON'T BE a next generation of (married)
>>>couples.
>>
>>WHY Mel? What is no unattractive about what I typed below? What is so
>>horrible
>>about men and women each taking 50% of the at home duties? What is wrong
>with
>>BOTH men and women splitting the career sacrafices? Why should women
>continue
>>to work outside the home and do the vast majority of child rearing and at
>>home
>>duties, and the men don't have to pick up their 50%?
>
>... the equal marriage your postulate will require that many laws and many
>societal preconceptions be changed - that will take a LONG time. In the
>meantime, the thinking you've been standing behind in this thread is going to
>scare boys/men away from marriage.

WHY Mel? What about being equal partners in a marriage will scare men away?
Isn't that what marriage is suppossed to be? Why would the idea that men would
do 50% of the child rearing and home duties be so scarey if the women were
doing 50% of the outside the home work?

What we have been discussing here has been SS. You feel it is wrong and I don't
in LT SAH situations. I offer up an alternative to make sure it isn't ordered
and you say it will scare boys/men away.

I just don't understand why you are saying this. SS wouldn't be ordered when a
couple splits up if they have BOTH kept their careers and they have BOTH shared
all the child rearing and at home duties. It isn't ordered TODAY in scenarios
like this, even in LT marriages.

The solution to this is for NO ONE to be a SAH, EVER. For BOTH parents to take
equal responsibilty in EVERYTHING in the marriage. This will not only stop SS
but it would help wage earners in the custody arena as well.


The next generation is going to be a
>series
>of loose, casual relationships because of the dangers to men in marriage.

The generation that is currently of typical marriage age isn't showing signs of
this. Based on the amount of wedding invitations we are getting it looks like
the mid-twenties segment isn't backing away, but moving towards marriage.

>And
>that change in the form of common relationships means that your utopia is
>unlikely to ever unfold.

I wouldn't bet on that. I do have daughters, one late teens and one early
twenties. We have plenty of their peers in and out of our home now that school
is out. I AM seeing differances in the male/female relationships already. These
young woman aren't accepting the stereotypical roles that many many marriages
are based on. The young men are faced with the choice to treat these women as
equals or not have any of these quality women in their lives. Now mind you they
don't have to do this. They can marry an uneducated gal with no career goals.
Of course then they'll end up paying CS and SS if their marriage ends, but that
will be their choice, won't it?

>
>>You know we can go back and forth on SS, CS, etc. But here you have a
>totally
>>equal arrangement for a married couple and you say it would be the end of
>>couples.
>
>No, I said the end would come BEFORE that arrangement could be implemented.
>

If that does come to pass then I really really doubt it will be because of the
family court laws. It will be because boys/men like marriage the way it is.
They like having mens work and womens work.

I wish there were some sats that showed why women become SAHs. I know plenty of
SAHs and there seems to be a reaccuring reason amongst the ones *I* know. It's
because while they were still working their H's left the vast majority of the
child rearing and home duties to them. They got to a point where there just
wasn't enough time or energy to do it all. So something had to give. Their DHs
would rather have had them at home than give up any of their time to do an
equal share. Voila, you have a SAH whose DH is as happy as a clam, until they
are faced with divorce and realize what's theirs isn't all theirs but rather a
melding of his and hers.

>>Maybe I took your above comment wrong, but if I didn't you clearly don't
>want
>>equality in marriages.
>
>How in the HELL did you get that out of the simple comment I made
>above???????

By your saying, "Thinking like yours is why there WON'T BE a next generation of
(married) couples." I took that to be a reflection on the whole equal division
of all aspects of marriage comments I have made.

>
>>You want the old fashioned marriage where the man was
>>king and his wife was his servant. Is that what you really want Mel? Is that
>>what you want for your daughter?
>
>Actually, I want your utopia, but your insistance on sticking with the
>current
>status quo along the way will blow up any chance of getting there.

What I have offered up is a way to keep the SS laws from being imposed. How
will that blow anything up?

>
>>>>I'd see this as a good thing for BOTH men and women.
>>>>Women will retain their careers and men will end up doing 50% of the child
>>>>rearing, home duties and take their share of career set backs for doing
>so,
>>>>like women have been expected to do in the past. WHEN this happens then
>>>yeah,
>>>>what each earns will be theirs to keep, in the event of a divorce. If the
>>>>playing field is level all along then it will be level in the end.
>>>>
>>>>But there is an added bonus for the men. If they are infact doing 50% of
>>the
>>>>child rearing then 50/50 shared custody will be more the norm. And that's
>>>>what
>>>>most men want any way, right? So they won't mind actually doing it during
>>>the
>>>>marriage. They will be thrilled they get to clean up the projectile
>vommit
>>>>at
>>>>3am when the kids are sick. They will relish leaving work early to sit in
>>>the
>>>>Dr's office and wait 2 hours with a crying sick child. They will be
>>ecstatic
>>>>not to take the clients out for cocktails after work, because they have to
>>>>bake
>>>> cupcakes and run the cake walk at the pre-school. Not seeing the big game
>>>>won't be missed because they'll be all warm and fuzzy at the mall getting
>>Jr
>>>>the new shoes he needs for Monday.
>>>>
>>>>SIGH... I can see it now. Men all over the country doing their 50% at home
>>>>and
>>>>being so very happy they don't have to pay their lazy SAH spouse one red
>>>cent
>>>>if they divorce. I just get chills thinking about it. ;)
>>>
>>>You just get tingly thinking about other people's money...
>>
>>Nah, money doesn't get to me the way the thought of men doing what society
>>has
>>dictated women do for many many years.
>>
>>And I don't think the changes I proposed would be the end of marriage. Maybe
>>the end of marital dictatorships, but hell those need to go anyway.
>
>Again, it isn't the "changes I proposed" that will end marriage - it's
>sticking
>with the husband-killer laws we have NOW that will end it.

Mel, do you really think most men even know the way family court works and the
laws when they enter into a marriage? You see, I don't think they have a clue,
they don't really care as they figure the big D will never happen to them, and
they LIKE having someone take care of them, their children and their homes. At
least that is what I have seen and heard in the past and sadly still today.

You and I have the same goal. We both want there to be no SS. Our differances
are how it would be best accomplished. I want there to be no need for SS and
you want there to be no SS regardless if there is a need for it or not.


Mrs Indyguy
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Mel Gamble
>>>
>>>>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Indyguy1]

Mel wrote:



>You've been participating in this group long enough ...
>
>>Mel wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly, Kenneth.
>>>
>>>>I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
>>>>people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
>>>>until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.
>>>>
>>>> The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic relations
>>>>law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
>>>>Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups in
>>>>the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people, embracing
>>>>all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians, but certainly
>>>>EXCLUDING heterosexual men.
>>>>
>>>> So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via no-fault
>>>>divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man that
>>>>she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to stay
>>>>home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
>>>>made her do it. And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
>>>>the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
>>>>her husband.
>>>
>>>And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for,
>>
>>
>>Mel, dont you think name calling is a bit hypocritical when discussing
>things
>>you deam immature?
>
>... to know that I do this. If you don't like it, quit responding to me,
>like
>I've quit responding to nasty.

Oh don't get me wrong, it doesn't bother me at all. I just thought it was
humerous that while calling for maturity you were doing such a...well...
immature thing.:)


>
>> there's no
>>>investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if she'd
>>>stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But she
>>>always
>>>has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.
>>
>>Is that so? Then I guess all exes that recieve SS are compensated at the
>>executive level. Of course you know that isn't true.
>
>They are compensated at the earning spouse's level, regardless of how much
>higher than their own aspirations that might be

Or lower.


>
>>Anything goes when you
>>are
>>trying to advance your side or an arguement, right Mel?
>
>Logic too much for you, huh....

No, your twisting and turning is at times, irratating.

>
>>For many many years I have been a big proponent of couples seeking their own
>>socio-economical level when they choose who they will marry. You have just
>>reminded me of one of the reasons it is in their best interests to do
>exactly
>>that.
>
>And as someone who feels the need to be a "proponent" of such, you are
>probably
>more aware than most that it isn't currently happening.... Thanks for the
>corroboration.

No offense, but smart men will marry equal.

>
>>The way SS works, as you well know, is that it is paid based on what the
>wage
>>earner is capable of paying.
>
>Hmm, sort of like CS, isn't it - not based on anything to do with where it
>ends
>up.

Huh?

>
>>So if your stbx is an executive then you are
>>deemed to be an excutive level SAH and your SS will reflect that.
>
>STRANGE..... Up 'til now, you've been saying that SS was based on the
>ability
>to earn that the SAH gave up by being married. NOW it's based on what the
>working spouse is capable of earning and has nothing to do with any
>talents/skills that the SAH might have had/gained independent of the
>marriage.... Why the change in argument????

No change in argument. Two different elements . One is the basis for why it is
awarded and they other the baisis for how much is awarded.
>
>>If your
>>stbx
>>is a blue collar worker you will recieve SS based on the premise you are a
>>blue
>>collar worker level SAH.
>
>But you will not be forced to live at a blue-collar SOL if you - as the
>former
>SAH - are now capable of earning better for yourself. So the dance-hall girl
>who marries the exec gets to retire as if she had been on track to become an
>exec....as does the exec who marries the ditch digger and keeps her skills
>during the marriage. Where, pray tell, is the downside in this scam for the
>SAH???

If they both keep their skills there won't be a downside for either. They both
continue to work, share all the at home duties 50/50 and if D happens they can
both walk away without SS.

I trust you can easily see the downside for the wage-earner...?

I see a downside for BOTH of them if one was a SAH.

>
>>There is NO way to go back and restart ones life and see where they'd
>>finacially be if they hadn't started or given up a career to be a SAH. Just
>>like there is no way to go back and see where the wage earner would have
>>ended
>>up if they didn't have that SAH there doing everything but earning a wage
>for
>>them.
>
>Let's see, if I didn't have somebody else to do the laundry during the 16
>hours
>I'm not working.... I don't think it would have much effect on where I ended
>up after 10 years of working AND doing the laundry in my off-hours...... So?

Well Mel, if your ex was a lazy worthless subhuman, that doesn't mean the vast
majority of SAHs are like her.

Your average SAH does all of the at home and child rearing while the wage
earner is at work and pretty much most of it when the wage earner is home from
work.

Here's a perfect example. I am handing over the executive board for a soccer
club to another, because my child is no longer able to play for the club
because she graduated from HS. I called to let them know something last
night.The wife wasn't home, she was at a soccer game with her child, and her DH
answered the phone. I simply wanted to leave directions on how to get to the
fundraiser they are doing next week, her DH said, "Can you call back, I'm just
the husband." I told him I couldn't call back and he said, "I just got home
from playing 18 holes and this stuff is my wife's job, not mine."

This apparently isn't your experience but it is much more the norm.


>
>How does that automatically equate to being in the same place I am at the end
>of 20 years just because you gave up your career at McDonald's?

When you married you became one finacially when only one wage was earned. If
you don't want this to happen then maintain two wages.

>
>>So if one marries a bimbo with no job skills or education they have no one
>to
>>blame but themselves when that same person is deemed at their level and paid
>>SS
>>to refelect that level.
>
>Yes they do - they have idiots like yourself who insist that such **** be the
>law of the land to blame...doesn't make it right.

Where did your *personal responsibilty for your own actions* argument go, Mel?

>
>Strangely enough, if one marries a high-paid executive who becomes a
>SAH....one
>ends up in the same place one ends up when one marries the bimbo who becomes
>a
>SAH. The only one who benefits by "marrying up" is the SAH..... Wonder why
>that is?????

Ask Joan Lunden's ex. He's got a nice sum of SS coming in.

Simple solution to this is don't agree to a spouse being a SAH and don't marry
down. Each keeps their career and each does 50% of the at home duties. NO SS
and a solid reasoning for 50/50 shared custody. Everyone wins.

Mrs Indyguy
>
>Mel Gamble
>
>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>
>>>Mel Gamble
>>>
>>>> I suppose it's called the empowerment of women. Too bad that it's at
>>>>the expense of men and children.
>>>>
>>>>Mel Gamble wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >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 o

[TeacherMama]

"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...

> What "50%" are you talking about???? ...
<snip>

> >So, honestly, Mel, you really think it is ok that a SAH be forced to move
> >from a 4 bedroom house to a one bedroom apartment and work 2 jobs to
support
> >her children the 50% of the time she has them?
>
> I might be willing to share my income if she were willing to share the
kids
> after the marriage ends, but Indyguy is arguing the legitimacy of sharing
the
> income (spousal support) under CURRENT custody arrangements (and probably
where
> there aren't even any kids to have custody of). Let me provide a home for
my
> kids - equal to the former marital home, as all you girls argue for - half
the
> time and THEN ask for SS FROM WHAT'S LEFT OVER. But don't ask for SS
while
> refusing me equal parenting.

Mel!! Geesh! Drew proposed scrapping the old system, and replacing it with
50-50 custody, split the marital assets, everyone live on their own
earnings. I said that his system would be very unfair to long term SAHs who
would have to begin at the bottom of the job chain, while the bread-winner
could continue from where he was. THAT's what started this whole thread!
In the current system, SAHs are, for the most part, already taken care of.


>
> >She maintained the house and
> >raised the kids for 15 years,
>
> Yes, that is the ASSUMPTION...
>
> >and now is turned out like a no-longer-needed
> >maid--
>
> And why must we look at it like this? Why can't we look at it as she just
> "failed to fulfill" the husband, since that works so well for the wife?
Why
> are we even talking as if the husband ending the marriage is a common
> occurrence? Why don't we discuss the more-usual occurrence of the wife
leaving
> because she "isn't fulfilled"?
>
> >and even a maid would have better job prospects than her!
>
> Why? If she had been doing a good job as a SAH, she should be able to
> demonstrate a high degree of proficiency in all the aspects of a maid's
job.
> If she can't.....
>
> >You really
> >think it is ok to do that?
>
> I really think it is the position women - or those they allow to speak for
them
> - have forced us into..... *I* don't think EITHER pardner should be able
to
> just walk for little or no reason.

And I am absolutely with you on that one!

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Mel Gamble > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > And, Bob, let's not forget that the woman who is married to a
corporate
> > > executive and is NOT a SAH, but rather works at McDonald's, does NOT
> live
> > a
> > > works-at-McDonald's lifestyle. Ditto for the rare role-reversal of
the
> > same
> > > scenario. And even if she maintains her "career" during the marriage,
> > there
> > > are those who would say her after-marriage value is WAY above "Would
you
> > like
> > > to supersize that?" level, even though that is still her career.
> > >
> > > Mel Gamble
> > >
> >
> >
> > That is something that has probably not even happened. lol
>
> My ex decided she wanted to work in the small local video rental store and
> she was willing to work there for nothing. I suggested that if she really
> wanted to go to work she should get a full-time job with pay that would
> cover her costs of going to work like commuting, daycare, clothes,
lunches,
> etc. Her response was that the reason she didn't want to get paid was
> because she only wanted to work when and if she wanted to work. She
didn't
> want to be tied to a regular schedule or hours. IOW - she wanted to play
at
> going to work, not really do it.

And, apparently she had some strong skills, because you ahve mentioned that
she got a good paying job soon after Spousal Support was assigned. How long
had you been married?
> >
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Mel Gamble > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > And, Bob, let's not forget that the woman who is married to a
> corporate
> > > > executive and is NOT a SAH, but rather works at McDonald's, does NOT
> > live
> > > a
> > > > works-at-McDonald's lifestyle. Ditto for the rare role-reversal of
> the
> > > same
> > > > scenario. And even if she maintains her "career" during the
marriage,
> > > there
> > > > are those who would say her after-marriage value is WAY above "Would
> you
> > > like
> > > > to supersize that?" level, even though that is still her career.
> > > >
> > > > Mel Gamble
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That is something that has probably not even happened. lol
> >
> > My ex decided she wanted to work in the small local video rental store
and
> > she was willing to work there for nothing. I suggested that if she
really
> > wanted to go to work she should get a full-time job with pay that would
> > cover her costs of going to work like commuting, daycare, clothes,
> lunches,
> > etc. Her response was that the reason she didn't want to get paid was
> > because she only wanted to work when and if she wanted to work. She
> didn't
> > want to be tied to a regular schedule or hours. IOW - she wanted to
play
> at
> > going to work, not really do it.
>
> And, apparently she had some strong skills, because you ahve mentioned
that
> she got a good paying job soon after Spousal Support was assigned. How
long
> had you been married?

13 years. I don't want to post too much detail because that would be unfair
to her, but she was involved in politics and worked for senior leadership in
the state legislature. While there she learned the "I don't recall, I don't
have a specific recollection, I'm not sure" method of not lying that the
Clinton's use so effectively. I got really ****ed when I knew the answers
to the questions she was being asked even by her own attorney, but she
couldn't recall the facts.

When the judge ruled she could make a certain amount at divorce, it was 25%
less than what she stopped working 8 years earlier when our first child was
born. Her first job post-divorce paid 2.5 times more than the judge's
assumption and the court refused to drop the SS reasoning making 2.5 times
more than the original assumption was not a significant change of
circumstances.

Too bad they don't treat father's incomes that way.

[Kenneth S.]

Tiffany wrote:
>
> Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> > > But I am sure (if I was so inclined) I could find statistics that would
> > say
> > > a large percentage of men are abusive. lol
> >
> > Absolutely. Except the statistics you will find show men are equality
> > abusive to women as women are abusive to men. And the men who are abuusive
> > are not the fathers of the women's children. The abusers are boyfriends
> and
> > stepfathers who women allow to enter into their lives and have access to
> > them and their children.
>
> Regardless, there are alot of abusive men out there. Abusive women I am not
> concerned about. I am not a lesbian.

Is the above intended to suggest that only lesbian women are abusive,
and heterosexual women are not? That's not what the research shows.
The clear indications are that domestic violence is a two-way street,
although women usually do less damage than men.

I say "usually," because some women are downright vicious. See the
following:

Posted on Fri, Jun. 27, 2003

Hickory woman accused of setting fire to husband
Man, 46, suffered 3rd-degree burns over about 60% of body
GREG LACOUR
Staff Writer

HICKORY - A Hickory woman was in jail Thursday, accused of setting her
husband on fire in their home.

Police charged Helen Brown Connor, 40, with assault with a deadly weapon
with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. She remained in the
Catawba County jail on $100,000 secured bond.

Her husband, 46-year-old Jeffrey Alan Connor, suffered third-degree
burns over about 60 percent of his body, said police Sgt. D.J. Smith.
Jeffrey Connor was in critical condition in the burn unit at Wake Forest
University Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, Smith said.

Officers arrived at the Connors' home on Second Street Place S.W. about
11:30 a.m., Smith said. Jeffrey Connor was inside, and the fire had been
extinguished, he said.

"He was basically just yelling for help," Smith said.

Investigators didn't know what prompted the burning.

"The victim was so severely burned, he had very little to say," Smith
said. "We're assuming some kind of domestic (dispute) took place."

Helen Connor was in the house, too, and officers arrested her
immediately, he said.

Police finished a search of the house Thursday afternoon and recovered
"various items," Smith said; he declined to elaborate.

Investigators were trying to determine what kind of fuel was used, he
said.

Smith would not comment on whether investigators found a fuel container.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > thlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Mel Gamble > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > And, Bob, let's not forget that the woman who is married to a
> > corporate
> > > > > executive and is NOT a SAH, but rather works at McDonald's, does
NOT
> > > live
> > > > a
> > > > > works-at-McDonald's lifestyle. Ditto for the rare role-reversal
of
> > the
> > > > same
> > > > > scenario. And even if she maintains her "career" during the
> marriage,
> > > > there
> > > > > are those who would say her after-marriage value is WAY above
"Would
> > you
> > > > like
> > > > > to supersize that?" level, even though that is still her career.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mel Gamble
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is something that has probably not even happened. lol
> > >
> > > My ex decided she wanted to work in the small local video rental store
> and
> > > she was willing to work there for nothing. I suggested that if she
> really
> > > wanted to go to work she should get a full-time job with pay that
would
> > > cover her costs of going to work like commuting, daycare, clothes,
> > lunches,
> > > etc. Her response was that the reason she didn't want to get paid was
> > > because she only wanted to work when and if she wanted to work. She
> > didn't
> > > want to be tied to a regular schedule or hours. IOW - she wanted to
> play
> > at
> > > going to work, not really do it.
> >
> > And, apparently she had some strong skills, because you ahve mentioned
> that
> > she got a good paying job soon after Spousal Support was assigned. How
> long
> > had you been married?
>
> 13 years. I don't want to post too much detail because that would be
unfair
> to her, but she was involved in politics and worked for senior leadership
in
> the state legislature. While there she learned the "I don't recall, I
don't
> have a specific recollection, I'm not sure" method of not lying that the
> Clinton's use so effectively. I got really ****ed when I knew the answers
> to the questions she was being asked even by her own attorney, but she
> couldn't recall the facts.
>
> When the judge ruled she could make a certain amount at divorce, it was
25%
> less than what she stopped working 8 years earlier when our first child
was
> born. Her first job post-divorce paid 2.5 times more than the judge's
> assumption and the court refused to drop the SS reasoning making 2.5 times
> more than the original assumption was not a significant change of
> circumstances.
>
> Too bad they don't treat father's incomes that way.

p.s. I have always thought because things were so one-sided on every issue
in our divorce, her former boss made a phone call to the judge. And don't
tell me that stuff doesn't happen, because I could tell you stories that
would make your toes curl about insider things that occur that are
technically against the law.

Here's an example. There was a long-time member of the state Senate who had
a problem - he liked to call a certain secretary into his office and force
ask her to talk dirty to him while he masturbated in front of her. His
colleagues convinced him to retire and accept a Superior Court judgeship to
get him out of town. That means he used to sit in judgement on divorce
hearings ogling all the soon to be divorcees.

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >
> > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > thlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Mel Gamble > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > And, Bob, let's not forget that the woman who is married to a
> > > corporate
> > > > > > executive and is NOT a SAH, but rather works at McDonald's, does
> NOT
> > > > live
> > > > > a
> > > > > > works-at-McDonald's lifestyle. Ditto for the rare role-reversal
> of
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > scenario. And even if she maintains her "career" during the
> > marriage,
> > > > > there
> > > > > > are those who would say her after-marriage value is WAY above
> "Would
> > > you
> > > > > like
> > > > > > to supersize that?" level, even though that is still her career.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mel Gamble
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That is something that has probably not even happened. lol
> > > >
> > > > My ex decided she wanted to work in the small local video rental store
> > and
> > > > she was willing to work there for nothing. I suggested that if she
> > really
> > > > wanted to go to work she should get a full-time job with pay that
> would
> > > > cover her costs of going to work like commuting, daycare, clothes,
> > > lunches,
> > > > etc. Her response was that the reason she didn't want to get paid was
> > > > because she only wanted to work when and if she wanted to work. She
> > > didn't
> > > > want to be tied to a regular schedule or hours. IOW - she wanted to
> > play
> > > at
> > > > going to work, not really do it.
> > >
> > > And, apparently she had some strong skills, because you ahve mentioned
> > that
> > > she got a good paying job soon after Spousal Support was assigned. How
> > long
> > > had you been married?
> >
> > 13 years. I don't want to post too much detail because that would be
> unfair
> > to her, but she was involved in politics and worked for senior leadership
> in
> > the state legislature. While there she learned the "I don't recall, I
> don't
> > have a specific recollection, I'm not sure" method of not lying that the
> > Clinton's use so effectively. I got really ****ed when I knew the answers
> > to the questions she was being asked even by her own attorney, but she
> > couldn't recall the facts.
> >
> > When the judge ruled she could make a certain amount at divorce, it was
> 25%
> > less than what she stopped working 8 years earlier when our first child
> was
> > born. Her first job post-divorce paid 2.5 times more than the judge's
> > assumption and the court refused to drop the SS reasoning making 2.5 times
> > more than the original assumption was not a significant change of
> > circumstances.
> >
> > Too bad they don't treat father's incomes that way.
>
> p.s. I have always thought because things were so one-sided on every issue
> in our divorce, her former boss made a phone call to the judge. And don't
> tell me that stuff doesn't happen, because I could tell you stories that
> would make your toes curl about insider things that occur that are
> technically against the law.
>
> Here's an example. There was a long-time member of the state Senate who had
> a problem - he liked to call a certain secretary into his office and force
> ask her to talk dirty to him while he masturbated in front of her. His
> colleagues convinced him to retire and accept a Superior Court judgeship to
> get him out of town. That means he used to sit in judgement on divorce
> hearings ogling all the soon to be divorcees.

I heard about a governor of a certain southern state who had a similar
pattern of behavior. Could it be that HIS colleagues convinced him to
leave and become president?

[Tiffany]

Phil #3 > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > ...
> [snip]
>
>
> > But I am sure (if I was so inclined) I could find statistics that would
> say
> > a large percentage of men are abusive. lol
>
> Define "large" and include in your research 'abusive women' as well.

I would include abusive women if I was concerned with abusive women.


>
> >
> > I did tell you advantages to marriage. You just don't see it as
> advantages.
> > Can you honestly tell me you are not lonely at times? Or do you have a
> > female companion you lay down in the sack with time and again?
>
> I don't see what you posted as "advantages" but simply additional expenses
> and/or non-applicable to the real world.
> ["Advantages being...... if being practical, insurance, financial, blah
> blah. Mostly the advantage is..... and you can't disagree with this......
> if you are alone, you are LONELY, are you not?"]
> ("Lonely" is a state of being and feeling alone, "lonesome" is a state of
> mind, wherein one feels sad or dejected because of being alone)
> I have not felt lonesome for a long time with one exception, my youngest
> son, but that hasn't occurred often or frequently in the past few years
and
> would not be relieved by simply being married. I only have to finance my
own
> insurance which has not changed rates in over 20 years, I do not have to
> finance a live in maid and babysitter. I have never had a problem finding
> members of the opposite sex who are honest enough to admit they want a
roll
> in the hay, not a lifetime commitment.
>
> No, I do not get lonely, at least not to the point that I feel 'badly'
about
> it and I haven't for over 10 years.
> Yes, I have someone to "lay down in the sack with time and again", just
like
> married people (depending on the couple, maybe far more so). I also have
> someone to spend time with when and *if* I choose.
> As it is now, I come and go as I wish, I don't have to be quiet when I
> arise, I go to bed when I'm tired, I make the coffee strong to suit my
> tastes, never have to inform anyone I'm taking a shower, ("please don't
> flush or start the laundry or dishwasher").....
> Just about everything costs me half what it would, including insurance on
> health and car, airline tickets, meals and even movies.
> I don't have to put up with someone else's "mood" nor am I inhibited from
> being in one if I so choose.

> (I can open up this NG and argue with any
> number of women and I never have to say "I'm sorry" in order to get a
little
> bedroom action :))

LMAO

> AND there are no pantyhose over my shower rod and no array of cosmetics,
> creams and lotions on both the dresser or bathroom counters. I don't have
to
> share a closet (or use the one down the hall), I can sleep on any side of
> the bed, the thermostat stays where I put it, I don't have to ask where
the
> dent in the car came from, I don't have to wonder if the bills were paid,
no
> one forgets to give me messages and I don't have in-laws except for my
> brother's wifes.
>
> >
> > And since when is marriage portrayed as normal? For gods sake, when was
> the
> > last time you watched tv?
>
> Seriously? As a rule I tape "Married with Children", "Cheers" and
> occasionally "Cheaters". Othewise, it's pretty much a waste of time
(except
> for the movie channels). I don't watch soaps, news, "Jerry", Oprah, or any
> of the myriad of other women's channels. If I catch "MASH", I'll watch it,
> but like the other serials above, I think I've seen them all at least 5
> times.

Married with Children was hilarious! Cheaters..... never heard of that one.
(I don't have cable tv)
>
> >Marriage is portrayed as a joke! Could be why the
> > younger folks don't see marriage as the life long commitment it should
be.
>
> "Should be" is not the problem. The problem is that marriage *IS* a joke
as
> done in real life.
> It stopped being a life-long commitment 35-50 or so years back and became
> something much less. I don't even think I'd term it a commitment at all,
> judging from the number of married women who have tried to become just a
> little too friendly or even propositioned me over the last 30 years. (And
> I'm neither exceptionally good-looking nor rich).
> Phil #3
>
> >

And just as I say, not all men are abusive or evil, not all women are that
way also. What about all the married men that have tried to lay up with me?
I am not rich, just good looking. ;)

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >
> > >
> > > And, apparently she had some strong skills, because you have mentioned
> > that
> > > she got a good paying job soon after Spousal Support was assigned.
How
> > long
> > > had you been married?
> >
> > 13 years. I don't want to post too much detail because that would be
> unfair
> > to her, but she was involved in politics and worked for senior
leadership
> in
> > the state legislature. While there she learned the "I don't recall, I
> don't
> > have a specific recollection, I'm not sure" method of not lying that the
> > Clinton's use so effectively. I got really ****ed when I knew the
answers
> > to the questions she was being asked even by her own attorney, but she
> > couldn't recall the facts.
> >
> > When the judge ruled she could make a certain amount at divorce, it was
> 25%
> > less than what she stopped working 8 years earlier when our first child
> was
> > born. Her first job post-divorce paid 2.5 times more than the judge's
> > assumption and the court refused to drop the SS reasoning making 2.5
times
> > more than the original assumption was not a significant change of
> > circumstances.
> >
> > Too bad they don't treat father's incomes that way.
>
> If *I* ran the circus, 8 years out of the job market wouldn't even
qualify
> for Spousal Support! And, needless to say, landing a job for 2.5 times
what
> the judge figured would certainly qualify as change of circumstance. What
> is it for NCPs? If the amount of CS would change by $50 or more per
month?
> Doesn't take much to do that!

SS is set based on the duration of the marriage rather than time out of the
job market. A marriage over 12 years is considered a "long term" marriage
in my state and therefore eligible for SS that is awarded based on some
unpublished guideline the judge's use to set the term of the SS. I was told
my requirement to pay SS for 3 years was about what they normally do, and it
could have been as much as 4-5 years.

There's another caveat. If a woman receiving SS doesn't marry or
cohabitate, she can still collect the SS. My favorite judge told me my ex
wasn't cohabitating because she and the guy who lived with her had not
co-mingled their checking accounts. Just more evidence to prove my case
that judges are idiots in black robes.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > rthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > thlink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mel Gamble > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > And, Bob, let's not forget that the woman who is married to a
> > > > corporate
> > > > > > > executive and is NOT a SAH, but rather works at McDonald's,
does
> > NOT
> > > > > live
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > works-at-McDonald's lifestyle. Ditto for the rare
role-reversal
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > scenario. And even if she maintains her "career" during the
> > > marriage,
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > are those who would say her after-marriage value is WAY above
> > "Would
> > > > you
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > to supersize that?" level, even though that is still her
career.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mel Gamble
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is something that has probably not even happened. lol
> > > > >
> > > > > My ex decided she wanted to work in the small local video rental
store
> > > and
> > > > > she was willing to work there for nothing. I suggested that if
she
> > > really
> > > > > wanted to go to work she should get a full-time job with pay that
> > would
> > > > > cover her costs of going to work like commuting, daycare, clothes,
> > > > lunches,
> > > > > etc. Her response was that the reason she didn't want to get paid
was
> > > > > because she only wanted to work when and if she wanted to work.
She
> > > > didn't
> > > > > want to be tied to a regular schedule or hours. IOW - she wanted
to
> > > play
> > > > at
> > > > > going to work, not really do it.
> > > >
> > > > And, apparently she had some strong skills, because you ahve
mentioned
> > > that
> > > > she got a good paying job soon after Spousal Support was assigned.
How
> > > long
> > > > had you been married?
> > >
> > > 13 years. I don't want to post too much detail because that would be
> > unfair
> > > to her, but she was involved in politics and worked for senior
leadership
> > in
> > > the state legislature. While there she learned the "I don't recall, I
> > don't
> > > have a specific recollection, I'm not sure" method of not lying that
the
> > > Clinton's use so effectively. I got really ****ed when I knew the
answers
> > > to the questions she was being asked even by her own attorney, but she
> > > couldn't recall the facts.
> > >
> > > When the judge ruled she could make a certain amount at divorce, it
was
> > 25%
> > > less than what she stopped working 8 years earlier when our first
child
> > was
> > > born. Her first job post-divorce paid 2.5 times more than the judge's
> > > assumption and the court refused to drop the SS reasoning making 2.5
times
> > > more than the original assumption was not a significant change of
> > > circumstances.
> > >
> > > Too bad they don't treat father's incomes that way.
> >
> > p.s. I have always thought because things were so one-sided on every
issue
> > in our divorce, her former boss made a phone call to the judge. And
don't
> > tell me that stuff doesn't happen, because I could tell you stories that
> > would make your toes curl about insider things that occur that are
> > technically against the law.
> >
> > Here's an example. There was a long-time member of the state Senate who
had
> > a problem - he liked to call a certain secretary into his office and
force
> > ask her to talk dirty to him while he masturbated in front of her. His
> > colleagues convinced him to retire and accept a Superior Court judgeship
to
> > get him out of town. That means he used to sit in judgement on divorce
> > hearings ogling all the soon to be divorcees.
>
> I heard about a governor of a certain southern state who had a similar
> pattern of behavior. Could it be that HIS colleagues convinced him to
> leave and become president?

Poor Professor Peter who developed the concept of "The Peter Principle."
He pointed out everyone rises to their level of incompetence. Little did
Dr. Peter know how prophetic his work would become related to political
applications. Thank our lucky stars these politicians were only ministering
the Peter concepts to troubled young women during their time of need.

[TeacherMama]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > rthlink.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And, apparently she had some strong skills, because you have
mentioned
> > > that
> > > > she got a good paying job soon after Spousal Support was assigned.
> How
> > > long
> > > > had you been married?
> > >
> > > 13 years. I don't want to post too much detail because that would be
> > unfair
> > > to her, but she was involved in politics and worked for senior
> leadership
> > in
> > > the state legislature. While there she learned the "I don't recall, I
> > don't
> > > have a specific recollection, I'm not sure" method of not lying that
the
> > > Clinton's use so effectively. I got really ****ed when I knew the
> answers
> > > to the questions she was being asked even by her own attorney, but she
> > > couldn't recall the facts.
> > >
> > > When the judge ruled she could make a certain amount at divorce, it
was
> > 25%
> > > less than what she stopped working 8 years earlier when our first
child
> > was
> > > born. Her first job post-divorce paid 2.5 times more than the judge's
> > > assumption and the court refused to drop the SS reasoning making 2.5
> times
> > > more than the original assumption was not a significant change of
> > > circumstances.
> > >
> > > Too bad they don't treat father's incomes that way.
> >
> > If *I* ran the circus, 8 years out of the job market wouldn't even
> qualify
> > for Spousal Support! And, needless to say, landing a job for 2.5 times
> what
> > the judge figured would certainly qualify as change of circumstance.
What
> > is it for NCPs? If the amount of CS would change by $50 or more per
> month?
> > Doesn't take much to do that!
>
> SS is set based on the duration of the marriage rather than time out of
the
> job market. A marriage over 12 years is considered a "long term" marriage
> in my state and therefore eligible for SS that is awarded based on some
> unpublished guideline the judge's use to set the term of the SS. I was
told
> my requirement to pay SS for 3 years was about what they normally do, and
it
> could have been as much as 4-5 years.
>
> There's another caveat. If a woman receiving SS doesn't marry or
> cohabitate, she can still collect the SS. My favorite judge told me my ex
> wasn't cohabitating because she and the guy who lived with her had not
> co-mingled their checking accounts. Just more evidence to prove my case
> that judges are idiots in black robes.

Is it awarded only to SAHs? Or can a salary difference net alimony, too?

My brother-in-law married a woman who was pregnant when whe met him--din't
tell him, though. They stayed together for 6 years or so. He got hit with
CS and SS. SS until she married again, so she didn't remarry. Just moved
in with the father of the child. Told the child when she was 13 that dad
wasn't dad. He stopped paying everything at that point. He hadn't seen the
child in years because they had moved away from him. Judge didn't give a
rip--and BIL still owes over $100K.
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"TeacherMama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> rthlink.net...
> >
> > "TeacherMama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > rthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And, apparently she had some strong skills, because you have
> mentioned
> > > > that
> > > > > she got a good paying job soon after Spousal Support was assigned.
> > How
> > > > long
> > > > > had you been married?
> > > >
> > > > 13 years. I don't want to post too much detail because that would
be
> > > unfair
> > > > to her, but she was involved in politics and worked for senior
> > leadership
> > > in
> > > > the state legislature. While there she learned the "I don't recall,
I
> > > don't
> > > > have a specific recollection, I'm not sure" method of not lying that
> the
> > > > Clinton's use so effectively. I got really ****ed when I knew the
> > answers
> > > > to the questions she was being asked even by her own attorney, but
she
> > > > couldn't recall the facts.
> > > >
> > > > When the judge ruled she could make a certain amount at divorce, it
> was
> > > 25%
> > > > less than what she stopped working 8 years earlier when our first
> child
> > > was
> > > > born. Her first job post-divorce paid 2.5 times more than the
judge's
> > > > assumption and the court refused to drop the SS reasoning making 2.5
> > times
> > > > more than the original assumption was not a significant change of
> > > > circumstances.
> > > >
> > > > Too bad they don't treat father's incomes that way.
> > >
> > > If *I* ran the circus, 8 years out of the job market wouldn't even
> > qualify
> > > for Spousal Support! And, needless to say, landing a job for 2.5
times
> > what
> > > the judge figured would certainly qualify as change of circumstance.
> What
> > > is it for NCPs? If the amount of CS would change by $50 or more per
> > month?
> > > Doesn't take much to do that!
> >
> > SS is set based on the duration of the marriage rather than time out of
> the
> > job market. A marriage over 12 years is considered a "long term"
marriage
> > in my state and therefore eligible for SS that is awarded based on some
> > unpublished guideline the judge's use to set the term of the SS. I was
> told
> > my requirement to pay SS for 3 years was about what they normally do,
and
> it
> > could have been as much as 4-5 years.
> >
> > There's another caveat. If a woman receiving SS doesn't marry or
> > cohabitate, she can still collect the SS. My favorite judge told me my
ex
> > wasn't cohabitating because she and the guy who lived with her had not
> > co-mingled their checking accounts. Just more evidence to prove my case
> > that judges are idiots in black robes.
>
> Is it awarded only to SAHs? Or can a salary difference net alimony, too?

I don't know. What I do know is the awarding of SS is left up to judicial
discretion. In my case CS was set high so my ex could afford to "continue
to maintain the family home for my children" and SS was set to "allow her to
gain job skill training and transition back into the job market." My
divorce was finalized before the CS guidelines were implemented so I ended
up paying a huge amount of money.

When the CS guidelines were implemented my CS payments were significantly
reduced even though my income was substantially higher. And when the CS
guidelines came into effect they allowed for SS payments to be deducted from
the NCP's income before CS payments were set. In my divorce SS payments
were an add-on after CS was set. And that is how men like me ended up
paying 75% of their earned income in income taxes and support.

[Max Burke]

> Indyguy1 scribbled:

>> Mel wrote:
>> ... the equal marriage your postulate will require that many laws
>> and many societal preconceptions be changed - that will take a LONG
>> time. In the meantime, the thinking you've been standing behind in
>> this thread is going to scare boys/men away from marriage.


snip....

> The solution to this is for NO ONE to be a SAH, EVER. For BOTH
> parents to take equal responsibilty in EVERYTHING in the marriage.
> This will not only stop SS but it would help wage earners in the
> custody arena as well.


How come changing the kid's Huggies(tm) makes you the most suitable
parent to have custody, but earning money to buy the Huggies(tm) for the
kid's benefit makes you unsuitable as a custodial parent?

cut rest....

# Why should men commit to marriage when women are so unwilling to show
commitment OF marriage to the men they DO marry.....

--

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

[Phil #3]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Phil #3 > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Phil#3 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <Snip to>
> > > > >
> > > > > >So you know of no advantages for men to marry?
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are
happier
> > > isn't
> > > > an
> > > > > advantage in your eyes?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. I'd rather die happy than live unhappy.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Me neither, but I know of
> > > > > >MANY disadvantage
> > > > >
> > > > > Some women feel the same way.
> > > >
> > > > I know, I am in a relationship with one who feels much the same way
I
> do
> > > > about it and we're happy living apart, sharing what we want, when we
> > want.
> > > > She has her life into which I don't intrude and try to bend her
> desires
> > > and
> > > > she returns the favor. We are both happy. Neither of us see the need
> to
> > > fix
> > > > what ain't broken.
> > > > Phil #3
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK... ignore previous question. But you can almost be sure, she will
> feel
> > > different one day. ;)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > She may, but in the past 10 years she has held fast. Even if she should
> > change her mind, we won't have to go through the divorce and acrimony
that
> > follows. We'd just stop seeing each other. She won't be able to claim
> false
> > charges of abuse to remove me from my home and she can't use children we
> > don't have as a tool to make me act according to her wishes, she can't
lay
> > claim to my income...
> > Phil #3
> >
> >
> >
>
> Well, who knows what will happen in 10 more years. Good things I hope. I
can
> totally understand your points, as I am pretty content living alone and
> having my own life and no one to answer to and all that stuff you said. I
> guess I am still holding on to my ideals. I am 32, I have not been
married,
> so I imagine I just want to one day. Right now though, I will be happy
just
> meeting someone I can stand 2 weeks later.
>

In 10 years, if I live that long, I'll be approaching 70... I see few good
things in sight with one huge exception: I can fire my ex-wife (1 year, 10
months away) and laugh as she realizes how much she was using C$ for herself
when her SOL takes a nose-dive.
I just have to ask, what about marriage holds importance for you?
Phil #3

[Virginia]

Max you missed the guy (or woman) who pays for the huggies and changes
them too!

Max Burke wrote:
>>Indyguy1 scribbled:
>
>
>>>Mel wrote:
>>>... the equal marriage your postulate will require that many laws
>>>and many societal preconceptions be changed - that will take a LONG
>>>time. In the meantime, the thinking you've been standing behind in
>>>this thread is going to scare boys/men away from marriage.
>>
>
>
> snip....
>
>
>>The solution to this is for NO ONE to be a SAH, EVER. For BOTH
>>parents to take equal responsibilty in EVERYTHING in the marriage.
>>This will not only stop SS but it would help wage earners in the
>>custody arena as well.
>
>
>
> How come changing the kid's Huggies(tm) makes you the most suitable
> parent to have custody, but earning money to buy the Huggies(tm) for the
> kid's benefit makes you unsuitable as a custodial parent?
>
> cut rest....
>
> # Why should men commit to marriage when women are so unwilling to show
> commitment OF marriage to the men they DO marry.....
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Phil #3" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Phil#3 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Snip to>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >So you know of no advantages for men to marry?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are
> happier
> > > > isn't
> > > > > an
> > > > > > advantage in your eyes?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all. I'd rather die happy than live unhappy.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Me neither, but I know of
> > > > > > >MANY disadvantage
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some women feel the same way.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know, I am in a relationship with one who feels much the same
way
> I
> > do
> > > > > about it and we're happy living apart, sharing what we want, when
we
> > > want.
> > > > > She has her life into which I don't intrude and try to bend her
> > desires
> > > > and
> > > > > she returns the favor. We are both happy. Neither of us see the
need
> > to
> > > > fix
> > > > > what ain't broken.
> > > > > Phil #3
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > OK... ignore previous question. But you can almost be sure, she will
> > feel
> > > > different one day. ;)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > She may, but in the past 10 years she has held fast. Even if she
should
> > > change her mind, we won't have to go through the divorce and acrimony
> that
> > > follows. We'd just stop seeing each other. She won't be able to claim
> > false
> > > charges of abuse to remove me from my home and she can't use children
we
> > > don't have as a tool to make me act according to her wishes, she can't
> lay
> > > claim to my income...
> > > Phil #3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well, who knows what will happen in 10 more years. Good things I hope. I
> can
> > totally understand your points, as I am pretty content living alone and
> > having my own life and no one to answer to and all that stuff you said.
I
> > guess I am still holding on to my ideals. I am 32, I have not been
> married,
> > so I imagine I just want to one day. Right now though, I will be happy
> just
> > meeting someone I can stand 2 weeks later.
> >
>
> In 10 years, if I live that long, I'll be approaching 70... I see few good
> things in sight with one huge exception: I can fire my ex-wife (1 year, 10
> months away) and laugh as she realizes how much she was using C$ for
herself
> when her SOL takes a nose-dive.
> I just have to ask, what about marriage holds importance for you?

Phil #3 - I have some experience in this area. Once the CS payments stop,
the ex-wives start charging rent as a replace money flow source. If the
child moves out, or goes away to college, rent is collected from whoever
occupies the child's room. If the child stays at home, or returns from
college, they are charged rent to stay in the same room that used to be paid
for by CS.

This whole scam shows how important the money is to the ex-wives to maintain
their SOL. The children are used as chattel either way - to get CS from the
dad or get money from the child. So just keep in mind any money you give
your child post-CS can end up going to your ex as rent.

[Virginia]

It's not necessarily CS replacement Bob. My parents have been married
for over 35 yrs and if any of us kids stayed there (not visited mind
you) we are charged rent.

Bob Whiteside wrote:
> "Phil #3" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Phil #3 > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Phil #3 > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Phil#3 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><Snip to>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So you know of no advantages for men to marry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are
>>>>>>
>>happier
>>
>>>>>isn't
>>>>>
>>>>>>an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>advantage in your eyes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not at all. I'd rather die happy than live unhappy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Me neither, but I know of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>MANY disadvantage
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some women feel the same way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I know, I am in a relationship with one who feels much the same
>>>>>
> way
>
>>I
>>
>>>do
>>>
>>>>>>about it and we're happy living apart, sharing what we want, when
>>>>>
> we
>
>>>>want.
>>>>
>>>>>>She has her life into which I don't intrude and try to bend her
>>>>>
>>>desires
>>>
>>>>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>>she returns the favor. We are both happy. Neither of us see the
>>>>>
> need
>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>>fix
>>>>>
>>>>>>what ain't broken.
>>>>>>Phil #3
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>OK... ignore previous question. But you can almost be sure, she will
>>>>
>>>feel
>>>
>>>>>different one day. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>She may, but in the past 10 years she has held fast. Even if she
>>>
> should
>
>>>>change her mind, we won't have to go through the divorce and acrimony
>>>
>>that
>>
>>>>follows. We'd just stop seeing each other. She won't be able to claim
>>>
>>>false
>>>
>>>>charges of abuse to remove me from my home and she can't use children
>>>
> we
>
>>>>don't have as a tool to make me act according to her wishes, she can't
>>>
>>lay
>>
>>>>claim to my income...
>>>>Phil #3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, who knows what will happen in 10 more years. Good things I hope. I
>>
>>can
>>
>>>totally understand your points, as I am pretty content living alone and
>>>having my own life and no one to answer to and all that stuff you said.
>>
> I
>
>>>guess I am still holding on to my ideals. I am 32, I have not been
>>
>>married,
>>
>>>so I imagine I just want to one day. Right now though, I will be happy
>>
>>just
>>
>>>meeting someone I can stand 2 weeks later.
>>>
>>
>>In 10 years, if I live that long, I'll be approaching 70... I see few good
>>things in sight with one huge exception: I can fire my ex-wife (1 year, 10
>>months away) and laugh as she realizes how much she was using C$ for
>
> herself
>
>>when her SOL takes a nose-dive.
>>I just have to ask, what about marriage holds importance for you?
>
>
> Phil #3 - I have some experience in this area. Once the CS payments stop,
> the ex-wives start charging rent as a replace money flow source. If the
> child moves out, or goes away to college, rent is collected from whoever
> occupies the child's room. If the child stays at home, or returns from
> college, they are charged rent to stay in the same room that used to be paid
> for by CS.
>
> This whole scam shows how important the money is to the ex-wives to maintain
> their SOL. The children are used as chattel either way - to get CS from the
> dad or get money from the child. So just keep in mind any money you give
> your child post-CS can end up going to your ex as rent.
>
>
>

[frazil]

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.

As I said a no-fault divorce.

I'm not so sure there are states that only offer no-fault divorce. If there
are then I'd like to know which ones. In the states I'm familiar with, a
no-fault divorce is allowed after a certain period of time has elapsed and
the people maintained separate living arrangements and have not had sexual
relations. Typically the time period is 6 months if no children are
involved and 12 months if children are involved. A fault divorce can be
granted without the separation period. Fault is demonstrated by adultry,
servere mental illness, incarceration for more than 1 year, physical
assault, abandonment, and a couple more reasons which I do not remember.
(might be total incapacitation, insanity, or emotional abuse that threatens
the mental health of the victim?)

Granted the majority of divorces, these days, are of the no-fault variety,
for a number of reasons. Among those reasons are the expense and difficulty
in proving fault. Certainly a fault divorce will involve alot of
mud-slinging, on both sides. Most folks find it better to wait out the
separation period and file for a no-fault 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)
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[frazil]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
rthlink.net...

> > > There's another caveat. If a woman receiving SS doesn't marry or
> > > cohabitate, she can still collect the SS. My favorite judge told me
my
> ex
> > > wasn't cohabitating because she and the guy who lived with her had not
> > > co-mingled their checking accounts. Just more evidence to prove my
case
> > > that judges are idiots in black robes.
> >
> > Is it awarded only to SAHs? Or can a salary difference net alimony,
too?
>
> I don't know. What I do know is the awarding of SS is left up to judicial
> discretion. In my case CS was set high so my ex could afford to "continue
> to maintain the family home for my children" and SS was set to "allow her
to
> gain job skill training and transition back into the job market." My
> divorce was finalized before the CS guidelines were implemented so I ended
> up paying a huge amount of money.

That's interesting. I was taught that CS guidelines were invented, because
exisiting awards were too small, and inconsistent between judges and the
circumstances of the divorcing couples, thus they were,or at least had they
appearence of being, arbitrary. Arbitrary decisions on the part of judges,
result in an unpredictable, and risky situation, and the law abors
unpredictability, and risk.

>
> When the CS guidelines were implemented my CS payments were significantly
> reduced even though my income was substantially higher. And when the CS
> guidelines came into effect they allowed for SS payments to be deducted
from
> the NCP's income before CS payments were set. In my divorce SS payments
> were an add-on after CS was set. And that is how men like me ended up
> paying 75% of their earned income in income taxes and support.

After all is said and done, I net 48% of gross.

[frazil]

Moon Shyne > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.

Moonshyne, I was talking about a *no-fault* divorce.

Here's what I said:

> 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

In a *fault* divorce, I probably agree with you.

[frazil]

The Dave© > wrote in message
s.com...
> "frazil" wrote
> > 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"
>
> In general, I agree with you completely. In cases where the non-wage
earner
> leaves for a valid reason (i.e.; legitimate abuse, etc), would you be in
> favor of bringing back "at fault" divorce as an option, thus allowing the
> wage earner to pay something for at least a limited period of time. In no
> case do I believe that alimony of CS is justifiable indefinitely.
>

In a fault situation, the person who is shown to have provided the reason
for the divorce certainly has a big strike against them. As for
indefinitely, no. It should be for a set time period. However, I could see
some situations where it may be appropriate to award alimony until the death
of either the payor or beneficiary.

[Mel Gamble]

Not near as upsetting ...

>Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
>> >Phil #3 > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > Phil#3 wrote:
>> And because he has chosen to remain unmarried....
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > <Snip to>
>> >> >
>> >> > >So you know of no advantages for men to marry?
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are happier
>> >isn't
>> >> an
>> >> > advantage in your eyes?
>> >>
>> >> Not at all. I'd rather die happy than live unhappy.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Me neither, but I know of
>> >> > >MANY disadvantage
>> >> >
>> >> > Some women feel the same way.
>> >>
>> >> I know, I am in a relationship with one who feels much the same way I
>do
>> >> about it and we're happy living apart, sharing what we want, when we
>want.
>> >> She has her life into which I don't intrude and try to bend her desires
>> >and
>> >> she returns the favor. We are both happy. Neither of us see the need to
>> >fix
>> >> what ain't broken.
>> >> Phil #3
>> >>
>> >
>> >OK... ignore previous question. But you can almost be sure, she will feel
>> >different one day. ;)
>>
>> the only cost to him will be emotional. Good point, Tiff.
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>
>Emotional yes but that can be pretty upsetting to. It sounds like he has a
>good thing for now.

.... as when you add in costs in cash and costs in children.

Mel Gamble

>T
>
>
>
>

[Mel Gamble]

My mistake...

>Mel wrote:
>
>>Simple...
>>
>>>Mel wrote:
>>>
>>><snip to>
>>>>>I hope the next gerneration of couples will look very different than what
>>>we
>>>>>have seen in the past.
>>>>
>>>>Thinking like yours is why there WON'T BE a next generation of (married)
>>>>couples.
>>>
>>>WHY Mel? What is no unattractive about what I typed below? What is so
>>>horrible
>>>about men and women each taking 50% of the at home duties? What is wrong
>>with
>>>BOTH men and women splitting the career sacrafices? Why should women
>>continue
>>>to work outside the home and do the vast majority of child rearing and at
>>>home
>>>duties, and the men don't have to pick up their 50%?
>>
>>... the equal marriage your postulate will require that many laws and many
>>societal preconceptions be changed - that will take a LONG time. In the
>>meantime, the thinking you've been standing behind in this thread is going
>to
>>scare boys/men away from marriage.
>
>WHY Mel? What about being equal partners in a marriage will scare men away?

Are you really stupid enough to have missed the point of that statement? I
already answered the question you just asked - see the paragraph above your
stupid question...

>Isn't that what marriage is suppossed to be?

Used to be. Unfortunately, what marriage is "supposed to be" is whatever
society and it's screwy laws deem correct at the time...and it keeps changing.

>Why would the idea that men
>would
>do 50% of the child rearing and home duties be so scarey if the women were
>doing 50% of the outside the home work?
>
>What we have been discussing here has been SS.

WOW, an admission that your strawman "equal marriage" wasn't under
discussion...

>You feel it is wrong and I
>don't
>in LT SAH situations. I offer up an alternative to make sure it isn't ordered
>and you say it will scare boys/men away.

Nice try....no win.
>
>I just don't understand why you are saying this.

Playing stupid isn't very becoming old girl...

>SS wouldn't be ordered when
>a
>couple splits up if they have BOTH kept their careers and they have BOTH
>shared
>all the child rearing and at home duties. It isn't ordered TODAY in scenarios
>like this, even in LT marriages.
>
>The solution to this is for NO ONE to be a SAH, EVER. For BOTH parents to
>take
>equal responsibilty in EVERYTHING in the marriage. This will not only stop SS
>but it would help wage earners in the custody arena as well.
>
>
> The next generation is going to be a
>>series
>>of loose, casual relationships because of the dangers to men in marriage.
>
>The generation that is currently of typical marriage age isn't showing signs
>of
>this.

Of course not - they're too busy putting holes in their bodies and having
relationships with same-sex and multiple partners. No problem going from that
into a traditional marriage....NOT.

>Based on the amount of wedding invitations we are getting it looks like
>the mid-twenties segment isn't backing away, but moving towards marriage.

Who do you get them from - you're tax-evading friends?

>>And
>>that change in the form of common relationships means that your utopia is
>>unlikely to ever unfold.
>
>I wouldn't bet on that. I do have daughters, one late teens and one early
>twenties. We have plenty of their peers in and out of our home now that
>school
>is out. I AM seeing differances in the male/female relationships already.

OK, so your two daughters will go into traditional marriages after they get
pregnant. The other 500,000 girls thier ages in this country are having
lesbian sex and smoking pot. They might date boys....IF they could get the
boys away from other boys.

>These
>young woman aren't accepting the stereotypical roles that many many marriages
>are based on. The young men are faced with the choice to treat these women as
>equals or not have any of these quality women in their lives.

If they are like thier mommy, the boys will make the latter choice, just as I
wrote.

>Now mind you
>they
>don't have to do this. They can marry an uneducated gal with no career goals.
>Of course then they'll end up paying CS and SS if their marriage ends, but
>that
>will be their choice, won't it?

No. Their choice will be to remain single and stay with their boyfriends.

>>>You know we can go back and forth on SS, CS, etc. But here you have a
>>totally
>>>equal arrangement for a married couple and you say it would be the end of
>>>couples.
>>
>>No, I said the end would come BEFORE that arrangement could be implemented.
>>
>
>If that does come to pass then I really really doubt it will be because of
>the
>family court laws. It will be because boys/men like marriage the way it is.
>They like having mens work and womens work.

They like surviving. As long as marriage is going to remain suicidal for men,
they will avoid it.

>I wish there were some sats that showed why women become SAHs. I know plenty
>of
>SAHs and there seems to be a reaccuring reason amongst the ones *I* know.
>It's
>because while they were still working their H's left the vast majority of the
>child rearing and home duties to them. They got to a point where there just
>wasn't enough time or energy to do it all. So something had to give. Their
>DHs
>would rather have had them at home than give up any of their time to do an
>equal share. Voila, you have a SAH whose DH is as happy as a clam, until they
>are faced with divorce and realize what's theirs isn't all theirs but rather
>a
>melding of his and hers.

Stange. Just a couple of days ago you were claiming it was always by some kind
of mutual decision... Now you're making it sound more like coercion... Maybe
by next week, that gun I spoke of will find its way into your memory of how
things are....

>>>Maybe I took your above comment wrong, but if I didn't you clearly don't
>>want
>>>equality in marriages.
>>
>>How in the HELL did you get that out of the simple comment I made
>>above???????
>
>By your saying, "Thinking like yours is why there WON'T BE a next generation
>of
>(married) couples." I took that to be a reflection on the whole equal
>division
>of all aspects of marriage comments I have made.

No, it was based on the discussion YOU just admitted we were having (see above)
- one regarding the "fairness" of SS. You are amazing...

>>>You want the old fashioned marriage where the man was
>>>king and his wife was his servant. Is that what you really want Mel? Is
>that
>>>what you want for your daughter?
>>
>>Actually, I want your utopia, but your insistance on sticking with the
>>current
>>status quo along the way will blow up any chance of getting there.
>
>What I have offered up is a way to keep the SS laws from being imposed. How
>will that blow anything up?

You sure don't follow along very well...

>>>>>I'd see this as a good thing for BOTH men and women.
>>>>>Women will retain their careers and men will end up doing 50% of the
>child
>>>>>rearing, home duties and take their share of career set backs for doing
>>so,
>>>>>like women have been expected to do in the past. WHEN this happens then
>>>>yeah,
>>>>>what each earns will be theirs to keep, in the event of a divorce. If the
>>>>>playing field is level all along then it will be level in the end.
>>>>>
>>>>>But there is an added bonus for the men. If they are infact doing 50% of
>>>the
>>>>>child rearing then 50/50 shared custody will be more the norm. And that's
>>>>>what
>>>>>most men want any way, right? So they won't mind actually doing it during
>>>>the
>>>>>marriage. They will be thrilled they get to clean up the projectile
>>vommit
>>>>>at
>>>>>3am when the kids are sick. They will relish leaving work early to sit in
>>>>the
>>>>>Dr's office and wait 2 hours with a crying sick child. They will be
>>>ecstatic
>>>>>not to take the clients out for cocktails after work, because they have
>to
>>>>>bake
>>>>> cupcakes and run the cake walk at the pre-school. Not seeing the big
>game
>>>>>won't be missed because they'll be all warm and fuzzy at the mall getting
>>>Jr
>>>>>the new shoes he needs for Monday.
>>>>>
>>>>>SIGH... I can see it now. Men all over the country doing their 50% at
>home
>>>>>and
>>>>>being so very happy they don't have to pay their lazy SAH spouse one red
>>>>cent
>>>>>if they divorce. I just get chills thinking about it. ;)
>>>>
>>>>You just get tingly thinking about other people's money...
>>>
>>>Nah, money doesn't get to me the way the thought of men doing what society
>>>has
>>>dictated women do for many many years.
>>>
>>>And I don't think the changes I proposed would be the end of marriage.
>Maybe
>>>the end of marital dictatorships, but hell those need to go anyway.
>>
>>Again, it isn't the "changes I proposed" that will end marriage - it's
>>sticking
>>with the husband-killer laws we have NOW that will end it.
>
>Mel, do you really think most men even know the way family court works and
>the
>laws when they enter into a marriage?

More and more, my dear. It's become a common topic of discussion where there
are no women present... You'd be surprised at the change in attitude of a man
who actually meets a few other men going through this crap we write about.

>You see, I don't think they have a
>clue,
>they don't really care as they figure the big D will never happen to them,
>and
>they LIKE having someone take care of them, their children and their homes.
>At
>least that is what I have seen and heard in the past and sadly still today.

Go into a blue-collar setting where there are no women present. Listen to the
talk for a couple of days - the subject will come up at least once in two days
and the discussion will NOT be to your liking.

>You and I have the same goal. We both want there to be no SS. Our differances
>are how it would be best accomplished. I want there to be no need for SS and
>you want there to be no SS regardless if there is a need for it or not.

You want women to be able to keep robbing men until women no longer need to rob
them. Men MAY just want to avoid that.....

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>Mel Gamble
>>
>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mel Gamble
>>>>
>>>>>Mrs Indyguy

[Mel Gamble]

Why thank you, Indyguy...

>Mel wrote:
>
>
>
>>You've been participating in this group long enough ...
>>
>>>Mel wrote:
>>>
>>>>Exactly, Kenneth.
>>>>
>>>>>I think what this all boils down to is that it is very important that
>>>>>people not be granted victim status, and compensated for this status,
>>>>>until there is an investigation of whether they actually ARE victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> The central problem for men in what goes on in U.S. domestic relations
>>>>>law is that women usually are automatically awarded victim status.
>>>>>Women are, after all, one of the officially designated victim groups in
>>>>>the U.S. These groups constitute a huge category of people, embracing
>>>>>all kinds, from Aleutian islanders to one-legged lesbians, but certainly
>>>>>EXCLUDING heterosexual men.
>>>>>
>>>>> So a stay at home wife can come along, seeking a divorce via no-fault
>>>>>divorce laws, and claim that she should be compensated by the man that
>>>>>she wants to push out of the family. In regard to the decision to stay
>>>>>home, there's no investigation of the woman's claim that her husband
>>>>>made her do it. And there's no investigation, of course, into whether
>>>>>the woman is justified in seeking to break up the family by expelling
>>>>>her husband.
>>>>
>>>>And when it comes to the spousal support that Gimmeguy argues for,
>>>
>>>
>>>Mel, dont you think name calling is a bit hypocritical when discussing
>>things
>>>you deam immature?
>>
>>... to know that I do this. If you don't like it, quit responding to me,
>>like
>>I've quit responding to nasty.
>
>Oh don't get me wrong, it doesn't bother me at all. I just thought it was
>humerous that while calling for maturity you were doing such a...well...
>immature thing.:)

.... since I haven't mentioned maturity, this must be your way of admitting that
asking women to be responsible for their own decisions is asking them to be
mature. I have to agree...

>>> there's no
>>>>investigation into whether she'd have been a corporate executive if she'd
>>>>stayed in the workplace....or just an older, burned out hooker. But she
>>>>always
>>>>has to pay as if she'd have been the executive.
>>>
>>>Is that so? Then I guess all exes that recieve SS are compensated at the
>>>executive level. Of course you know that isn't true.
>>
>>They are compensated at the earning spouse's level, regardless of how much
>>higher than their own aspirations that might be
>
>Or lower.
>
>
>>
>>>Anything goes when you
>>>are
>>>trying to advance your side or an arguement, right Mel?
>>
>>Logic too much for you, huh....
>
>No, your twisting and turning is at times, irratating.
>
>>
>>>For many many years I have been a big proponent of couples seeking their
>own
>>>socio-economical level when they choose who they will marry. You have just
>>>reminded me of one of the reasons it is in their best interests to do
>>exactly
>>>that.
>>
>>And as someone who feels the need to be a "proponent" of such, you are
>>probably
>>more aware than most that it isn't currently happening.... Thanks for the
>>corroboration.
>
>No offense, but smart men will marry equal.

Which has WHAT to do with SS? Smart men do not necessarily end up in
high-paying jobs.

>>>The way SS works, as you well know, is that it is paid based on what the
>>wage
>>>earner is capable of paying.
>>
>>Hmm, sort of like CS, isn't it - not based on anything to do with where it
>>ends
>>up.
>
>Huh?
>
>>
>>>So if your stbx is an executive then you are
>>>deemed to be an excutive level SAH and your SS will reflect that.
>>
>>STRANGE..... Up 'til now, you've been saying that SS was based on the
>>ability
>>to earn that the SAH gave up by being married. NOW it's based on what the
>>working spouse is capable of earning and has nothing to do with any
>>talents/skills that the SAH might have had/gained independent of the
>>marriage.... Why the change in argument????
>
>No change in argument. Two different elements . One is the basis for why it
>is
>awarded and they other the baisis for how much is awarded.

And you accuse me of twisting....

>>>If your
>>>stbx
>>>is a blue collar worker you will recieve SS based on the premise you are a
>>>blue
>>>collar worker level SAH.
>>
>>But you will not be forced to live at a blue-collar SOL if you - as the
>>former
>>SAH - are now capable of earning better for yourself. So the dance-hall
>girl
>>who marries the exec gets to retire as if she had been on track to become an
>>exec....as does the exec who marries the ditch digger and keeps her skills
>>during the marriage. Where, pray tell, is the downside in this scam for the
>>SAH???
>
>If they both keep their skills there won't be a downside for either. They
>both
>continue to work, share all the at home duties 50/50 and if D happens they
>can
>both walk away without SS.
>
> I trust you can easily see the downside for the wage-earner...?
>
>I see a downside for BOTH of them if one was a SAH.

You may see it, but when I asked what it was, you avoided answering.

>>>There is NO way to go back and restart ones life and see where they'd
>>>finacially be if they hadn't started or given up a career to be a SAH. Just
>>>like there is no way to go back and see where the wage earner would have
>>>ended
>>>up if they didn't have that SAH there doing everything but earning a wage
>>for
>>>them.
>>
>>Let's see, if I didn't have somebody else to do the laundry during the 16
>>hours
>>I'm not working.... I don't think it would have much effect on where I
>ended
>>up after 10 years of working AND doing the laundry in my off-hours......
>So?
>
>Well Mel, if your ex was a lazy worthless subhuman, that doesn't mean the
>vast
>majority of SAHs are like her.

Which has exactly what to do with what? YOU claimed there was no way to no
where the wage-earner would have been without the SAH, as if the lack of a SAH
would have been detrimental to the wage-earners earning. I just pointed out
that having a SAH didn't and wouldn't affect my ability to earn. Actually, I'd
probably have gone farther with the emotional turmoil that followed me to work
so many days...

>Your average SAH does all of the at home and child rearing while the wage
>earner is at work and pretty much most of it when the wage earner is home
>from
>work.

Big deal. Are you saying that if she weren't there the guy would starve? Or
wear dirty shirts to the office? Don't think so.....

>Here's a perfect example. I am handing over the executive board for a soccer
>club to another, because my child is no longer able to play for the club
>because she graduated from HS. I called to let them know something last
>night.The wife wasn't home, she was at a soccer game with her child, and her
>DH
>answered the phone. I simply wanted to leave directions on how to get to the
>fundraiser they are doing next week, her DH said, "Can you call back, I'm
>just
>the husband." I told him I couldn't call back and he said, "I just got home
>from playing 18 holes and this stuff is my wife's job, not mine."
>
>This apparently isn't your experience but it is much more the norm.

Nope, exactly the same as mine - my daughter's mother doesn't want anything to
do with soccer. My daughter has had a horse for 10 months and mommy has never
driven 5 miles to see it.

As to your phone conversation, if the wife took over being on the soccer
board...then the wife took over being on the soccer board. Did somebody tell
you the husband was also going to be on the board? Maybe the husband would
prefer the daughter put more effort into her studies and less into
extra-curricular activities and the wife told him she'd take the kids, the
house, the car, and most of his salary if he didn't STF up... Maybe he just
doesn't like having to speak to you...

>>How does that automatically equate to being in the same place I am at the
>end
>>of 20 years just because you gave up your career at McDonald's?
>
>When you married you became one finacially when only one wage was earned. If
>you don't want this to happen then maintain two wages.

Yes, that's your view.

>>>So if one marries a bimbo with no job skills or education they have no one
>>to
>>>blame but themselves when that same person is deemed at their level and
>paid
>>>SS
>>>to refelect that level.
>>
>>Yes they do - they have idiots like yourself who insist that such **** be
>the
>>law of the land to blame...doesn't make it right.
>
>Where did your *personal responsibilty for your own actions* argument go,
>Mel?

See the sentence above your question. The argument is the same - the law
doesn't negate it.

>>Strangely enough, if one marries a high-paid executive who becomes a
>>SAH....one
>>ends up in the same place one ends up when one marries the bimbo who becomes
>>a
>>SAH. The only one who benefits by "marrying up" is the SAH..... Wonder why
>>that is?????
>
>Ask Joan Lunden's ex. He's got a nice sum of SS coming in.
>
>Simple solution to this is don't agree to a spouse being a SAH and don't
>marry
>down. Each keeps their career and each does 50% of the at home duties. NO SS
>and a solid reasoning for 50/50 shared custody. Everyone wins.

Even simpler - be responsible for your own choices. Not only does it eliminate
the problem, it'll also make a better person out of you.

Mel Gamble

>Mrs Indyguy
>>
>>Mel Gamble
>>
>>>Mrs Indyguy
>>>>
>>>>Mel Gamble
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it's called the empowerment of women. Too bad that it's at
>>>>>the expense of men and children.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mel Gamble wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >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 o

[Mel Gamble]

Cinderella ...

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> You see?...
>>
>> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Only because "Friendly" will be leaving tomorrow...
>> >>
>> >> >Oh, Mel--you are in a mood today! You and I have debated this before
>and
>> >> >never reached a common conclusion. Perhaps I have just run into a
>> >different
>> >> >quality of SAH's than you have. I know it's different when you're the
>> >one
>> >> >who's been burned.
>> >>
>> >> I've already started educating my daughter. We were talking yesterday
>> >about
>> >> giving away the puppies. I told her that someday I might "give her
>away".
>> >> "But I'm not a puppy!!!". So I explained to her how things "used to
>be",
>> >when
>> >> a man would ask a girls father for her hand in marriage and the father
>> >would
>> >> walk her down the aisle in front of all and that was the symbolic act
>of
>> >> "giving her away" to the new husband. I explained to her that it USED
>TO
>> >BE
>> >> thought that women needed to be taken care of, just like puppies, and
>that
>> >they
>> >> went from being taken care of by thier fathers to being taken care of
>by
>> >thier
>> >> husbands. And I told her that things aren't like that for most people
>> >now -
>> >> that most people think women can take care of themselves. And I will
>make
>> >sure
>> >> that she is able to take care of herself. She will be able to depend
>on a
>> >man
>> >> IF SHE WANTS TO, but she will NOT grow up thinking it's something she
>has
>> >to
>> >> do....or has a right to do.
>> >
>> >I have also been educating my own daughters, Mel. Just as you have. I
>have
>> >told them, as my father told me, to make sure they can support
>themselves,
>> >because, at some point, they will most likely have to do so.
>Independence
>> >is indispensible these days!
>>
>> ... it's not that I'm "in a mood". It's just making sure your kids live
>their
>> lives in a manner that recognizes the reality of what the whining of some
>has
>> gotten all of us. I wish I could tell her to follow Cinderella's lead
>
>Strange, Mel. I've never pictured a SAH mom as a Cinderella. Cooking,
>cleaning, childrearing, etc, aren't a fairy tale life in my eyes.

.... found her Prince Charming, hitched her wagon to his star, and lived happily
ever after. The fairy tale doesn't go into detail about exactly WHAT comprises
"happily ever after", just that it's dependent on finding a Prince Charming...

>People
>should shake loose from fairy tales before they ever marry! The

Just what I said...

>breadwinner/SAH parent does quite well for those who are willing to put the
>work into it that it needs. But any marriage needs to have effort put into
>it--it doesn't just happen!
>
> - she's
>> already got the evil (step) mother...it would be great if she could expect
>to
>> meet up with Prince Charming. But Prince Charming has had his throne
>stolen by
>> a liberal government who thinks it should be melted down an divied up
>among
>> those who hollered loudest for a share of it. The King knows that the
>Prince
>> cannot follow in daddy's footsteps and has not raised him in the princely
>ways.
>> My daughter's Prince Charming has been legislated away.... I just want
>her to
>> grow up knowing how to deal with that reality. I don't call it "being in
>a
>> mood", I call it "Eyes wide open".
>
>Oh, I don't think all the Prince Charmings are gone, Mel.

Used to be there was a Prince Charming for nearly every Cinderella. Men don't
want to be Prince Charming anymore because the people have given Cinderella the
throne and the Prince is her serf.

>Cinderella saw a
>Prince Charming because that's who she chose to see.

Cinderella saw a Prince who was still allowed to BE a prince and go on to
become a King.

>Living with him
>probably took the edge off that real quick. <chuckle> Seriously, though, I
>don't discourage the romantic "Prince Charming" ideas my daughters come up
>with, but I do teach them that they still need to be able to take care of
>them selves. (Just in case the Prince turns back into a frog) <snicker>

More and more princes are being raised in single-parent homes. They aren't
princely anymore.

>> >> But she wants to be a Princess for Halloween this year. I told her I
>> >wasn't
>> >> going to start making a costume yet with so much time left for her to
>> >change
>> >> her mind...
>> >
>> >And they do change their minds a lot, don't they? <chuckle>
>>
>> Two weeks ago, it was a witch....
>
>My oldest (10 yrs old) wants to open a library with all her outgrown books
>this year. My youngest (8-2/3) wants to date Simon Cowell, that judge from
>American Idol. We haven't gotten to Halloween yet.

I'm just trying to make it to the point where the puppies are gone. Patches is
going....sigh : ( At least he's going to a guy I met through her school. He
has a daughter in her class and is getting Patches as a surprise. He seems
decent - I think Patches will be OK. He's spending the night here so we can
deliver him tomorrow.

Mel Gamble

[Tiffany]

Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> Not near as upsetting ...
>
> >Mel Gamble > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Phil #3 > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > Phil#3 wrote:
> >> And because he has chosen to remain unmarried....
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <Snip to>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >So you know of no advantages for men to marry?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I guess the stats that show married men live longer and are
happier
> >> >isn't
> >> >> an
> >> >> > advantage in your eyes?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not at all. I'd rather die happy than live unhappy.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Me neither, but I know of
> >> >> > >MANY disadvantage
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Some women feel the same way.
> >> >>
> >> >> I know, I am in a relationship with one who feels much the same way
I
> >do
> >> >> about it and we're happy living apart, sharing what we want, when we
> >want.
> >> >> She has her life into which I don't intrude and try to bend her
desires
> >> >and
> >> >> she returns the favor. We are both happy. Neither of us see the need
to
> >> >fix
> >> >> what ain't broken.
> >> >> Phil #3
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >OK... ignore previous question. But you can almost be sure, she will
feel
> >> >different one day. ;)
> >>
> >> the only cost to him will be emotional. Good point, Tiff.
> >>
> >> Mel Gamble
> >
> >Emotional yes but that can be pretty upsetting to. It sounds like he has
a
> >good thing for now.
>
> ... as when you add in costs in cash and costs in children.
>
> Mel Gamble
>


It seems he is about past that rearing children age. But I have seen more
men (in my real life) who were more devastated by the emotions of the
divorce then the finances. But then again, that is what I am around, not
you.

[frazil]

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.

I agree with much of what you say, except for the "so that if it ends" part.
Anyone entering marriage prepared for the "if it ends" shouldn't be getting
married. You are either in or out, there should be no half way, IMO.

[TeacherMama]

"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>
> I agree with much of what you say, except for the "so that if it ends"
part.
> Anyone entering marriage prepared for the "if it ends" shouldn't be
getting
> married. You are either in or out, there should be no half way, IMO.

I agree that planning for divorce before you even say "I do" is probably not
a good paln. But, as my dear old dad used to say, there aer other tings
that end marriages, so you best be able to take care of you and yours.

[frazil]

Tiffany > wrote in message
...
>
> I suppose, unlike you all, I do know some happy married people. AND they
> have been married for some time. I also know divorced folks that didn't
end
> up on the Jerry Springer show. They divorced, treat each other with
dignity
> and the kids have had no ill affects as they continued to be parented by
> both parents.
> When you are surrounded by alot of the negative relationships, its easy to
> think the way you men are thinking. I guess it takes a certain type of
> individual to move past the bad and still believe in good.
> I for one, was in an abusive relationship for a short time. Short, only
> because I had enough sense to get out. Should I then assume all men are
> abusive?

All dogs don't bite, but once you've been bitten, you excersize greater
caution in your subsequent encounters with dogs.


>
> T
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Dave© > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > "frazil" wrote
> > > 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"
> >
> > In general, I agree with you completely. In cases where the non-wage
> earner
> > leaves for a valid reason (i.e.; legitimate abuse, etc), would you be in
> > favor of bringing back "at fault" divorce as an option, thus allowing
the
> > wage earner to pay something for at least a limited period of time. In
no
> > case do I believe that alimony of CS is justifiable indefinitely.
> >
>
> In a fault situation, the person who is shown to have provided the reason
> for the divorce certainly has a big strike against them. As for
> indefinitely, no. It should be for a set time period. However, I could
see
> some situations where it may be appropriate to award alimony until the
death
> of either the payor or beneficiary.

Two significant tax events related to divorce changed in 1986. With passage
of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 the use of alimony became more punitive
against men than it had been before. The progressive tax rates were shrunk
down to the 15% and 28% rates. Prior to that a man with an incremental tax
rate in the 40% range and a woman with a post-divorce tax rate of under 15%
could do a deal involving SS that got the woman more money because the man
could deduct it at the higher rate and she would pay taxes on the money at
the lower rate. And secondly, the tax reform act transferred the child
exemption to the CP, unless they give it back. Prior to that the party who
paid more than 50% of the child's expenses got the deduction.

These two changes forced NCP men to pay taxes on behalf of the CP women.
They amounted to hidden support increases for CP women because they shifted
tax liability to NCP men forcing men to pay taxes on amounts that previously
were their tax advantages.

[Tiffany]

Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> Cinderella ...
>
> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> You see?...
> >>
>
> I'm just trying to make it to the point where the puppies are gone.
Patches is
> going....sigh : ( At least he's going to a guy I met through her school.
He
> has a daughter in her class and is getting Patches as a surprise. He
seems
> decent - I think Patches will be OK. He's spending the night here so we
can
> deliver him tomorrow.
>
> Mel Gamble

Puppy withdrawl? :)

Tiff

[frazil]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The Dave© > wrote in message
> > s.com...
> > > "frazil" wrote
> > > > 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"
> > >
> > > In general, I agree with you completely. In cases where the non-wage
> > earner
> > > leaves for a valid reason (i.e.; legitimate abuse, etc), would you be
in
> > > favor of bringing back "at fault" divorce as an option, thus allowing
> the
> > > wage earner to pay something for at least a limited period of time.
In
> no
> > > case do I believe that alimony of CS is justifiable indefinitely.
> > >
> >
> > In a fault situation, the person who is shown to have provided the
reason
> > for the divorce certainly has a big strike against them. As for
> > indefinitely, no. It should be for a set time period. However, I could
> see
> > some situations where it may be appropriate to award alimony until the
> death
> > of either the payor or beneficiary.
>
> Two significant tax events related to divorce changed in 1986. With
passage
> of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 the use of alimony became more punitive
> against men than it had been before. The progressive tax rates were
shrunk
> down to the 15% and 28% rates. Prior to that a man with an incremental
tax
> rate in the 40% range and a woman with a post-divorce tax rate of under
15%
> could do a deal involving SS that got the woman more money because the man
> could deduct it at the higher rate and she would pay taxes on the money at
> the lower rate. And secondly, the tax reform act transferred the child
> exemption to the CP, unless they give it back. Prior to that the party
who
> paid more than 50% of the child's expenses got the deduction.
>
> These two changes forced NCP men to pay taxes on behalf of the CP women.
> They amounted to hidden support increases for CP women because they
shifted
> tax liability to NCP men forcing men to pay taxes on amounts that
previously
> were their tax advantages.

And what was the argument, back in 1986, for giving the CP the dependent
exemption and other associated tax benefits? I'm just curious, because if
it was, as you describe, it seems like it would be a difficult argument to
make with a straight face.

[frazil]

TeacherMama > wrote in message
...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I agree with much of what you say, except for the "so that if it ends"
> part.
> > Anyone entering marriage prepared for the "if it ends" shouldn't be
> getting
> > married. You are either in or out, there should be no half way, IMO.
>
> I agree that planning for divorce before you even say "I do" is probably
not
> a good paln. But, as my dear old dad used to say, there aer other tings
> that end marriages, so you best be able to take care of you and yours.

Your right. I didn't think of the other things.

[Bob Whiteside]

"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > The Dave© > wrote in message
> > > s.com...
> > > > "frazil" wrote
> > > > > 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"
> > > >
> > > > In general, I agree with you completely. In cases where the
non-wage
> > > earner
> > > > leaves for a valid reason (i.e.; legitimate abuse, etc), would you
be
> in
> > > > favor of bringing back "at fault" divorce as an option, thus
allowing
> > the
> > > > wage earner to pay something for at least a limited period of time.
> In
> > no
> > > > case do I believe that alimony of CS is justifiable indefinitely.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In a fault situation, the person who is shown to have provided the
> reason
> > > for the divorce certainly has a big strike against them. As for
> > > indefinitely, no. It should be for a set time period. However, I
could
> > see
> > > some situations where it may be appropriate to award alimony until the
> > death
> > > of either the payor or beneficiary.
> >
> > Two significant tax events related to divorce changed in 1986. With
> passage
> > of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 the use of alimony became more punitive
> > against men than it had been before. The progressive tax rates were
> shrunk
> > down to the 15% and 28% rates. Prior to that a man with an incremental
> tax
> > rate in the 40% range and a woman with a post-divorce tax rate of under
> 15%
> > could do a deal involving SS that got the woman more money because the
man
> > could deduct it at the higher rate and she would pay taxes on the money
at
> > the lower rate. And secondly, the tax reform act transferred the child
> > exemption to the CP, unless they give it back. Prior to that the party
> who
> > paid more than 50% of the child's expenses got the deduction.
> >
> > These two changes forced NCP men to pay taxes on behalf of the CP women.
> > They amounted to hidden support increases for CP women because they
> shifted
> > tax liability to NCP men forcing men to pay taxes on amounts that
> previously
> > were their tax advantages.
>
> And what was the argument, back in 1986, for giving the CP the dependent
> exemption and other associated tax benefits? I'm just curious, because if
> it was, as you describe, it seems like it would be a difficult argument to
> make with a straight face.

The change in child deductibility wasn't discussed at all. This was a case
of the "big print gives it to you" and the "fine print takes it away." The
debate focused on the big issues - tax cuts, increasing the tax base,
simplifying taxes, and eliminating the investment tax credit.

It wasn't until after this act passed that average people understood how it
affected them. The change in child tax exemption from the NCP to the CP was
one of the unexpected consequences.

Most people have a poor opinion of former Senator Bob Packwood for him being
overly aggressive with women. I hate his guts for what he did to men.

[frazil]

Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> > thlink.net...
> > >
> > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > The Dave© > wrote in message
> > > > s.com...
> > > > > "frazil" wrote
> > > > > > 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"
> > > > >
> > > > > In general, I agree with you completely. In cases where the
> non-wage
> > > > earner
> > > > > leaves for a valid reason (i.e.; legitimate abuse, etc), would you
> be
> > in
> > > > > favor of bringing back "at fault" divorce as an option, thus
> allowing
> > > the
> > > > > wage earner to pay something for at least a limited period of
time.
> > In
> > > no
> > > > > case do I believe that alimony of CS is justifiable indefinitely.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In a fault situation, the person who is shown to have provided the
> > reason
> > > > for the divorce certainly has a big strike against them. As for
> > > > indefinitely, no. It should be for a set time period. However, I
> could
> > > see
> > > > some situations where it may be appropriate to award alimony until
the
> > > death
> > > > of either the payor or beneficiary.
> > >
> > > Two significant tax events related to divorce changed in 1986. With
> > passage
> > > of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 the use of alimony became more punitive
> > > against men than it had been before. The progressive tax rates were
> > shrunk
> > > down to the 15% and 28% rates. Prior to that a man with an
incremental
> > tax
> > > rate in the 40% range and a woman with a post-divorce tax rate of
under
> > 15%
> > > could do a deal involving SS that got the woman more money because the
> man
> > > could deduct it at the higher rate and she would pay taxes on the
money
> at
> > > the lower rate. And secondly, the tax reform act transferred the
child
> > > exemption to the CP, unless they give it back. Prior to that the
party
> > who
> > > paid more than 50% of the child's expenses got the deduction.
> > >
> > > These two changes forced NCP men to pay taxes on behalf of the CP
women.
> > > They amounted to hidden support increases for CP women because they
> > shifted
> > > tax liability to NCP men forcing men to pay taxes on amounts that
> > previously
> > > were their tax advantages.
> >
> > And what was the argument, back in 1986, for giving the CP the dependent
> > exemption and other associated tax benefits? I'm just curious, because
if
> > it was, as you describe, it seems like it would be a difficult argument
to
> > make with a straight face.
>
> The change in child deductibility wasn't discussed at all. This was a
case
> of the "big print gives it to you" and the "fine print takes it away."
The
> debate focused on the big issues - tax cuts, increasing the tax base,
> simplifying taxes, and eliminating the investment tax credit.
>
> It wasn't until after this act passed that average people understood how
it
> affected them. The change in child tax exemption from the NCP to the CP
was
> one of the unexpected consequences.

ah, one of those stealth sections, usually they are favors to business, or
pork spending, but every one in a while something important gets through

>
> Most people have a poor opinion of former Senator Bob Packwood for him
being
> overly aggressive with women. I hate his guts for what he did to men.
>
>

[Mel Gamble]

>Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
>> Cinderella ...
>>
>> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> You see?...
>> >>
>>
>> I'm just trying to make it to the point where the puppies are gone.
>Patches is
>> going....sigh : ( At least he's going to a guy I met through her school.
>He
>> has a daughter in her class and is getting Patches as a surprise. He
>seems
>> decent - I think Patches will be OK. He's spending the night here so we
>can
>> deliver him tomorrow.
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>
>Puppy withdrawl? :)
>
>Tiff

Yes, and there are no "Patches" to help with the symptoms.......

Mel Gamble

[Phil #3]

I'm still waiting :)
Phil #3

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Phil #3 > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> Snipped
>
> > I just have to ask, what about marriage holds importance for you?
> > Phil #3
> >
> >
>
> Such a simple question but I realized I have to actually think about this
> first before answering. I will get back to this. lol
>
> T
>
>

[Tiffany]

Oh ****.... you were suppose to forget about this.

I will be honest..... due to some things happening in my personal life (yep
that whole dating thing) I am not only doubting marriage, I am doubting
there is anyone that even closely resembles a soulmate for me.
But to answer that question in some way...... marriage is just the
traditional way a couple shows to each other, the family, the world, that
they have made a commitment to each other. Sure traditions are meant to be
broken. Looks like if society has its way, that is going to be the way it
is.
Pooh on marriage, so right on and end the marriage concept.


lol

T
Phil #3 > wrote in message
...
> I'm still waiting :)
> Phil #3
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > Snipped
> >
> > > I just have to ask, what about marriage holds importance for you?
> > > Phil #3
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Such a simple question but I realized I have to actually think about
this
> > first before answering. I will get back to this. lol
> >
> > T
> >
> >
>
>

[Tracy]

"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
> Oh ****.... you were suppose to forget about this.
>
> I will be honest..... due to some things happening in my personal life
(yep
> that whole dating thing) I am not only doubting marriage, I am doubting
> there is anyone that even closely resembles a soulmate for me.

Never give up hope. When you least expect it - it may happen. Just live
your life day-by-day and enjoy it. Someday you may meet someone who you
hold very dear to your heart, and likewise - he holds you dear to his heart.
Be open to love... it will happen.


> But to answer that question in some way...... marriage is just the
> traditional way a couple shows to each other, the family, the world, that
> they have made a commitment to each other. Sure traditions are meant to be
> broken. Looks like if society has its way, that is going to be the way it
> is.
> Pooh on marriage, so right on and end the marriage concept.


Sounds more like you want to play and not find that soulmate.
Understandable. After all it is probably a natural reaction when you
believe it doesn't exist. You are still young, and young people should
enjoy themselves. Wait until the right one comes a long... but be
careful... when he does your own feeling may catch you off guard. :)


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Phil #3]

What I lack in intelligence, I make up for in memory. I can remember my own
name in two out of three tries :D

I just cannot think of one single benefit, for men at least, for marriage.
I find it much more rewarding and many magnitudes more pleasant to keep my
own house, take care of my own clothes, run my own errands and invite a
guest over occasionally instead of having to pay a 'housekeeper' that I
cannot fire without having to pay an extreme 'severance' or one that can
fire *me* and keep a major portion of the 'company'.

IMO, too many couples enter into a relationship to "take hostages", not to
find a soulmate, as evidenced by the number of disastrous divorces and
custody battles.
Phil #3


"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
> Oh ****.... you were suppose to forget about this.
>
> I will be honest..... due to some things happening in my personal life
(yep
> that whole dating thing) I am not only doubting marriage, I am doubting
> there is anyone that even closely resembles a soulmate for me.
> But to answer that question in some way...... marriage is just the
> traditional way a couple shows to each other, the family, the world, that
> they have made a commitment to each other. Sure traditions are meant to be
> broken. Looks like if society has its way, that is going to be the way it
> is.
> Pooh on marriage, so right on and end the marriage concept.
>
>
> lol
>
> T
> Phil #3 > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'm still waiting :)
> > Phil #3
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > Snipped
> > >
> > > > I just have to ask, what about marriage holds importance for you?
> > > > Phil #3
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Such a simple question but I realized I have to actually think about
> this
> > > first before answering. I will get back to this. lol
> > >
> > > T
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Kenneth S.]

You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.

Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of
living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a
divorce.

In my opinion, one factor that far too few individuals considering
marriage think about is the extent to which their marriages will be
affected by factors that have nothing to do with them personally. The
tendency is to think that the crucial thing is what happens within the
marriage. However, whether a marriage survives or not depends very much
on general attitudes towards marriage. It also depends on the laws
about divorce, which are made -- not by the individuals within the
marriage -- but by state legislatures.



Phil #3 wrote:
>
> What I lack in intelligence, I make up for in memory. I can remember my own
> name in two out of three tries :D
>
> I just cannot think of one single benefit, for men at least, for marriage.
> I find it much more rewarding and many magnitudes more pleasant to keep my
> own house, take care of my own clothes, run my own errands and invite a
> guest over occasionally instead of having to pay a 'housekeeper' that I
> cannot fire without having to pay an extreme 'severance' or one that can
> fire *me* and keep a major portion of the 'company'.
>
> IMO, too many couples enter into a relationship to "take hostages", not to
> find a soulmate, as evidenced by the number of disastrous divorces and
> custody battles.
> Phil #3
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Oh ****.... you were suppose to forget about this.
> >
> > I will be honest..... due to some things happening in my personal life
> (yep
> > that whole dating thing) I am not only doubting marriage, I am doubting
> > there is anyone that even closely resembles a soulmate for me.
> > But to answer that question in some way...... marriage is just the
> > traditional way a couple shows to each other, the family, the world, that
> > they have made a commitment to each other. Sure traditions are meant to be
> > broken. Looks like if society has its way, that is going to be the way it
> > is.
> > Pooh on marriage, so right on and end the marriage concept.
> >
> >
> > lol
> >
> > T
> > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I'm still waiting :)
> > > Phil #3
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > Snipped
> > > >
> > > > > I just have to ask, what about marriage holds importance for you?
> > > > > Phil #3
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Such a simple question but I realized I have to actually think about
> > this
> > > > first before answering. I will get back to this. lol
> > > >
> > > > T
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Phil #3]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.
>
> Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
> rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
> cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
> likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of
> living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a
> divorce.

Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide,
unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker. And that if further buffered by the
fact that she may decide to not take care of the house either, in her new,
solely-chosen role, but instead use her time to watch Oprah and the other
toadies to find out how 'opressed' she is.
After having give my ex well over 100K since our divorce (and still
counting), and nearly that much again for other sundry items like health
insurance and out-of-pocket expenses, school fees, etc., I often wonder what
my life could have been if I had taken the lesson to heart that young Hobbit
has learned without having to experience the fact that a father can only be
the father his child's mother demands he be.
Funny when I think of the difference between my life as it is and the way it
would have been. Either way it seems I would wind up single and living
alone. The major difference seems to be who gets to spend my money.
Phil #3


>
> In my opinion, one factor that far too few individuals considering
> marriage think about is the extent to which their marriages will be
> affected by factors that have nothing to do with them personally. The
> tendency is to think that the crucial thing is what happens within the
> marriage. However, whether a marriage survives or not depends very much
> on general attitudes towards marriage. It also depends on the laws
> about divorce, which are made -- not by the individuals within the
> marriage -- but by state legislatures.
>
>
>
> Phil #3 wrote:
> >
> > What I lack in intelligence, I make up for in memory. I can remember my
own
> > name in two out of three tries :D
> >
> > I just cannot think of one single benefit, for men at least, for
marriage.
> > I find it much more rewarding and many magnitudes more pleasant to keep
my
> > own house, take care of my own clothes, run my own errands and invite a
> > guest over occasionally instead of having to pay a 'housekeeper' that I
> > cannot fire without having to pay an extreme 'severance' or one that can
> > fire *me* and keep a major portion of the 'company'.
> >
> > IMO, too many couples enter into a relationship to "take hostages", not
to
> > find a soulmate, as evidenced by the number of disastrous divorces and
> > custody battles.
> > Phil #3
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Oh ****.... you were suppose to forget about this.
> > >
> > > I will be honest..... due to some things happening in my personal life
> > (yep
> > > that whole dating thing) I am not only doubting marriage, I am
doubting
> > > there is anyone that even closely resembles a soulmate for me.
> > > But to answer that question in some way...... marriage is just the
> > > traditional way a couple shows to each other, the family, the world,
that
> > > they have made a commitment to each other. Sure traditions are meant
to be
> > > broken. Looks like if society has its way, that is going to be the way
it
> > > is.
> > > Pooh on marriage, so right on and end the marriage concept.
> > >
> > >
> > > lol
> > >
> > > T
> > > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I'm still waiting :)
> > > > Phil #3
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil #3 > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Snipped
> > > > >
> > > > > > I just have to ask, what about marriage holds importance for
you?
> > > > > > Phil #3
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Such a simple question but I realized I have to actually think
about
> > > this
> > > > > first before answering. I will get back to this. lol
> > > > >
> > > > > T
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

[Phil #3]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Phil#3 wrote:
>
> >"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> >> You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.
> >>
> >> Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
> >> rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
> >> cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
> >> likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of
> >> living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a
> >> divorce.
> >
> >Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide,
> >unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker.
>
> If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple
solution.
> File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career.

Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money
and/or property, for nothing.

>Any judge would send her
> swiftly back into the workforce.

No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her. She
may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her.

>All assets would be split 50/50.

Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house
and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff.

>If said man
> was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony. All
that
> will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income shares
> state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they
BOTH
> earn.

And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs or
needs, neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$. For
all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not deductible.

>
> Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the W
to be
> a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of course
it
> tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit from
> their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and
has
> been earned is theirs and theirs alone.

What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic.
I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any
endeavor except divorce. Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased
outright, often with better results and far cheaper. Some can be obtained
free of charge.
Phil #3

>
> Mrs Indyguy

[Indyguy1]

Phil#3 wrote:

>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>> Phil#3 wrote:
>>
>> >"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.
>> >>
>> >> Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
>> >> rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
>> >> cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
>> >> likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of
>> >> living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a
>> >> divorce.
>> >
>> >Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide,
>> >unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker.
>>
>> If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple
>solution.
>> File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career.
>
>Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money
>and/or property, for nothing.

How would she *gain money and/or property, for nothing* if she is working and
contributing just like her H is?

It sounds like you don't just disagree with the support aspects of divorce, but
also feel when two people marry their contributions should charted and each
should only get back what they put in financially, am I correct in this
assumption?

>
>>Any judge would send her
>> swiftly back into the workforce.
>
>No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her. She
>may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her.

Point being the judge won't set CS, in an income shares state, at a rate based
on just her H's income and won't order SS providing she earns comparable to her
stbx.

>
>>All assets would be split 50/50.
>
>Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house
>and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff.

That is more of a tinsletown movie line than it is reality.

>
>>If said man
>> was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony. All
>that
>> will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income shares
>> state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they
>BOTH
>> earn.
>
>And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs or
>needs,

I would perfer to see actual costs used as oppossed to the averages now used.
Of course some NCPs would pay less and some would pay more than they do right
now.

neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$.

Accountability is needed, I agree.

For
>all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not deductible.

Any portion of CS that isn't being used for the child or for something that
benefits the child that portion could be looked at as hidden alimony.

>
>>
>> Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the W
>to be
>> a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of course
>it
>> tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit from
>> their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and
>has
>> been earned is theirs and theirs alone.
>
>What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic.

Apparently many other men don't agree with you, unless they divorce.


>I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any
>endeavor except divorce.

If a man wants kids and those kids to have a parent available to them to do the
tasks that they require, while he can still pursue his career without having
to take time off and still have leisure time, then a SAHM is a condition that
can and does accomplish this for a man.

Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased
>outright, often with better results

I'm starting to think you might have been better suited to hiring a surrogate
mother than have been married. That or since you chose to marry a real slug you
deem all/most women as slugs.

and far cheaper.

LOL Really? I don't know where you live but to get all the things done that
most SAHMs I know, do in this area, the average income earner couldn't afford
to pay the price.

Some can be obtained
>free of charge.

Free? Without taking advantage of friends or relatives? List them would you,
I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there that could benefit greatly from
your knowledge on how to get some of what a SAHM does done for free.

Mrs Indyguy


>Phil #3
>
>>
>> Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Phil #3]

"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
> Phil#3 wrote:
>
> >"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Phil#3 wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.
> >> >>
> >> >> Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
> >> >> rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
> >> >> cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
> >> >> likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard
of
> >> >> living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she
wants a
> >> >> divorce.
> >> >
> >> >Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just
decide,
> >> >unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker.
> >>
> >> If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple
> >solution.
> >> File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career.
> >
> >Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money
> >and/or property, for nothing.
>
> How would she *gain money and/or property, for nothing* if she is working
and
> contributing just like her H is?

If she is a SAH, she is not "working and contributing like her H is...",
it's somewhat different when one sets ones own duties, if any, and one's own
hours, if any. Then there is the division of who works hardest and
contributes more; it seems when it comes to court, just being married is all
that is necessary to share a little more than equally.

>
> It sounds like you don't just disagree with the support aspects of
divorce, but
> also feel when two people marry their contributions should charted and
each
> should only get back what they put in financially, am I correct in this
> assumption?
>

1) I disagree with divorce without justifiable and valid cause.
2) I disagree that being married automatically entitles either party to take
more from the marriage than was put in during. (Meaning, a SAH that does
little more than minimum housework should not be rewarded according to their
spouse's value to their employer).
3) During the divorce, nearly everything gained during the marriage should
be as evenly as possible split INCLUDING the bills.
4) Post divorce, each party takes care of their own business and keeps their
nose out of the other's.


> >
> >>Any judge would send her
> >> swiftly back into the workforce.
> >
> >No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her.
She
> >may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her.
>
> Point being the judge won't set CS, in an income shares state, at a rate
based
> on just her H's income and won't order SS providing she earns comparable
to her
> stbx.

The formula used makes little difference in the outcome; never is it what is
warranted.

>
> >
> >>All assets would be split 50/50.
> >
> >Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house
> >and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff.
>
> That is more of a tinsletown movie line than it is reality.
>

That's experience. I *know* it's reality.

> >
> >>If said man
> >> was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony.
All
> >that
> >> will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income
shares
> >> state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they
> >BOTH
> >> earn.
> >
> >And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs
or
> >needs,
>
> I would perfer to see actual costs used as oppossed to the averages now
used.
> Of course some NCPs would pay less and some would pay more than they do
right
> now.
>

Of couse. When setting C$ for a man who has never earned above poverty, his
would likely be higher than it would be according to guidelines. Other than
that, all other NCPs, with few exceptions would pay less.
You see, what so many seem to forget is that many of us NCP fathers were
supporting the household prior to divorce and we KNOW how much it actually
takes to support a child.

> neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$.
>
> Accountability is needed, I agree.
>
> For
> >all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not
deductible.
>
> Any portion of CS that isn't being used for the child or for something
that
> benefits the child that portion could be looked at as hidden alimony.
>

Oh, I think charges of outright fraud or embezzlement-by-trustee would be
ever so much better, maybe even extortion.

> >
> >>
> >> Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the
W
> >to be
> >> a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of
course
> >it
> >> tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit
from
> >> their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and
> >has
> >> been earned is theirs and theirs alone.
> >
> >What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic.
>
> Apparently many other men don't agree with you, unless they divorce.
>

Probably not, but I don't require others to agree with me to form an opinion
especially one that is based on my experience.

>
> >I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any
> >endeavor except divorce.
>
> If a man wants kids and those kids to have a parent available to them to
do the
> tasks that they require, while he can still pursue his career without
having
> to take time off and still have leisure time, then a SAHM is a condition
that
> can and does accomplish this for a man.

*No* man can be assured that he will be allowed to become, or continue to
be, a parent (or the parent he chooses to be).
Anyone can hire nurses, babysitters, keepers and every other aspect of a
SAH's duties including sex (with or without faked orgasms), cooking,
cleaning or anything else.

>
> Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased
> >outright, often with better results
>
> I'm starting to think you might have been better suited to hiring a
surrogate
> mother than have been married. That or since you chose to marry a real
slug you
> deem all/most women as slugs.

I would have been better suited to remain single and have a vasectomy at 17.
:)
I love my children but I wouldn't do it again, knowing what I now know.

>
> and far cheaper.
>
> LOL Really? I don't know where you live but to get all the things done
that
> most SAHMs I know, do in this area, the average income earner couldn't
afford
> to pay the price.

Pay?? I do most of them myself. I don't have to hire it done and I damn sure
don't have to support someone to do these things and then just not have time
to ever get them done. Housework is really overrated as "work". It's more
like something to do during commercials.
I own my home and my company has temporarily moved me out of state and
furnished me with corporate housing. I go home every other weekend. I keep
BOTH homes clean and chores at each end done. Laundry is done at each.
Dishes, vacuuming.... There's no one but me.
I've been doing this for over a year and my home at either end is actually
more comfortable and cleaner than it ever was when I was married. Of course,
I don't get the latest update of how 'opressed' women are according to
whatever feminist-leaning TV show was on that day, but I've learned to live
without it. :)

>
> Some can be obtained
> >free of charge.
>
> Free? Without taking advantage of friends or relatives? List them would
you,
> I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there that could benefit greatly
from
> your knowledge on how to get some of what a SAHM does done for free.

Sex. It's a trade-off. Both get, both give. Neither requires payment nor
unfair advantage. :)
It works for me and those with whom I 'trade'.
Then there's friendship. I don't have to support someone for them to listen
when I'm down, pat me on the back when I'm excelling or console me when I'm
blue.
Phil #3

>
> Mrs Indyguy
>
>
> >Phil #3
> >
> >>
> >> Mrs Indyguy

[Kenneth S.]

Phil #3 wrote:
>
> "Indyguy1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Phil#3 wrote:
> >
> > >"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.
> > >>
> > >> Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
> > >> rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
> > >> cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
> > >> likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of
> > >> living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a
> > >> divorce.
> > >
> > >Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide,
> > >unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker.
> >
> > If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple
> solution.
> > File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career.
>
> Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money
> and/or property, for nothing.
>
> >Any judge would send her
> > swiftly back into the workforce.
>
> No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her. She
> may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her.
>
> >All assets would be split 50/50.
>
> Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house
> and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff.
>
> >If said man
> > was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony. All
> that
> > will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income shares
> > state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they
> BOTH
> > earn.
>
> And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs or
> needs, neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$. For
> all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not deductible.
>
> >
> > Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the W
> to be
> > a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of course
> it
> > tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit from
> > their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and
> has
> > been earned is theirs and theirs alone.
>
> What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic.
> I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any
> endeavor except divorce. Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased
> outright, often with better results and far cheaper. Some can be obtained
> free of charge.
> Phil #3

Your last point is particularly valid, Phil. Property awards in
divorce are based on the assumption that the wife contributed to the
husband's career. That's complete nonsense, of course, particularly
when the husband's talents and efforts have created nearly all of the
assets. You just need to think what would happen if Melinda Gates
decided to divorce Bill.

The fact of the matter is that the supposed reason for 50/50 splits of
assets in divorces (that the wife contributed to the husband's career)
is completely phony. Few people are impolite enough to say this, and
risk being branded as anti-woman. However, most people know what the
score is. You can see it very clearly when you hear the contorted
reasoning that goes into "proving" to a judge that a stay-at-home wife
made an equal contribution. ("He never would have been where he is
today, your honor, if he hadn't had the encouragement of my client, his
wife, and her ability to act as hostess at business functions.")

The reality is that many wives RETARD their husband's careers by
undermining the sense of security that a man should have within his
family. The men would have done better without their wives.
Furthermore, 50/50 splits of assets are a strong encouragement for wives
to seek divorces.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...

>
> Your last point is particularly valid, Phil. Property awards in
> divorce are based on the assumption that the wife contributed to the
> husband's career. That's complete nonsense, of course, particularly
> when the husband's talents and efforts have created nearly all of the
> assets. You just need to think what would happen if Melinda Gates
> decided to divorce Bill.
>
> The fact of the matter is that the supposed reason for 50/50 splits of
> assets in divorces (that the wife contributed to the husband's career)
> is completely phony. Few people are impolite enough to say this, and
> risk being branded as anti-woman. However, most people know what the
> score is. You can see it very clearly when you hear the contorted
> reasoning that goes into "proving" to a judge that a stay-at-home wife
> made an equal contribution. ("He never would have been where he is
> today, your honor, if he hadn't had the encouragement of my client, his
> wife, and her ability to act as hostess at business functions.")

There is still another caveate to this argument. Say the husband's net
worth went down during the marriage. The wife would argue she should not
have to share 50/50 in the asset decline because she was NOT directly
involved in the process.

The dicorce arguments are always situational.

Wouldn't it just be ironic for a family court judge to rule a wife owes her
husband $10 million because their net worth declined $20 million during the
marriage?

[Mel Gamble]

You haven't paid much attention in the past when this subject has been
discussed...

>Phil#3 wrote:
>
>>"Indyguy1" > wrote in message
...
>>> Phil#3 wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil.
>>> >>
>>> >> Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible
>>> >> rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as
>>> >> cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is
>>> >> likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of
>>> >> living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a
>>> >> divorce.
>>> >
>>> >Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide,
>>> >unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker.
>>>
>>> If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple
>>solution.
>>> File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career.
>>
>>Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money
>>and/or property, for nothing.
>
>How would she *gain money and/or property, for nothing* if she is working
>and
>contributing just like her H is?
>
>It sounds like you don't just disagree with the support aspects of divorce,
>but
>also feel when two people marry their contributions should charted and each
>should only get back what they put in financially, am I correct in this
>assumption?
>
>>
>>>Any judge would send her
>>> swiftly back into the workforce.
>>
>>No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her. She
>>may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her.
>
>Point being the judge won't set CS, in an income shares state, at a rate
>based
>on just her H's income

Those who have bothered to spend any time studying the tables have pointed out
repeatedly that they are set up such that changes in the CP's income have
little or negative effect on the NCP's payments, with the result being that for
all intents and purposes even "income shares" states take a percentage based
just on the NCP's income.

>and won't order SS providing she earns comparable to
>her
>stbx.
>
>>
>>>All assets would be split 50/50.
>>
>>Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house
>>and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff.
>
>That is more of a tinsletown movie line than it is reality.
>
>>
>>>If said man
>>> was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony. All
>>that
>>> will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income shares
>>> state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they
>>BOTH
>>> earn.
>>
>>And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs or
>>needs,
>
>I would perfer to see actual costs used as oppossed to the averages now used.
>Of course some NCPs would pay less and some would pay more than they do right
>now.
>
>neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$.
>
>Accountability is needed, I agree.
>
> For
>>all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not deductible.
>
>Any portion of CS that isn't being used for the child or for something that
>benefits the child that portion could be looked at as hidden alimony.
>
>>
>>>
>>> Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the W
>>to be
>>> a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of course
>>it
>>> tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit from
>>> their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and
>>has
>>> been earned is theirs and theirs alone.
>>
>>What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic.
>
>Apparently many other men don't agree with you, unless they divorce.
>
>
>>I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any
>>endeavor except divorce.
>
>If a man wants kids and those kids to have a parent available to them to do
>the
>tasks that they require, while he can still pursue his career without having
>to take time off and still have leisure time, then a SAHM is a condition that
>can and does accomplish this for a man.
>
> Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased
>>outright, often with better results
>
>I'm starting to think you might have been better suited to hiring a surrogate
>mother than have been married. That or since you chose to marry a real slug
>you
>deem all/most women as slugs.
>
> and far cheaper.
>
>LOL Really? I don't know where you live but to get all the things done that
>most SAHMs I know, do in this area, the average income earner couldn't afford
>to pay the price.

You flatter yourself. It's not becoming on you...

Mel Gamble

> Some can be obtained
>>free of charge.
>
>Free? Without taking advantage of friends or relatives? List them would you,
>I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there that could benefit greatly
>from
>your knowledge on how to get some of what a SAHM does done for free.
>
>Mrs Indyguy
>
>
>>Phil #3
>>
>>>
>>> Mrs Indyguy