Divorce...

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka+Jan 31 2005, 01:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pushka @ Jan 31 2005, 01:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 30 2005, 12:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 30 2005, 12:17 PM

all this talk of California 10 etc. is so alien to me, and ridiculous!  Maybe it's because I'm an Englander!!! lol. 

Perhaps its the words themselves you are reacting to and not the actual concepts. So tell me what it is like in England that makes things so different there.

Well, as you can tell by my addition of LOL and the Englander bit wasn't supposed to be taken seriously...

I still maintain that the idea of reducing people to numbers seems somewhat distasteful to me, sort of like going into a department store and choosing your ideal partner by the size/state written on the coathanger!!! I'm sure there are men/women all over the place who do treat their prospective partners this way, I would have hoped that it is not the norm, but as long as it isn't happening to me in my relationships then I shouldn't worry if that's what other people are choosing to do...and they will bear the consequences of the choices they make.

Perhaps I've been 'off the scene' for too long to know what the selection methods are these days...I tend to spend my time mingling among socialists and anarchists, and trying to change the world to take any notice of how big a man's wallet is, or how finely turned out and pretty a woman is....like I said...it's all ALIEN to me, more like the toffs down in London

It's not that men and women even understand what they are doing. They may not recognize their motives. But the stats show that this is generally the pattern. No one is condemning it nor condoning it, as far as I am concerned. It's just nature being nature.

[pushka]

I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank! I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka@Feb 1 2005, 07:51 PM

I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank! I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female

Of course people avoid obnoxious personality types. But other things being equal, the rule is that men put a premium on looks, women put a premium on $$$$$.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 1 2005, 08:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 1 2005, 08:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 30 2005, 11:46 PM

What I remember saying was that if a woman totally lets herself go in the weight or looks department AFTER marriage--yes, she can expect problems, in the same way a man can if he lets himself go in the "supporting the family" department.

Again you site the exceptions. They do not disprove the rule. Men marry for looks, women marry for money.

What if the man lets his looks go (in my dh's case, his belly!)?

I have to disagree with the rule. Men do marry for looks, but not all women marry for money. I didn't. My dh was as poor as dirt, but handsome as Kurt Russel.

I'm not talking about the exceptions. The exceptions don't change the rule.

Who says which is the exception and which is the rule?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 1 2005, 08:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 1 2005, 08:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -pushka@Jan 31 2005, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 30 2005, 12:47 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 30 2005, 12:17 PM

all this talk of California 10 etc. is so alien to me, and ridiculous!  Maybe it's because I'm an Englander!!! lol. 

Perhaps its the words themselves you are reacting to and not the actual concepts. So tell me what it is like in England that makes things so different there.

Well, as you can tell by my addition of LOL and the Englander bit wasn't supposed to be taken seriously...

I still maintain that the idea of reducing people to numbers seems somewhat distasteful to me, sort of like going into a department store and choosing your ideal partner by the size/state written on the coathanger!!! I'm sure there are men/women all over the place who do treat their prospective partners this way, I would have hoped that it is not the norm, but as long as it isn't happening to me in my relationships then I shouldn't worry if that's what other people are choosing to do...and they will bear the consequences of the choices they make.

Perhaps I've been 'off the scene' for too long to know what the selection methods are these days...I tend to spend my time mingling among socialists and anarchists, and trying to change the world to take any notice of how big a man's wallet is, or how finely turned out and pretty a woman is....like I said...it's all ALIEN to me, more like the toffs down in London

It's not that men and women even understand what they are doing. They may not recognize their motives. But the stats show that this is generally the pattern. No one is condemning it nor condoning it, as far as I am concerned. It's just nature being nature.

What stats? Show some.

[Jenda]

Yes, I would like to see some stats, too. With the stats, I would like to see why it appears women are more interested in the wallet. That is more to the point.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 29 2005, 10:13 AM

Yeah, where did women get the idea that men owe them something (alimony) when they get divorced. I hear women say "Well, I stayed home and took care of his children when he was working and making all that money"----Bull hacky! First, it was SHE that chose to have children and stay home. It was she that CHOSE not to get a career, and to look for a guy to support her. Second, who was paying the bill of supporting HER while she was at home? She didn't EARN anything--if anything SHJE owes him for supporting HER all those years--lets see, rent, food, clothing, entertainment, and who knows what else--it all cost him a fortune, and now she wants HIM to support her in style for the rest of her life? Sorry, babe, I don't think so.

OHMYGOSH!!!!! I actually found a topic that I can completely disagree with Cal on! Okay, I don't completely disagree, but most definitely partially. It was not necessarily SHE who chose to have children and stay home. Good heavens man--are you really that sexist?

Two people get married and plan out their life's course. He is the more ambitious of the two and will first get a good education. He goes to college and law school. She forgos completing her education to work to support him. Children come along. They agree that the children deserve a fulltime parent and so she WORKS AT HOME raising them while he works fulltime AWAY FROM HOME and together they provide a nice home for their children. She cooks, cleans, gets up in the middle of the night with sick children or babies. She runs the kids to their lessons, volunteers in their classrooms, helps them with their homeworks, runs errands for her husband, makes sure his needs at home are met, etc...Somewhere along the line, he decides that his wife isn't glamorous enough for him and decides to trade her in for a new, younger model. (Seeing that Jon Derrick traded in Ursula Andruss for Linda Evans, and then Linda Evans for Bo Derek, it doesn't stand to reason that men only do this when the wife "lets herself go.")

So here's the wife. Divorced. She has no marketable skills to make a six figure income because she's been WORKING at home all these years. Since you only put a monetary value on the work the husband does since a paycheck is attached to it--how much would it have cost him to have hired someone to do all the things for him that his wife did? To raise his children and run his household? Also, what value is put on the loss of marketable skills she suffered by giving up her education and paying job?

Obviously no one should receive spousal support for the rest of their life, but I think it's definitely warrented for a time in many cirumstances. It is extremely complicated and to put absolutely no value whatever on the job of a stay at home mom and then call her a freeloader makes you sound like a very UN nice person, and I think I'm mad at you....

[Jenda]

Cal, did you know that a woman who is a SAHM does the work of two full-time workers? Studies have shown that.

You should get off your high-horse about women who don't work outside the house.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 29 2005, 10:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 29 2005, 10:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Jan 28 2005, 11:17 PM

Men do try in marriages.

I do not believe, for any reason, that women DESERVE any kind of money should they get divorced, no matter how bad the relationship is.  The reason is; imagine if you owned a car and were still paying car payments on it.  Now let's say you got rid of it and sold it to some one else.  Paying alimony is like paying car payments for a car you don't own anymore.  And I feel alimony is sexist because a huge number of women get it compared with men.

Yeah, where did women get the idea that men owe them something (alimony) when they get divorced. I hear women say "Well, I stayed home and took care of his children when he was working and making all that money"----Bull hacky! First, it was SHE that chose to have children and stay home. It was she that CHOSE not to get a career, and to look for a guy to support her. Second, who was paying the bill of supporting HER while she was at home? She didn't EARN anything--if anything SHJE owes him for supporting HER all those years--lets see, rent, food, clothing, entertainment, and who knows what else--it all cost him a fortune, and now she wants HIM to support her in style for the rest of her life? Sorry, babe, I don't think so.

Cal,

Maybe the relevant analysis would be the legal concept of promissory estoppel. At least in religious marriage ceremonies, the spouses promise each other mutual support for life. In reliance on a promise of lifetime support, a wife may forego educational and career opportunities that would otherwise enhance her earning capacity. Since most people's first marriages still occur when they are relatively young, this can have a disproportionate impact, because the choices you make in your twenties have a huge impact on your earning capacity later on.

In other words, the wife alters her position to her detriment in reasonable reliance on a promise -- the classic definition of promissory estoppel. She is therefore entitled to the "benefit of her bargain" -- the support she contracted for in the marriage vow.

Things get sticky when you add no-fault divorce laws, because in contract law, when you breach or cancel a contract, you generally can't sue the other side for what you otherwise would have been entitled to under it. A woman in a state that has adopted no-fault divorce and still has alimony available can breach the contract AND recover damages, which is unfair.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2005, 03:47 PM

Maybe the relevant analysis would be the legal concept of promissory estoppel. At least in religious marriage ceremonies, the spouses promise each other mutual support for life. In reliance on a promise of lifetime support, a wife may forego educational and career opportunities that would otherwise enhance her earning capacity. Since most people's first marriages still occur when they are relatively young, this can have a disproportionate impact, because the choices you make in your twenties have a huge impact on your earning capacity later on.

Thank you, your Honor. I rest my case...

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka@Feb 1 2005, 07:51 PM

I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank! I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Feb 2 2005, 10:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Feb 2 2005, 10:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 1 2005, 08:13 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 30 2005, 11:46 PM

What I remember saying was that if a woman totally lets herself go in the weight or looks department AFTER marriage--yes, she can expect problems, in the same way a man can if he lets himself go in the "supporting the family" department.

Again you site the exceptions. They do not disprove the rule. Men marry for looks, women marry for money.

What if the man lets his looks go (in my dh's case, his belly!)?

I have to disagree with the rule. Men do marry for looks, but not all women marry for money. I didn't. My dh was as poor as dirt, but handsome as Kurt Russel.

I'm not talking about the exceptions. The exceptions don't change the rule.

Who says which is the exception and which is the rule?

The general rule is that women are more concerned about what the guy does for a living, than guys are interested in what a woman does for a living. Do I have to dig out the surveys for you? Lots of sociological studies show that women as a rule are more concerned with what a potential mate does for a living than are men.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 2 2005, 12:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 2 2005, 12:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 29 2005, 10:13 AM

Yeah, where did women get the idea that men owe them something (alimony) when they get divorced. I hear women say "Well, I stayed home and took care of his children when he was working and making all that money"----Bull hacky!  First, it was SHE that chose to have children and stay home. It was she that CHOSE not to get a career, and to look for a guy to support her. Second, who was paying the bill of supporting HER while she was at home? She didn't EARN anything--if anything SHJE owes him for supporting HER all those years--lets see, rent, food, clothing, entertainment, and who knows what else--it all cost him a fortune, and now she wants HIM to support her in style for the rest of her life? Sorry, babe, I don't think so.

OHMYGOSH!!!!! I actually found a topic that I can completely disagree with Cal on! Okay, I don't completely disagree, but most definitely partially. It was not necessarily SHE who chose to have children and stay home. Good heavens man--are you really that sexist?

Two people get married and plan out their life's course. He is the more ambitious of the two and will first get a good education. He goes to college and law school. She forgos completing her education to work to support him. Children come along. They agree that the children deserve a fulltime parent and so she WORKS AT HOME raising them while he works fulltime AWAY FROM HOME and together they provide a nice home for their children. She cooks, cleans, gets up in the middle of the night with sick children or babies. She runs the kids to their lessons, volunteers in their classrooms, helps them with their homeworks, runs errands for her husband, makes sure his needs at home are met, etc...Somewhere along the line, he decides that his wife isn't glamorous enough for him and decides to trade her in for a new, younger model. (Seeing that Jon Derrick traded in Ursula Andruss for Linda Evans, and then Linda Evans for Bo Derek, it doesn't stand to reason that men only do this when the wife "lets herself go.")

So here's the wife. Divorced. She has no marketable skills to make a six figure income because she's been WORKING at home all these years. Since you only put a monetary value on the work the husband does since a paycheck is attached to it--how much would it have cost him to have hired someone to do all the things for him that his wife did? To raise his children and run his household? Also, what value is put on the loss of marketable skills she suffered by giving up her education and paying job?

Obviously no one should receive spousal support for the rest of their life, but I think it's definitely warrented for a time in many cirumstances. It is extremely complicated and to put absolutely no value whatever on the job of a stay at home mom and then call her a freeloader makes you sound like a very UN nice person, and I think I'm mad at you....

Well, Curvy, that response definitely spices things up a bit

First, who told the woman to get married before she had any marketable skills? That was HER choice, wasn't it?

Second, are you suggesting that a woman can live with out any expense of support? Of course her work is of value---about the same value as what it would take to support herself in a nice house, with plenty of nice stuff. Why shouldn't she do the house work etc in exchange for being supported? Sounds like about a "wash" to me.

Third, I'm not in favor of men leaving their wives just because they get "frumpy". I'm just saying that men are more likely to leave for that reason than women are, for the simple reason that economics mean more to women than looks do; and to men, how a woman looks is more important than what she makes economically.

I'm not advocating anything, Curvy, I'm just stating some generalities for discussion.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 1 2005, 07:51 PM

I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank!  I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female 

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right?

Well no, actually...

I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums...

As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!

I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Feb 2 2005, 12:56 PM

Cal, did you know that a woman who is a SAHM does the work of two full-time workers? Studies have shown that.

You should get off your high-horse about women who don't work outside the house.

Perhaps. But, the work of two full time workers is probably what it costs her husband to support her. Besides, the economic value of the type of work she does is probably not much above minimum wage. If you were to contract out dishwashing, diaper changing, cleaning etc, it wouldn't run you near per hour what an advanced degree professional in the work place makes.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Feb 2 2005, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Feb 2 2005, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 29 2005, 10:13 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Jan 28 2005, 11:17 PM

Men do try in marriages.

I do not believe, for any reason, that women DESERVE any kind of money should they get divorced, no matter how bad the relationship is.  The reason is; imagine if you owned a car and were still paying car payments on it.  Now let's say you got rid of it and sold it to some one else.  Paying alimony is like paying car payments for a car you don't own anymore.  And I feel alimony is sexist because a huge number of women get it compared with men.

Yeah, where did women get the idea that men owe them something (alimony) when they get divorced. I hear women say "Well, I stayed home and took care of his children when he was working and making all that money"----Bull hacky! First, it was SHE that chose to have children and stay home. It was she that CHOSE not to get a career, and to look for a guy to support her. Second, who was paying the bill of supporting HER while she was at home? She didn't EARN anything--if anything SHJE owes him for supporting HER all those years--lets see, rent, food, clothing, entertainment, and who knows what else--it all cost him a fortune, and now she wants HIM to support her in style for the rest of her life? Sorry, babe, I don't think so.

Cal,

Maybe the relevant analysis would be the legal concept of promissory estoppel. At least in religious marriage ceremonies, the spouses promise each other mutual support for life. In reliance on a promise of lifetime support, a wife may forego educational and career opportunities that would otherwise enhance her earning capacity. Since most people's first marriages still occur when they are relatively young, this can have a disproportionate impact, because the choices you make in your twenties have a huge impact on your earning capacity later on.

In other words, the wife alters her position to her detriment in reasonable reliance on a promise -- the classic definition of promissory estoppel. She is therefore entitled to the "benefit of her bargain" -- the support she contracted for in the marriage vow.

Things get sticky when you add no-fault divorce laws, because in contract law, when you breach or cancel a contract, you generally can't sue the other side for what you otherwise would have been entitled to under it. A woman in a state that has adopted no-fault divorce and still has alimony available can breach the contract AND recover damages, which is unfair.

Well, when you start analyzing marriage from legal point of view, several factors come into play. The simple contract analysis you made has some merit. However, a woman should know going in that she is "assuming the risk" that husbands can die, or leave them, placing them in a precarious position. Not that "assumption of the risk" is much of a defense to an equitable claim under contract, but from a practical view, a woman that marries without first obtaining marketable skills is making a concious choice to place herself at risk.

Second, the law recognizes that public policy is served by providing women with alimony since the fact is that women don't have the earning power of men, generally speaking, and are often left in a position of becoming dependent on the state after divorces. It is in the public interest to have the man support them, rather than the taxpayer. It isn't just that a contract has been breached, it is that the public would rather the ex-husband support her, than have her on the welfare rolls.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 3 2005, 02:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 3 2005, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Feb 2 2005, 03:47 PM

Maybe the relevant analysis would be the legal concept of promissory estoppel.  At least in religious marriage ceremonies, the spouses promise each other mutual support for life.  In reliance on a promise of lifetime support, a wife may forego educational and career opportunities that would otherwise enhance her earning capacity.  Since most people's first marriages still occur when they are relatively young, this can have a disproportionate impact, because the choices you make in your twenties have a huge impact on your earning capacity later on. 

Thank you, your Honor. I rest my case...

Again, who told them to get married young? That is a choice, not a requirement. I think it is a mistake for anyone to get married before they have marketable skill sufficient to support themselves. If they don't the choose to place themselves at risk.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:13 PM

First, who told the woman to get married before she had any marketable skills? That was HER choice, wasn't it?

Second, are you suggesting that a woman can live with out any expense of support? Of course her work is of value---about the same value as what it would take to support herself in a nice house, with plenty of nice stuff. Why shouldn't she do the house work etc in exchange for being supported? Sounds like about a "wash" to me.

Uh..HELLO! The couple decided this TOGETHER. Even if she had finished her education, after years of being out of the workforce to raise THEIR children, his income earning potential far exceeds hers. She is not being "supported." Raising a family is a JOINT effort. Partners with different functions. I can't believe you don't see that.

I also think this applies to stay at home dads. If his executive wife dumps him, she should pay HIM spousal support for a period of time until he can get on his feet financially.

I didn't realize you were a misogynist. I have immense respect for your brain, but I now have to wonder about your heart.

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka+Feb 3 2005, 05:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pushka @ Feb 3 2005, 05:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:01 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 1 2005, 07:51 PM

I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank!  I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female 

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right?

Well no, actually...

I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums...

As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!

I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable.

Pushka--again, who told them to marry before they had any marketable skills, so as to be vulnerable to the consequences of divorce? Bad choice on their part, wouldn't you say?

Second, you said.....

we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!

I rest may case. You would feel "lucky" to have a husband with a job would you? That would be a lucky break? I wonder if there are any girls there in UK looking for husband with a job? I'm willing to bet that a girl there finding a guy with a job feels luckier than a guy who finds a girl with a job. Which one do you think feels luckier?

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 3 2005, 05:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 3 2005, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:13 PM

First, who told the woman to get married before she had any marketable skills? That was HER choice, wasn't it?

Second, are you suggesting that a woman can live with out any expense of support? Of course her work is of value---about the same value as what it would take to support herself in a nice house, with plenty of nice stuff. Why shouldn't she do the house work etc in exchange for being supported? Sounds like about a "wash" to me.

Uh..HELLO! The couple decided this TOGETHER. Even if she had finished her education, after years of being out of the workforce to raise THEIR children, his income earning potential far exceeds hers. She is not being "supported." Raising a family is a JOINT effort. Partners with different functions. I can't believe you don't see that.

I also think this applies to stay at home dads. If his executive wife dumps him, she should pay HIM spousal support for a period of time until he can get on his feet financially.

I didn't realize you were a misogynist. I have immense respect for your brain, but I now have to wonder about your heart.

Say what? They decided together? I thought that each person decides for himself/herself whether or not to get married. Since when do people decide something for the other person as important as that? If I decide to get married, of course the other person has to agree, but that is THEIR choice and theirs alone to make. Once both people decide they want to marry eachother then each has made a choice.

Now, who says either one of them has to CHOSE to get married before they BOTH have marketable skills? The woman wouldn't BE in the position to so desperately need alimony if she had educated herself before she CHOSE to get married. No body forced her, they didn't "decide together", she decided for HERSELF to get married, unless she is so soft-headed that she can't make any decisions for herself, and is simply talked into getting married without getting educated first. In that case, as far as I'm concerned she gets what she gets. Wake up girls, get educated FIRST, then get married. That's exactly what I taught my daughter, and she followed my advice. Luckily she married a guy who seems as solid as a rock. But you never know, and if something should happen she could immediately start supporting herself---That came about by her OWN choice--her choice to educate herself before getting married. It wasn't "their decision together"; there was no "together" involved--it was her choice to be smart and make the right decisions.

Women need to stop whinning about how it is all his fault she has no skills, and can't support herself, and how she gave all this time and effort to raising the kids, and sweeping the floor etc. Women need to take control of their lives and stop putting themselves in the vulnerable position of having no marketable skills when their night in shining armor becomes Atila the Hun, and rides off into the sunset without her.

Another benefit of postponing marriage until a woman has solid marketable skills is that by the time she gets them, she will probably have a lot better judgement about who to chose to marry, rather than marrying the first guy with potential. If she does, she won't care so much about how much money he makes or what is potential is, she can make it on her own.

As to my heart---on the contrary--I have a heart for these women who find themselves in dire straight after being left by some guy having his midlife crisis. I would like to see them be able to take charge of their lives and be happy. How is that heartless? The only way they can do that is to start taking responsiblity for their choices----stop thinking that they have to marry some guy right out of high school. Stop thinking that just because the guy seems to be Mr. Perfect, that she can just throw her ambitions aside and have 5 kids before she is 26. She needs to get control of her emotions and maternal insticts and get educated first. Then she can afford to let her estrogen go crazy and have as many kiddies as she wants--knowing that if old Atila splits, she can carry on economically.

Why is that heartless?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:49 PM

It's your whole attitude towards stay at home moms that is heartless. You think we're freeloaders, and you don't even see the value in a stay at home mom.

Like your daughter, I chose to educate myself before marriage too. Has your daughter been raising five children for seventeen years? Do you propose that I work fulltime while I raise my five children so that I can keep up with the skills needed to make a liveable income? People can't do EVERYTHING. Children deserve to have a parent there for them. Neither my husband or I desire latchkey kids. My husband works very long hours. Someone has to be there for them. Had I been going to work everyday,and not staying home being a MOM, I'd have been climbing the ladder to success along with my husband.

If I were suddenly single, it would take me a few years to be able to provide a liveable income for my children because I've been at home raising my kids. Why is that so hard to understand? It's not because I'm some lazy n'erdowell freeloader. It's because this is the course my husband and I TOGETHER chose to take. Marriage is a partnership. I'm not soft headed and stupid as you presume. This was a joint decision. If my husband suddenly dumped me to run off with his 25 year old secretary, I'd need a little help getting back on my feet.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 05:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 05:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -pushka@Feb 3 2005, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:01 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 1 2005, 07:51 PM

I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank!  I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female 

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right?

Well no, actually...

I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums...

As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!

I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable.

Pushka--again, who told them to marry before they had any marketable skills, so as to be vulnerable to the consequences of divorce? Bad choice on their part, wouldn't you say?

Second, you said.....

we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!

I rest may case. You would feel "lucky" to have a husband with a job would you? That would be a lucky break? I wonder if there are any girls there in UK looking for husband with a job? I'm willing to bet that a girl there finding a guy with a job feels luckier than a guy who finds a girl with a job. Which one do you think feels luckier?

Okay, as far as the alimony question goes...yes I agree that anybody, male or female, would be well advised to get themselves educated and in a financially stable position before entering into marriage. What happens afterwards is not always so simple an equation...When I was married and had my 1st child, I worked part time afterwards, this was beneficial to both me and my husband and our child, as it meant that I got to spend time at home during the day, looking after our daughter, whilst my husband worked, then I went to work in the evenings when he looked after her. It also meant that whenever she was ill I was automatically on-call, she was ill lots during her first year, spent lots of time in hospital...there was no question of who would take any time off work to stay in the hospital with her...it had to be me, because I was the female and I was only working part-time, even tho my rate of pay was higher than my husband's and I did enough overtime to make me a full time worker...I just spread my hours out over the full 7 days instead of 5. Maybe I've lost the point of the argument over alimony now...it isn't something that I felt I needed when I was divorced, even though I did have to rely on state benefits following the divorce (I was already not working due to ill health though). I still feel uncomfortable with some of your assumptions regarding women who stay at home after children are born, and the way that you dismiss her responsibilities towards the family...cooking, cleaning, care of children etc. as less important than the high-flying job that her husband does, thus making her less eligible for alimony if the marriage ends.

On the other point you made...about my being 'lucky to have a husband with a job at all..' I knew that you would read that differently to how it was intended to sound. Would anybody not consider themselves lucky to have a partner who was employed rather than unemployed? be that a male partner or female? Or even luckier to both be employed? I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...I think love enters into the equation somewhere along the line too doesn't it? and if you love somebody then you don't always consider whether they are employed or unemployed...people lose jobs too you know, do you think that I would have walked out on my husband if that happened to him? No I wouldn't...It might be unwise to marry someone for love alone, and disregard the financial state of things...but that's life...some people do this, not every woman only searches for a husband who has a job.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 3 2005, 06:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 3 2005, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:49 PM

It's your whole attitude towards stay at home moms that is heartless. You think we're freeloaders, and you don't even see the value in a stay at home mom.

Like your daughter, I chose to educate myself before marriage too. Has your daughter been raising five children for seventeen years? Do you propose that I work fulltime while I raise my five children so that I can keep up with the skills needed to make a liveable income? People can't do EVERYTHING. Children deserve to have a parent there for them. Neither my husband or I desire latchkey kids. My husband works very long hours. Someone has to be there for them. Had I been going to work everyday,and not staying home being a MOM, I'd have been climbing the ladder to success along with my husband.

If I were suddenly single, it would take me a few years to be able to provide a liveable income for my children because I've been at home raising my kids. Why is that so hard to understand? It's not because I'm some lazy n'erdowell freeloader. It's because this is the course my husband and I TOGETHER chose to take. Marriage is a partnership. I'm not soft headed and stupid as you presume. This was a joint decision. If my husband suddenly dumped me to run off with his 25 year old secretary, I'd need a little help getting back on my feet.

I think you may have misunderstood my position:

First, I'm not refering to you in any of this. Clearly, if you get yourself educated, then you are in a much better situation than if you had not. I'm not talking about those women that do get educated, only the ones that DON'T and THEN whine an complain about their situation--they are responsible for some of it.

Second, I never said that women shouldn't stay home and take care of the kids! It think that is exactly what they should do if they chose to have them. It's the way it should be. Just realize that staying home and taking care of kids is not a license to turn into Sasquach!

I still don't see why you think anything I have said is heartless. If a couple, after properly educating BOTH of themselves, THEN chose to get married and do what you have done, then clearly there is justification for expecting Atila to 1) pay child support and 2) help you get back into the workplace. I have nothing against that. My main point was directed to those women that think that men owe it to them to support them forever, when they have not bothered to educate themselves past high school.

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka+Feb 3 2005, 07:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pushka @ Feb 3 2005, 07:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by -pushka@Feb 3 2005, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 05:01 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Feb 1 2005, 07:51 PM

I know what you mean, Cal...I must say I look at a man's face first, before hearing him speak or whatever...but in spite of how attractive or not he may appear outwardly to me, I would not stay with him if I found his personality stank!  I would hope that that would apply to all, male or female 

And, you probaby want to know what he doesn't for a live as a very close second. Right?

Well no, actually...

I live in the Northern part of the UK which is a very poor area...career prospects are not very high generally, although we do have some highly paid people too...they are not the majority here...we struggle for labouring jobs, and shopwork, nursing etc. mainly...lots of families in this area have both partners working, we cannot afford to be stay-at-home mums...

As I have said previously, I do not doubt that there are people out there judging people on looks/career prospects alone when considering them as 'marriage fodder'...but it has certainly not been MY experience around here...we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!

I would like to agree with some of the other female posters on here regarding stay-at-home mums, who may have not chosen that path, but been encouraged to do so by their husband...if this is the case then I think the payment of some sort of alimony, initially would be acceptable.

Pushka--again, who told them to marry before they had any marketable skills, so as to be vulnerable to the consequences of divorce? Bad choice on their part, wouldn't you say?

Second, you said.....

we are lucky to have a husband with any job at all, never mind looking around for the more highly paid men!

I rest may case. You would feel "lucky" to have a husband with a job would you? That would be a lucky break? I wonder if there are any girls there in UK looking for husband with a job? I'm willing to bet that a girl there finding a guy with a job feels luckier than a guy who finds a girl with a job. Which one do you think feels luckier?

Okay, as far as the alimony question goes...yes I agree that anybody, male or female, would be well advised to get themselves educated and in a financially stable position before entering into marriage. What happens afterwards is not always so simple an equation...When I was married and had my 1st child, I worked part time afterwards, this was beneficial to both me and my husband and our child, as it meant that I got to spend time at home during the day, looking after our daughter, whilst my husband worked, then I went to work in the evenings when he looked after her. It also meant that whenever she was ill I was automatically on-call, she was ill lots during her first year, spent lots of time in hospital...there was no question of who would take any time off work to stay in the hospital with her...it had to be me, because I was the female and I was only working part-time, even tho my rate of pay was higher than my husband's and I did enough overtime to make me a full time worker...I just spread my hours out over the full 7 days instead of 5. Maybe I've lost the point of the argument over alimony now...it isn't something that I felt I needed when I was divorced, even though I did have to rely on state benefits following the divorce (I was already not working due to ill health though). I still feel uncomfortable with some of your assumptions regarding women who stay at home after children are born, and the way that you dismiss her responsibilities towards the family...cooking, cleaning, care of children etc. as less important than the high-flying job that her husband does, thus making her less eligible for alimony if the marriage ends.

On the other point you made...about my being 'lucky to have a husband with a job at all..' I knew that you would read that differently to how it was intended to sound. Would anybody not consider themselves lucky to have a partner who was employed rather than unemployed? be that a male partner or female? Or even luckier to both be employed? I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...I think love enters into the equation somewhere along the line too doesn't it? and if you love somebody then you don't always consider whether they are employed or unemployed...people lose jobs too you know, do you think that I would have walked out on my husband if that happened to him? No I wouldn't...It might be unwise to marry someone for love alone, and disregard the financial state of things...but that's life...some people do this, not every woman only searches for a husband who has a job.

I still feel uncomfortable with some of your assumptions regarding women who stay at home after children are born, and the way that you dismiss her responsibilities towards the family...cooking, cleaning, care of children etc. as less important than the high-flying job that her husband does, thus making her less eligible for alimony if the marriage ends.

You keep telling me I said things that I DID NOT say. I never said that the woman's care of the house was LESS IMPORTANT, I said it was of lesser economic value than what most men do. That doesn't make it less important. Why can you not limit your comments to what I said, not what you read into it.

My comment about womens house work was in response to a comment about how women work in the house and so men should have to compensate them for that when they get divorced. My point was simply the logic that 1) compensation should be based on value for value (economic, not moral). 2) that what women do doesn't have the value, monetarily, of what men generally do. I don't devalue it, I only give it the value that any economist would. Perhaps I could accuse you of devalueing what men do? But, you have not said you do, so I won't accuse you of it.

You also said you would probably not have married someone without a job? Again you make my point, because MEN regularly marry women who don't have much in the way of job skills. Why? Back to my original comment--men don't value job skills in women as much as women value them in men. Men are used to taking the responsibility for the major financial burden--they would just rather do it for a California 10, than an Idaho 4. (As he braces himself for the estrogenal battering to come)

[pushka]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 3 2005, 07:18 PM

I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...

You keep telling me I said things that I DID NOT say. I never said that the woman's care of the house was LESS IMPORTANT, I said it was of lesser economic value than what most men do. That doesn't make it less important. Why can you not limit your comments to what I said, not what you read into it.

My comment about womens house work was in response to a comment about how women work in the house and so men should have to compensate them for that when they get divorced. My point was simply the logic that 1) compensation should be based on value for value (economic, not moral). 2) that what women do doesn't have the value, monetarily, of what men generally do. I don't devalue it, I only give it the value that any economist would. Perhaps I could accuse you of devalueing what men do? But, you have not said you do, so I won't accuse you of it.

You also said you would probably not have married someone without a job? Again you make my point, because MEN regularly marry women who don't have much in the way of job skills. Why? Back to my original comment--men don't value job skills in women as much as women value them in men. Men are used to taking the responsibility for the major financial burden--they would just rather do it for a California 10, than an Idaho 4. (As he braces himself for the estrogenal battering to come)

Cal, I apologise for putting words into your mouth...yes, I was stating what I believed you meant by the words you said...when you said it was of 'lesser economic value' than 'what most men do' I felt a little insulted, because I feel that the care of the family is worth much more than any highly paid job, and so alimony shouldn't be set purely on a like for like measure according to how much the family would have had to pay for a nanny, cook, cleaner etc. to do the work that the wife did whilst her husband was out working. I hope that clarifies my position a little better...

Please note the words ' I WAS NOT SAYING'...I was not saying that I considered myself more fortunate to be with someone with a job than someone without a job, and that I would probably have not married someone without a job...

I was saying that I would marry someone whether or not he was employed...then I mentioned that this would be because I would marry for love, and love makes people do things which may be considered foolish by others.

I agree that most men probably don't consider the value of their future wife's career, expecting that she would be the one to care for the children at home if they could afford for her to stay at home...I find that a sexist attitude, however. Unfortunately, as I said before, where I live it is often the case that both partners have to work to raise the family...

I don't wish to put words in your mouth again, but did you insinuate somewhere, in one of your earlier posts regarding alimony, that it was the woman's choice alone to have the children, so she should be the one to stay at home and look after them? How do you know it was the woman's choice alone? Sorry, I probably am putting words into your mouth again...you were probably just referring to the fact that the woman could refuse to have a child even if her husband wanted one and she didn't...but if she agreed to have a child because he wanted one, or if they both chose to have the child, then it should still be the woman's responsibility to care for the child and suffer the loss of her career/financial independence? Because she chose to have the child????

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm just being argumentative for the sake of it...I'm tired, its 2.40am here and time I went to bed!! LOL