How women are more equal than men

[Pirian]

Pirian, you could still be a character witness in a custody case. If you and your mother tell a judge that your sister is not fit to be the primary guardian, that would hold a lot of sway.

Sounds like the dad is a good guy, but without anything damning about your sister, it only makes sense that the kids are going to the person not working 12 hour days.

Well, I have offered it up to him but he hasn't come back to me. I do talk with him once a week or so, and it's not as if I mentioned it to him once just off-the-cuff. Right now my mother is so stressed out she has been calling me just about every day to tell me about it. I don't think she wants to get involved anymore than she is and I'm not going to be the one to tell her to testify against her daughter.

He has his flaws, but yeah, for the most part he's a pretty good guy. It isn't like he isn't seeing the kids at all right now, but she has full custody and decides who gets the kids and when, and he only gets the kids when she wants to go to the bar with her boyfriend (which fortunately for him is pretty often).

[#686578]

So, my "tone" of typing is saying that all men abandon their children after a divorce? If your getting that, your focusing too much on trying to figure me out than actually paying attention to text.

I have never once in this thread, said fathers abandoning kids is cool or the majority of what happens.



Thats the only thing I can find in any of my posts, that could even lead to the assumption that fathers abandon their kids...... if thats what your basing it off of, I either worded it wrong or your reading it wrong. Generally saying that fathers usually do not get custody of their children from divorce proceedings (and it seems no one here disagrees), not that the fathers are ok with letting their kids go live the ex-spouse.

*edit*

Well, there was the "hostage" comment as well. It was generally thrown out there, asking if the kids were being "held hostage" because a father rather pay child support over having custody of their kids. Never said it was the majority, but it does happen........ or they generally just cut the kids/ex out of their life completely. NEVER said it was the majority, but it happens.

I had a much longer version of this post planned out before the edit that included quoting you and inferring a bunch of things from what you've said but I'm just going to sum it up as you're clearly using the argument about a minority of cases where fathers effectively abandon their kids as if it were a legitimate argument regarding the majority of cases.

[#686578]

The situation under which the children were conceived dictated that the $500k/yr man would be spending much more than a couple hundred bucks a month on the kids, providing them much more opportunities than that would allow. Why should this change, for the kids, because of a divorce? $500k/yr means over 40k a month... sorry, daddy better fucking kick a bit more than a few hundred to mom every month. Depending on the region, 50k/yr plus a few hundred a month would be tough to raise a family on, especially considering the kind of life the kids would've had.

Stop being a raging fucking dick about rich people having to spend money on the children they brought into the world instead of on strippers.

Right, the father would've spent more on the kids every month. And he still can (assuming he has custody rights) and probably would (who wouldnt want to say gee look at me and how much better I am than mommy look at how much I'm spending on you this is directly proportional to the amount that we love you etc etc [which is also wrong]). But the fact of the matter is that you can make an argument for standard of living but you really have no accountability as to what's going to the child. Let's make this all about the child. Let's forget about the mother entirely.

Done.

Okay now why should the mother benefit at all if we're only concerned about the child?

[jmc]

Right, the father would've spent more on the kids every month. And he still can (assuming he has custody rights) and probably would (who wouldnt want to say gee look at me and how much better I am than mommy look at how much I'm spending on you this is directly proportional to the amount that we love you etc etc [which is also wrong]). But the fact of the matter is that you can make an argument for standard of living but you really have no accountability as to what's going to the child. Let's make this all about the child. Let's forget about the mother entirely.

Done.

Okay now why should the mother benefit at all if we're only concerned about the child?

Maybe you should stop assuming the mother spends the child support payments on herself all the time? I'm not going to argue and say some child support payments are too high....... not gonna argue that some are too low, but to automatically assume that all divorced woman spend the child support payments on themselves is pretty umm...... "retarded" as you would put it.

Cause you know the saying about assumption, and looking like a ass right?

*edit*

Yes, there are some woman who will spend 90% of chlid support payments on themselves.......... but don't blame everyone, for the few. You have some pretty serious hatred to anyone receiving any type of divorce payments that are more than a few hundred a month.

[Darus Grey]

Darus is not a lawyer, Pirian. And if I had to guess, I'd say Darus isn't doing much consulting for low-income/working class men but rather middle to upper-middle men who feel like they have to pay too much (maybe a few genuine cases of well-to-do fathers simply wanting more custody time, as well). All of Darus' arguments feel like they're coming from the perspective of men who are upset at how much of their (substantial) earnings are being taken away.

also, anyone who complains about women not working and raising their children on child support is completely fucking ignoring that would be the reality even if the couple were still married. And the woman is fucked after her kid turns 18 if she truly has no work experience over two decades; shel'll ultimately be rewarded with entry-level work at 45.

god some dense ass motherfuckers looking for reasons to hate women on an internet forum.

Correct, though I have passed the bar(a requirement), I do not advertise myself as an attorney, it's simply not my field. To clarify for Pirian I am a legal semanticist, the person lawyers consult when they need to know wtf is going on when reading and interrupting laws.

In practice I end up doing a lot of form filling out and shit anyways with my donated time, and I spend a great deal of time basically telling people they're fucked.

It is however mostly lower income people, Upper-middle class+ people don't need charity law assistance.

The reason I'm so hostile to the idea is simply because I think it's entirely unfair, since I don't believe in marriage to begin with, as an extension I also don't believe in joint assets.

i.e. I don't buy into the idea that you effectively pay your wife a salary that she only gets to collect on divorce, both partners should get back what they put in and nothing more.

I also think it's bizarre that you punish the more successful "partner"(male or female, but strongly on average male).

Women are denied very few opportunities in modern society, and if they choose to be homemakers(or to simply not climb as high as their partners in their respective careers), they should be able to accept the potential consequences of that should they arise, that they may be entering the workforce with no skills... that's a choice they made, and yet expect someone else to pay for.

Most of the cases I deal with are more emotional than fiscally related. There really is a large number of perfectly responsible fathers out there who are denied the ability to see their children, and I really feel bad for them, cause there really is nothing we can do as long as the mother simply doesn't let it happen.

The system that allows this to happen rightfully makes me upset.

[HadesChubbs]

Yes, some women have a career while raising children, but that would certainly effect custody/support decisions. But you're trying to spin what I commented on, which is the idea of women being "rewarded for doing jack shit for 18 years."

own up to that before we start talking about working women.

Now Pirian, how about women without an MD/lots of money to own a business? In my family, and I feel this is a fairly common situation, my mother did not work until my brother and I were in school, and then worked part-time. This is because my father was full-time (and for a few years had to be away from home for a month+ at a time), and someone needed to be around to do most of the household stuff and look after 2 children who had after-school activities, homework, etc.

If my mother and father had divorced, I don't think it would've been feasible for either of them to hire a maid/nanny in order to work full-time and support children without receiving support from the other parent. My upbringing was pretty modest, especially in the early years (years 0-6 was pretty much exclusively enlisted military salary, probably E-2 to E-4/5 in that time range).

Spoilers: most divorces and custody battles aren't among upper-class people. Some certainly are, but most are not.

I didn't say in every case (I edited that in well before you posted), but that is what I said. The things the money ends up paying for, from every single situation ive seen, is 25-50% on the kid, and the rest on the mother, for things unrelated to the child.

Edit: And raising the child isnt what I meant by doing jack shit part, that part is hard, I agree. The "do jack shit" part is referring to how women in a lot of cases are able to live off the money and work little to not at all. I consider this doing jack shit, and almost getting a free ride. This would allow (though it would be sick) a woman to marry a guy, get pregnant, give birth, and divorce a guy, then live the next 18 years of her life for "free". Now its men who need to be protected...

[#686578]

Maybe you should stop assuming the mother spends the child support payments on herself all the time?

Exactly how much does it cost to raise a child per month? Split that by half. I guess if you're using one of the other standards of "fair" split it by that percentage. Are they getting more than that per month? You can probably assume it's not going to be spent on the child. You can only argue so much that the extra money is going to "improve their life style".

You can argue food, you can argue lost rent, you can argue clothing, school supplies, day care (which I dont like as an argument point but is legitimate nonetheless), but beyond that it starts to become sketchy.

You took their house, so it's not like you're losing the rent having a room taken in a 2 room apartment. Children dont eat constantly, but not THAT much, and if they're eating anything terribly expensive you're probably doing it wrong. Your kid only needs so many clothes, which they'll keep from before the divorce and will require minimal investment in to upkeep. School supplies are cheap at worst if not almost free. Day care is probably the most legitimate argument there is but I disagree with it because often there are churches, schools, and the like that offer cheap (or free) babysitting. Churches often have low cost or free day care (especially for single mothers). Schools have before and after school programs, and not just sports and teams and such, but there are basically just afterschool day care programs especially for elementary school (and you can make the argument that after 5th grade they're old enough to be home alone for an hour or two before you get home). Pretty much everything after that will be going to "improving life style" such as making the house or apartment more decorated or furnished and buying other luxury items.

[Beckwin]

I wonder if anyone has any idea on market rates for a full-time, live-in nanny/maid + food/clothing/etc for children.

Based on this topic, I'd guess not. I'd guess a good full-time nanny pulls in at least a couple grand a month.

Because when a woman gets a "free ride" for 18 years, consider all that she's (or should be) doing. For fuck's sake, do most of you not appreciate your mothers or something? And the same would go for any stay-at-home father.

I also think it's bizarre that you punish the more successful "partner"(male or female, but strongly on average male).

Pay a nanny or pay the ex (the nanny is probably more expensive). Your choice, but you don't get to have your capitalist superhero career (in which you are judged as "more successful" yet are not present enough to take care of a child/children) without one or the other.

[HadesChubbs]

I wonder if anyone has any idea on market rates for a full-time, live-in nanny/maid + food/clothing/etc for children.

Based on this topic, I'd guess not. I'd guess a good full-time nanny pulls in at least a couple grand a month.

Because when a woman gets a "free ride" for 18 years, consider all that she's (or should be) doing. For fuck's sake, do most of you not appreciate your mothers or something? And the same would go for any stay-at-home father.

Why do you assume the mother is doing everything? The father is probably fighting TO BE DOING THESE THING AS WELL.

[Tristam]

I inferring a bunch of things..... I'm just going to sum it up using the argument about a minority of cases where blah blah blah blah as if it were a legitimate argument regarding the majority of cases.

There, pretty much the entire thread, noone excluded.

[Beckwin]

NEITHER PARENT WILL HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO THESE THINGS IF THEY ARE WORKING A CAREER WHICH MAKES THEM FINANCIALLY SUPERIOR TO THEIR COUNTERPART.

Hence, the one who is best able to provide physical care is typically the one given primary custody (also why you see so much "weekend custody" for the other parent, i.e. the days when they aren't out the door at 7 AM and back at 6 PM).

Even though women are much more commonly having careers, it's still quite often the case where they scale it back after giving birth to a child. From that initial situation going into a divorce, men are much more often going to have more earning and women more "free time" to raise a kid.

In extreme cases, like Pirian's sister, the circumstances should outweigh that situation, but in most cases, it won't.

I'd say if you guys really wanted to make progress for the minority of fathers who truly want equal (or full, in extreme cases) custody, you'd be better off lobbying for better maternity related labor laws and expansion of childcare subsidies/public stuff/whatever, as then more women would be holding down careers even after childbirth and there would be legit, quality, low-cost/free options to cover afternoon and vacation childcare.

"Reforming" the system so that men don't have to pay as much in child support does little to address the problems facing divorced families/single parenting.

[HadesChubbs]

NEITHER PARENT WILL HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO THESE THINGS IF THEY ARE WORKING A CAREER WHICH MAKES THEM FINANCIALLY SUPERIOR TO THEIR COUNTERPART.

I disagree. My mother was the clear breadwinner of the family (roughly 33% more than my father), and still did all of these things. Though my parents never got divorced, my mom did everything expected of a single parent. My father took care of most of our outside things, that are luxuries to have and are outside the point (pool/yard work/bug spray).

I stayed in daycare till I was 4, at which point I was enrolled in kindergarten. After kindergarten, my school had a program where I could hang out in the Multipurpose Room until 6pm, supervised by teachers. I did this until sixth grade (middle school), where my parents trusted me enough to stay home the 2 hours until they came home. At no point was I unsupervised until my parents trusted me with the responsibility to be, and my mother worked a 9-5 job np.

I dont buy the argument that women cant make having a career + raising a child work on less than 1/3-1/2 of the guy's salary.

Edit: And as said before, if the woman chooses to have no career, then she is making the choice BY HERSELF to invest heavily into that relationship.

[Feedmenow]

Hence, the one who is best able to provide physical care is typically the one given primary custody (also why you see so much "weekend custody" for the other parent, i.e. the days when they aren't out the door at 7 AM and back at 6 PM).

The majority of the time you're talking about, kids are going to school anyways.

I can understand for the childrens' years before school, but otherwise it's not actually that bad, especially if the school has some functional daycare system for before/after school.

[Tristam]

Oh look, another anecdote followed by a silly assumption applied to all women based on a single person's experience. This thread is going places.

[HadesChubbs]

Oh look, another anecdote followed by a silly assumption applied to all women based on a single person's experience. This thread is going places.

They are examples to prove my point.

Wheres my silly assumption? That women have jobs or that women can work + run a house/apartment when needed?

How many people's worth of experience do you have?

[Tristam]

They are examples to prove my point.

Wheres my silly assumption? That women have jobs or that women can work + run a house/apartment when needed?

How many people's worth of experience do you have?

Example = anectode

The plural of anectode is not data. Without meaningful statistics you cannot draw conclusions beyond simple observation, which is all this thread is. How many people's worth of experience do you have? Would my personal anecdotes mean more if I had more than you? Certainly not.

Your silly assumption is that the woman alone makes the choice to forsake her career for the welfare of the child. Many couples would find that absurd, as most couples I would hope make decisions relating to the financial stability of the household as well as the welfare of the children together. Even if we must assign blame to one member of the family, why, statistically speaking, does the woman in the vast majority of cases sacrifice her financial wellbeing for the sake of the family? edit: She bears the ENTIRE financial responsibility for sacrificing career for the wellbeing of the family in this case, which is the statistical majority.

Yes, it is possible for women to be the primary breadwinner, but single anecdotes, again, are not usually any indication of what the entire population experiences.

[HadesChubbs]

If a person's opinion/point is disputed based purely on it being "only their opinion, based on life experience", then what is the point of the thread? lol this is BG for ya I guess

Women normally (and stupidly) sacrifice their careers because thats how it has been for...ever? in most places atleast

[Tristam]

If a person's opinion/point is disputed based purely on it being "only their opinion, based on life experience", then what is the point of the thread? lol this is BG for ya I guess

Women normally (and stupidly) sacrifice their careers because thats how it has been for...ever? in most places atleast

I agree entirely with this post! A point I made earlier is that in states where women are not as frequently sacrificing their careers, or at least statistically more women enjoy more equal individual financial status with men, joint custody increases. My opinion is that there are root causes of inequalities in the legal system as it applies to child custody that are a result of how things have been forever as you put it. Why things have been how they have been forever or so is something worth figuring out, and that will shed more light on how and why society results in inequalites like what we've been discussing.

[Beckwin]

I wouldn't call raising a child a "stupid" thing to do.

It seems like in this topic, women are fucked no matter what they do. They wanna have a career? Well they shouldn't earn as much because they might get knocked up, or they aren't physically as capable... and boy, don't get me started on those whores who manage to get pregnant at just the right time to get out of a deployment! Oh, also, fuck all those lazy women who get an 18 year "free ride" because they didn't get a job and chose instead to raise a kid... those lazy bitches should get fucking jobs (and get paid less/have us cry about maternity issues and not being strong) so they don't leech so much money from men working full-time (and full-paid, without career/employment gaps for caring for a young child) careers!

I think the solution for a lot of people in this topic is never. have. children.

[Feedmenow]

When you're arguing that a law should be more situational, isn't anecdotal evidence rather valid reasoning for some change?

Divorces can be VERY different from each other, so I don't see why it can't be adjusted to handle diverse situations.