When does tradition become too expensive?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – When does tradition become too expensive?

When does tradition become too expensive?
Contessa
Contributor
Contessa

If one is to examine this hotly debated idea of the value of a female’s traditional role in a marriage fairly it is crucial to not only consider what she is being offered in the arranged, but what she is being asked to give up.

For the sake of a timeline, let’s say she marries at 25. Not too young, not too old, perhaps to a fellow she met in college or university.

He suggests he will be the sole earner in the relationship. In this arrangement she will be provided with shelter, food, clothing, financial support and absorption of outstanding debt (ie school), vehicle or transportation, protection, a faithful, readily available sexual partner, father to possible offspring, emotional support and companionship. She gets all of this if she agrees not to work.

Now..what is she giving up?

She does not pursue her career goals and find gainful employment. She has no personal means of financial support. She has only what benefits are afforded a spouse through his employer and that is variable. A homemaker is a non-market “job”. She pays into no pension, no 401k, no additional social security, no unemployment insurance. She will receive nothing but a meager government check at age 65. She receives no perks from employment, no stock options, no bonuses, no corperate discounts or accounts. She is not eligible for any financing or loans without her husband to co-sign. Not even a credit card.

Now include two children. While raising children may be emotionally rewarding, it doesn’t pay squat. The single income must accomodate four people. Perhaps the family makes ends meet for 25 years and the kids are done college and in the work force.

The wife is now 50. She has reliquished the prime earning years of her life in the job market. If she began working at this time she might MAYBE have 15 years left to establish fiancial self sufficiency IF she remains healthy.

Now…she’s given up 25 years of any accumulated wage, benefits, investments, RRSP’s and so on… on the HOPE AND PROMISE that her partner is capable and will remain capable of sustaining earnings required to live above the poverty line.

* If he loses his job, she has to wait and hope he finds another. In the news today Radioshack/Circut City laid off 4000, yes FOUR THOUSAND employees via E-MAIL no less! It’s not ENRON, but still pretty cold.
* If he gets sick or injured, she has to hope he recovers (I’m not talking a cold here guys. Really sick, chronic illness, infectious disease, cancer) How many years can a family live on comp if they can even collect it in the first place?
* If he dies without insurance..she’s screwed. As his spouse she inherits any and all debts, bills and expenses whether or not she can pay them. Bankruptcy becomes closer to a reality if the debts are large.
* If he’s abusive, unfaithful or divorces her he’s created a no win situation because she has nothing to fall back on except the thing he set her up for..taking his money.

It’s a level of dependance that is truely frightening in terms of it’s scope.

Oh, and for those embittered divorce survivors, if the money’s in the lawyer’s pocket neither of you has it.

In a perfect world (or some retirement living commercials) things resolve themselves blissfully. This society however measures accomplishment by material security and viability. When my parents bought their house it cost $50,00.00, now that’s the price for a new SUV. Mortgages are outlasting marriages for a reason. Children need college or university now and most aren’t out of the house the way they were in the generation of the Baby Boomers. Many come back in their early thirties. I believe the term for them is the “Boomerang Generation”.

How many adults do you know who have adult children still living with them? Do you? Why? I’ll bet it’s not because mom had a job…

Everything else has changed, so why not marriage?

09-01-2006 12:45 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
Happyone
Newbie
Happyone

You make too much sense, Contessa.
Except that you forget, it’s not always misfortune that leaves the woman destitute.  Many’s the man who finds himself an 18-yr old baby doll and kicks his 50 year old wife out the door, destitute.

That is the crux of the problem.  In these postings, men make out that all women are wicked feminist witches.  And that women have created the mess we are in.  And women need to fix it.

Well, the truth is both sides have been involved.  If the man had been genteel in his behavior, and provided for life, and not left women for young girls, women may not have felt such a great need to become independent.

Okay men, spew vitriol if you wish.  But that’s the bottom line.  How do WE make it so women can dare to make themselves vulnerable? How can WE make it safe for them to stay at home and take care of the family/babies/ home?

09-01-2006 01:10 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce

Oh please. Women received 40 billion dollars in 2002. They get the children 90% of the time, with 7.9 million fathers paying the 40 billion.

Who does not know how to manage their $$$$.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony

Women receive alimony payments, sometimes for life after 10 years of marriage. Hardly equality. Yet still 75% of single mothers live below the poverty line, hardly empowering. Yet women stand to gain, so they file for divorce 75% of the time.

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Library/Amneus/garbage/index.html

For those that haven’t already noticed the pathology of the female headed household, the website above will help it sink in.

I know women are not big on math, but still.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-01-2006 01:20 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
Happyone
Newbie
Happyone

What an angry bitter man you are Patriarch.

Yes, women got all that money in alimony in 2002.  Because Feminists fought to have laws to protect the women.  Before that women were left destitute.  And all those foreign women you talk about, they are still left destitute today, because they do not have feminists fighting for their rights.  Not yet.

And can you say something that will help resolve the issue, rather than being inflamatory? Please?

09-01-2006 01:36 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

Happyone wrote:
What an angry bitter man you are Patriarch.

Yes, women got all that money in alimony in 2002. Because Feminists fought to have laws to protect the women. Before that women were left destitute. And all those foreign women you talk about, they are still left destitute today, because they do not have feminists fighting for their rights. Not yet.

And can you say something that will help resolve the issue, rather than being inflamatory? Please?

“…one of the persistent demands of feminists is that the woman’s emancipation from control by divorce shall not emancipate the man, but obligate him to make her ‘independent’ of him by giving her alimony and child support money.” – Chapter 2

Shame on you Patriarch for pointing out some truths.

Why should feminists protect women? What a lie that is… Before feminism there was so little divorce that destitute women were rare. Now bag-ladies are everywhere.

Why is it always about the money with you gals?

I thought you were all smart and independent and all that. Able to take care of yourselves. Don’t need no man, ad nauseum.

But you always only want ONE THING. Our money. Take, take, take.

All you do is give guys like me (i.e., non-losers w/$$$$’s) more reasons to avoid you like the looting thieves that you are.

Ok, now call me names…

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-01-2006 12:00 AM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-01-2006 01:55 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
Jet_Jaguar
Contributor
Jet_Jaguar

If I had to deal with that vicious, contemptful attitude for so many years, I’d want to get out my marriage too.  By viewing me as a someone who will potentially leave her, justifying the necessity of the government yoke of control around my neck to keep me in my place, she already shows an incredible lack of trust in me.  Trust, by the way, is one of the main foundations of a relationship.  Nowadays, women use marriage as a tool of control and “security” because of her lack of trust that he’ll stay.

And obviously, this little arrangement has very little to do with equality at all.  Just giving the woman more license, and putting more control over the man.  Which was really the goal of feminism anyway.  Women’s fear, and the cumpulsory need to control as a result of that fear manifested through her big brother and father, Big Government.

Kinda Orwellian when you think about the double-speak aspect.  In 1984, The Ministry of Peace actually made war.  Women’s “liberation” (which mendaciously spoke of freeing both sexes) actually limits men’s freedom.

Message Edited by Jet_Jaguar on 09-01-2006 03:03 AM

09-01-2006 03:02 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

happyone

What an angry bitter man you are Patriarch.

Yes, women got all that money in alimony in 2002.  Because Feminists fought to have laws to protect the women.  Before that women were left destitute.  And all those foreign women you talk about, they are still left destitute today, because they do not have feminists fighting for their rights.  Not yet.

And can you say something that will help resolve the issue, rather than being inflamatory? Please?

Are you trying to rewrite History into herstory there lady? Those safety nets have been around in English common law for centuries. Pre feminism, if you can think back that far in the history books. Divorce was at 10%, Christian divorce rate was probably 5%. Long before your socialist communism started seeping into our land.

Fighting for what rights? That of self centered women using men as a stepping stone for their supposed “equality”?

Get real lady.

You feminists are more dependant on men and the government for your very survival, than you know.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-01-2006 04:10 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Martian Bachelor, Nice points brother!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-01-2006 04:11 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
Cassius
Regular Contributor
Cassius

Contessa wrote:
If one is to examine this hotly debated idea of the value of a female’s traditional role in a marriage fairly it is crucial to not only consider what she is being offered in the arranged, but what she is being asked to give up.

For the sake of a timeline, let’s say she marries at 25. Not too young, not too old, perhaps to a fellow she met in college or university.

He suggests he will be the sole earner in the relationship. In this arrangement she will be provided with shelter, food, clothing, financial support and absorption of outstanding debt (ie school), vehicle or transportation, protection, a faithful, readily available sexual partner, father to possible offspring, emotional support and companionship. She gets all of this if she agrees not to work.

Now..what is she giving up?

She does not pursue her career goals and find gainful employment. She has no personal means of financial support. She has only what benefits are afforded a spouse through his employer and that is variable. A homemaker is a non-market “job”. She pays into no pension, no 401k, no additional social security, no unemployment insurance. She will receive nothing but a meager government check at age 65. She receives no perks from employment, no stock options, no bonuses, no corperate discounts or accounts. She is not eligible for any financing or loans without her husband to co-sign. Not even a credit card.

Now include two children. While raising children may be emotionally rewarding, it doesn’t pay squat. The single income must accomodate four people. Perhaps the family makes ends meet for 25 years and the kids are done college and in the work force.

The wife is now 50. She has reliquished the prime earning years of her life in the job market. If she began working at this time she might MAYBE have 15 years left to establish fiancial self sufficiency IF she remains healthy.

Now…she’s given up 25 years of any accumulated wage, benefits, investments, RRSP’s and so on… on the HOPE AND PROMISE that her partner is capable and will remain capable of sustaining earnings required to live above the poverty line.

* If he loses his job, she has to wait and hope he finds another. In the news today Radioshack/Circut City laid off 4000, yes FOUR THOUSAND employees via E-MAIL no less! It’s not ENRON, but still pretty cold.

* If he gets sick or injured, she has to hope he recovers (I’m not talking a cold here guys. Really sick, chronic illness, infectious disease, cancer) How many years can a family live on comp if they can even collect it in the first place?

* If he dies without insurance..she’s screwed. As his spouse she inherits any and all debts, bills and expenses whether or not she can pay them. Bankruptcy becomes closer to a reality if the debts are large.

* If he’s abusive, unfaithful or divorces her he’s created a no win situation because she has nothing to fall back on except the thing he set her up for..taking his money.

It’s a level of dependance that is truely frightening in terms of it’s scope.

Oh, and for those embittered divorce survivors, if the money’s in the lawyer’s pocket neither of you has it.

In a perfect world (or some retirement living commercials) things resolve themselves blissfully. This society however measures accomplishment by material security and viability. When my parents bought their house it cost $50,00.00, now that’s the price for a new SUV. Mortgages are outlasting marriages for a reason. Children need college or university now and most aren’t out of the house the way they were in the generation of the Baby Boomers. Many come back in their early thirties. I believe the term for them is the “Boomerang Generation”.

How many adults do you know who have adult children still living with them? Do you? Why? I’ll bet it’s not because mom had a job…

Everything else has changed, so why not marriage?

You are trying to reason and actually have some good point here contessa. Nice to see that for a change. But what good is it to have alledged career woman if she will divorce me which is very likely as we can see from the statistics Noer provided. Besides in the even of a divorce Iam still going to loose my kids. When both work there should be a 50 50 chance that the men gets to keep the kids this is not the case though because in America the children belong to the mother. You see we do not care about the benefits a career woman might have might not have for us we are more interested in keeping the loss of our children as low as possibel.

09-01-2006 07:28 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Well, the truth is both sides have been involved.  If the man had been genteel in his behavior, and provided for life, and not left women for young girls, women may not have felt such a great need to become independent.

Most husbands didn’t leave their wives for young women.
Prior to 1963 the divorce rate was 3%-5%.

Again, women have observed the behavior of a tiny subset of men – those who dumped their wives and ran off with their secretary – and scaled that up to a behavior all men have engaged in and do so today.

Then they emulate that, or use that small group of men to vilify all men.

Then base this 2% as the rationale to promote all women getting degrees, jobs, careers and becoming independent.

The questions you should ask yourself are:

If being independent is so good for the women, and is obviously a step forward as society advances, then why are so many independent women not having children at replacement levels?  Why are the stay at home, part time, ‘dependent’ women having the larger families?  What does this say about the choices both groups make and what their future will be?

Message Edited by leeraconteur on 09-01-2006 09:20 PM

09-01-2006 08:17 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – When does tradition become too expensive?

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Yes, women got all that money in alimony in 2002.  Because Feminists fought to have laws to protect the women.  Before that women were left destitute.

Divorce rates were 3%-5% in 1963 and prior.
Where are all/were these destititue women?
Where are the news reels of homeless women in 1960?

Proof, cites, studies, links please.

Also consider that the laws may have created the problem, and given incentive to divorce.

09-01-2006 08:20 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Contessa (by the way, love that screen name, so feminine and sexually charged!), I am all for women being independent.  I, personally, have never been married.  If I were to get married I would require a prenuptial agreement and a complete and full waiver that I be required to pay any spousal support.  A complete release of any claim to my assets, career earnings, etc.  I make well over 7 figures annually and don’t really care to have marry a woman and then find myself paying a family law attorney (after I have subbed all other A list counsel within 50 miles out of respresenting my future x-wife, mind you) a $50K retainer to hand her *ss to her as the risk is always there that I will have to pay.  Now, equality is a 2-way street, don’t forget that.  You take the good elements along with the bad ones and live with it.  The one time I came close to getting married it was a professional woman, a surgeon, and I told her to shove off.  Too much risk.  When you make life choices about your career remember it affects whether/when you will have an option to have children, whether a man will be intereseted in you, whether you can adequately care for a child, etc.  Without children there is no reason for marriage.  Why should I get married when there is no children involved?  There is no reason.  Companionship?  I can get that with a woman without marriage?  Remember, this is the 21st century and a piece of paper really isn’t necessary.

09-01-2006 10:06 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
dflynn5656
Contributor
dflynn5656
Contessa – like so many would be femenists, you have a very very Godless world view. There is for you gals no purpose beyond this world and no purpose beyond money.

In that light, I suppose a career is the only thing of value. Remember Contessa – your central feminist theme –

“Secretly Attack any goal our purpose of God, while openly discussing everything else.”

This is the problem at the feminist core. When men deal with women who are at war with God, or worst yet bind themselves to one in marriage – divourse and unhappiness is inevitable.

I realize that most of you women scientists, career girls and femenists are “just “spiritual” and attend no real churc (weekly) anywhere – so I’ll tell you a stroy you have never heard.

The creator of all things (men call him God) made a place beyond what we see here. And communicated to this creation we see that THAT spriritual world was the true unending reality, where as THIS world is a mere shadow of the true eternal world in which he (men call him God) resides.

Another great creation of God’s was Satan, beautiful and brilliant – with fantastic potential (think “women” in this analogy. But Satan was prideful and jealous, and he rebelled against God wanting “ever more” than was his even in heaven (read – “the perfect marriage”.

He fell from heaven and was cast out. He called on the demons (ACLU other women and lawyers) and they fell too unable to save him is this fairer “god controlled” world.

To this day men are still tempted by beauty and potential – but suffer in the grip of a contentious woman who can not be pleased – and seeks to destroy herself and all around her in her “war with God>”

Femenist oppose the part of God’s creation that made them the child bearer rather than the bread winner. In so doing they destroy the lives of all around them – and create a cycle of divourse.

Even God could not pleae Satan’s insatiable dissatisfasction with not having a “higher station” in creation. So no man could oleae a contentious woman.

Contessa – you crertainly are not made out for marriage. But unless you can change you attitude to be one of greater gennerousity – you may have to be explaining why a selfishly lived life merits salvation.

David

09-01-2006 10:40 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

Contessa: …let’s say she marries at 25 … [time passes]
The wife is now 50. She has reliquished the prime earning years of her life…

Even if we say people work from 15 to 65, your 25 years is half a working life.
If you say it’s more like 22 to 62 is more like it, the number rises to 60%.
In other words, an unrealistically high proportion of a typical working life IMO.

What if we say she has three kids spaced 2 or 3 year apart, starts doing this at age 20 — after her first two years of college — and then goes back to school and then into the workforce part-time after the youngest reaches age 10 so that by the time the youngest is 15 she’s ramped up to full-time work? When you work it out, she’s about 35 when she starts back to school and about 40 when back in the workforce. This gives her a good 20 or 25 working years afterwards, so she’s only given up 20 years, not 25 as you suppose.

But OK…

You only seem to be counting her opportunity costs, and discounting all she gains in the arrangement.

You say “she has reliquished the prime earning years of her life”, but you could also have said she has cashed in on her prime reproductive years. For that matter, these are the prime years of anyone’s life. And the husband has devoted all his earning years to the joint project. As Betty Friedan said 40+ years ago, what it amounts to is “society asks so little of women”. Friedan thinks the woman gets the better part of the deal.

I don’t have current figures, but the standard of living of married women is raised at least 50% by their marriage. This is what induces women to marry men and share their reproductive lives with them. It is a large part of why marriage — or at least a wedding — is a primary fantasy (or at least a desire) for so many millions of women.

When you look at the nicer, safer parts of town they are predominantly two-parent households where the husband has a good job and the woman stays at home, works part-time or in volunteer work as she chooses, or spends her days having lunch with her girlfriends or shopping at the mall. It is ultimately the man’s earning ability which makes these the safe, nicer parts of town that people want to live in. Should this be compulsory for all women? Of course not. Men either, for that matter.

But when feminists compare marriage to a slave labor camp they’re not looking at the cushy parts of town, they’re looking at the places where people don’t want to live. These places are undesirable because they’re poor. Why? Because the women there are strong and independent. They don’t need no man. Just his money, thank you very much, if he has any and they can finagle it out of him with the state’s help, using what used to be his kids to extort money out of him.

This greatly reduces his motivation to produce that very money. What’s in it for him? Why should he work hard just to turn it all over to someone who allegedly doesn’t need him. The woman won’t grant him a secure place in a family, and society has removed all the props it formly gave to him (because that would be “male privilege” and has given them to her (where it’s somehow her “right” and entitlement), where she largely squanders them and manages to only live a marginal existence. Worse, she drags the kids — which were the chief products and asset of the union from the man’s perspective — into this disaster zone.

Even if the type of woman who can swing an advanced or professional degree can do a lot better, the crime which leaks out of these areas effects everyone, and the kids would certainly turn out better if they’d been raised in a more stable two-parent home.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-01-2006 08:46 AM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-01-2006 10:43 AM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

http://www.geocities.com/peterpaulmin//1950vs2000.html

There are some stats between then and now.

No fault divorce was pushed through by feminists in the early 70’s. The divorce rate was at 20% prior to those cows. Shortly after it jumped to 40% and never has been the same. To our current BS status.

I believe taking away child support and alimony would force women to be better wives. They would be forced to actively contribute to the family structure, rather than taking from it, when they decide to leave.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-01-2006 02:37 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
Stacey35
Contributor
Stacey35

What state are all of you writing from because I know that in the state of Illinois there is no “alimony” “maintenance” any of that.

I mean no offense to anyone but with some of these comments, they’re unreal. Its a no win situation. If you are a stay at home mom you cannot win and if you are a career mom, you’re not worth marrying?  Some of us bust our butts to provide for our kids without nailing the father to the wall, and that makes me not marriage material, give me a break.

Whoever made the comment about one parent households raising criminals, I strongly disagree with you. Maybe for the majority, I will give you that. But your generalization p***** me off. From where I live, I know of more two parented households where their kids raise holy hell than in single parent households. I live in a neighborhood where it mostly CPD & CFD and I will tell you, they are the worst. An example, they get in trouble with the law, a kid, a neighbor “my mom/dad is a cop, you cant do anything to me”, even children as young as 7 and guess what its true. I am a single parent and I will be d***** he will not be raised to be a criminal, punk, whatever you want to call it.

I am on his butt all the time. He may sometimes be a jerk to me, but he respects others and the rules.

09-01-2006 02:52 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

single mothers are kryptonite to smart men.  Not worth the trouble.

09-01-2006 03:06 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
Stacey35
Contributor
Stacey35

Welcome to 2006

You mean to tell me that someone that is a single parent and makes a substantial income is not worthy? That caveman approach is so not worth my time or energy

09-01-2006 03:29 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
SM777
Regular Contributor
SM777
“You mean to tell me that someone that is a single parent and makes a substantial income is not worthy? That caveman approach is so not worth my time or energy”
——————————————————————-

Too much trouble, too many unnecessary headaches, possible danger of child support for someones else’s children, the man will always be in second place. Single mothers are a no-no.

09-01-2006 03:33 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
Stacey35
Contributor
Stacey35

Too much trouble, too many unnecessary headaches, possible danger of child support for someones else’s children, the man will always be in second place. Single mothers are a no-no.

Possible danger of child support for someone else’s children, give me a break. My son is my responsibility not anyone else’s. You tell me what court will make a non biological parent pay support when the mom provide’s….. cheap excuse. The same then should be said of a man that sow’s his oats all over town, or in that case divorced dads. It is not the 70’s

09-01-2006 03:44 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – When does tradition become too expensive?

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
miscwit
Contributor
miscwit

Possible danger of child support for someone else’s children, give me a break. My son is my responsibility not anyone else’s. You tell me what court will make a non biological parent pay support when the mom provide’s….. cheap excuse. The same then should be said of a man that sow’s his oats all over town, or in that case divorced dads. It is not the 70’s

Actually, I believe only one state in the country (Georgia) has changed the child support law to stipulate that the father must be the biological father in order for child support to be applied.

In ALL other states, the man of the house who has been acting as the child’s male guardian – REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL PATERNITY – is responsible for child support.

That means, if a man dates a woman, becomes serious, marries or movies in, than THAT man can be made responsible for child support in the event of divorce. Again, REGARDLESS of actual paternity.

Single moms should be kryptonite to single men.

09-01-2006 05:02 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
minx12
Regular Contributor
minx12

How screwed up is that? Not the bio dad, but has to pick up the tab anyways?

No wonder men are running screaming in the other direction.

So pretty much at this point it seems the biggest bItch is not career women themselves, but how the laws work and the disadvantage men are given.

And why are you guys not doing anything to change it? Even if women were to give up their jobs tomorrow and return to the kitchen, the laws won’t change. Women of history didn’t like their lot in life and worked hard to change it. Why don’t you do the same? From all the reading I have been doing here there are plenty of women who agree with you on this.

09-01-2006 05:20 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
miscwit
Contributor
miscwit

And why are you guys not doing anything to change it? Even if women were to give up their jobs tomorrow and return to the kitchen, the laws won’t change. Women of history didn’t like their lot in life and worked hard to change it. Why don’t you do the same? From all the reading I have been doing here there are plenty of women who agree with you on this

It was an enormous fight to have that law changed in Georgia. The story behind it was simply unreal. A divorced man discovers that the child he is paying child support for a child who is NOT his! Yet the courts ignored that fact and forced the man to continue paying child support.

Here is a link to a press release which outlines some of this issue. Be warned, the source is from an organization with a vested interest in this issue. But the facts are presented reasonably well.

http://www.ancpr.org/father_takes_dna_paternity_fraud.htm

09-01-2006 06:11 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

A single mothers problem are NOT a smart man’s problems.  Find another victim.

09-01-2006 06:44 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

It is very simple, really.  Here is an example:  “The violence against women act” passed in 1998 which specifically identified women when, in fact, violence against EVERYONE should be the focal point and merit equal attention and prosecution.  Women’s default rates in child support is 2x that of men (on a % basis) but they are never thrown in jail or their licenses suspended.  Do you realize that in the State of Washington if a man cohabitates with a woman that has a child by another man the new boyfriend is liable to pay child support for a child that is not his.  WTF is that all about?  Sorry, the only real solutions are the ones similar to mine, not getting married and not becoming involved with single mothers.  They are too much trouble.  They have usually screwed up to put themselves in their current predicament so why make our lives more difficult by being with them and being caught up in their sh*t show of a life?

09-01-2006 06:50 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

In the state of Nevada, if your wife becomes pregnant by another man, you have to pay child support evenif it is proven you are not the biological father.  We consulted Rights for Divorced Fathers.  They said that he had to pay regardless of the blood test.  The laws need to change.  My husband had to pay child support on a child that wasn’t his—it was his brothers…(lol)  so true—His brother never felt any obligation to this child.  He never paid a scent—-and he is a cop!  I guess karma does work.  He doesn’t have long to live due to alcoholism.  I don’t feel for him in the least.

09-01-2006 08:48 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Too much trouble, too many unnecessary headaches, possible danger of child support for someones else’s children, the man will always be in second place. Single mothers are a no-no.

Possible danger of child support for someone else’s children, give me a break. My son is my responsibility not anyone else’s. You tell me what court will make a non biological parent pay support when the mom provide’s

Washington State, Pierce and King County Family Courts, for one.
California, for two.

The concept is this:

-In the eyes of The State, the Family Unit (defined as a mother and her children, with outside funding from The State or a man) must be kept intact.  To take away a child from its mother is anathema – so the kids stay at mom’s.  Next, a man must pay.  The State can assign paternity based upon the woman’s word alone.  They then render a default judgement.  If within the proscribed time the man does not dispute this, the judgement is made permanent and that man is legally the father.

-It doesn’t matter if he was overseas and didn’t get the notice.
-It doesn’t matter if he didn’t respond and DNA proves the child is not his.  Tough luck.  The baby needs a father, he has been established as such, and he must pay.

Or better yet:

-You meet a girl at Evergreen.  She has a baby.  You fall in love.  You move in.  You buy the kids presents, birthdays, Christmas, you buy them ice cream and go on vacation.
-A year later the relationship ends.
-Well, not quite…because in the eyes of The State of Washington, you are now the father and can be imputed paternity and assigned CPS payments.

Remember – just because you are honest doesn’t mean all other women are.  The system as currently administered encourages and allows predatory women to do this and much more.

09-01-2006 09:31 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

The State can assign paternity based upon the woman’s word alone.

A woman can go on welfare easier if the father is not in the picture.  The states do not like this. By making  the nonbilogical father pay child support,  the stress of welfare payments is taken off the State.  There are many men in this country paying for children that aren’t theirs. Laws need to change.

09-01-2006 09:43 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
“And why are you guys not doing anything to change it?”

We are doing something. We’re working behind the scenes to change the many unjust laws which privilege women and disadvantage men, and getting tons of resistance from the feminist establishment at every turn. (who’d a thunk that, reading the posts by many fembots here?) The status quo always resists change and progress. The media doesn’t cover these issues because it represents the interests of the status quo too, which is to say woman, and is probably hoping it’ll all just die out and go away, that they can offer up enough distractions to keep people from focusing. But it isn’t going to work. Many of the laws of concern are state laws, so the effort needed is multiplied by fifty.

A lot of what we’re doing is still at the “raising awareness” stage, but I’m amazed at the number of extremely knowledgeable and very well-informed men who’ve shown up in these forums, from a huge variety of different perspectives (though we all still agree on quite a few basic things). Compared to just a half dozen years or a decade ago, much less two or three decades ago, the growth in the “men’s lib” movement seems incredible to me. I don’t know if it’s quite reaching groundswell proportions yet, but the trend is clearly in the right direction. Every moronic post by a fembot around here has probably recruited another ten guys to the cause.

“Even if women were to give up their jobs tomorrow and return to the kitchen, the laws won’t change.”

No, women will have to work to change the laws first, which they will do when they realize that it’s both in their collective best interest to do so, and that it’s the fair and just thing to do for men. I’m not holding my breath that they’re up to the task. Since men have moved into the role of gatekeeper, it’s going to take a prolonged period of women being on their very best behavior and proving to us that we can trust them, that they have our interests in mind too. Again, I’m not holding my breath.

Remember, women are the majority, which is why you hear over and over about “the woman vote”, while the term “the man vote” sounds peculiar because it’s almost entirely unused. It must be nice and flattering to be so pandered to while simultaneously being able to go on and on about male-domination, the patriarchy, glass ceilings, and all that other feminist studies nonsense. (note: I’m not accusing you of this.) Perhaps someday some politician will flash on the fact that it all is largely nonsense and will try going with the truth for a change. It was a small but positive sign to see one presidential candidate in 2004, Libertarian David Badnarik, address the issue of the shaft men get in custody issues. So it’s not entirely off the political radar screen.

Evolution produces feminacentrism. But our survival no longer depends on women reproducing, so we need to get beyond what comes naturally: protecting women and jumping at their every little complaint. This will take a concerted conscious effort. Perhaps it will take something really big which threatens our survival. Not terrorism, more like global warming or an asteroid. Something only men know how to fix because men know things women don’t.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-01-2006 10:54 PM

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

The State can assign paternity based upon the woman’s word alone.

A woman can go on welfare easier if the father is not in the picture.  The states do not like this. By making  the nonbilogical father pay child support,  the stress of welfare payments is taken off the State.  There are many men in this country paying for children that aren’t theirs. Laws need to change.

Right!  So the state has an interest in getting that welfare check off their books and onto the backs of a man, any man.
Couple this with a 10% incentive pot to state governments for every dollar they collect of CPS, and what you have is a commission based system that rewards having as many people pay CPS through the state as possible.

09-03-2006 02:21 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – When does tradition become too expensive?

Re: When does tradition become too expensive?
moneyneversleep
Regular Contributor
moneyneversleep

Let me clue you in, *sshole.  If a man were to date/cohabitate with you in the State of Washington you can enforce a child support order, under current statutes, on said man for children that are not his.

Again, single mothers are not worth the trouble.  Too much drama and why should a smart man contribute time, effort and money to another man and woman’s child.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

09-05-2006 12:58 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: