open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Divorces and Sexism
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.08.29 03:07:00 - [1]
 

So, here in Canada, a couple (let's call them Mark and Judy) who I've known for a while are getting divorced - they got married in 2004. They seemed like a nice enough couple, Mark was one of my best friends, and Judy was always very polite and friendly. They had two kids (six and five), and Mark worked as a transportation engineer. In May this year, though, Mark told me that Judy was divorcing him. He sounded stunned.

We were originally having a lunch meeting for work-related purposes, but we forgot all about the work and ended up talking about his divorce instead. Apparently, Judy had written a 46-page document accusing him of everything under the sun (child molestation, neglect, wife-beating, doing drugs, etc) and was, in court, trying to get him to pay $12,000 PER MONTH to support a single mom and two kids.

Anyway, that's mostly besides the point. The main thing to say is that, with the interim agreement, Mark only gets to see his kids once a week, and Mark has to pay a couple thousand a month to support Judy and their kids. Oh, and Judy also took the house. Why is this? Why is it that, when a couple files for a divorce and separates, everyone's heart goes out to her, and it's her who ends up with primary custody of the kids, as well as a clear monetary advantage?

It just irritates me. I'm not sure if this is a problem with Canada's justice system, or does this happen throughout the world? Neutral

Another thing - what the hell could you possibly spend 12,000 CAD/month (144k a year) on, for a woman and two kids? She wouldn't even need to work for the rest of her life. It's a blatant attempt to extort as much money out of him as possible. But I digress, this wasn't the point of my post.

Dorian Tormak
M0N0LITH
Posted - 2011.08.29 03:23:00 - [2]
 

That's what happens when you take a number and conform like a good little kid.

Marriage = bull****.

Kids = don't ****ing have any with some *****.

Of course, he probably did some of that **** he's being accused of anyway and she's the ****** who did nothing about it until now.

But then again she could be just making **** up to get at him for whatever vindictive reason she wants to.

This is what the world is now.

The chickens still cluck and get married and **** like that, it's really his own fault; he should know more about people, **** I'm only young and I wouldn't get into any **** like that!

The saddest part is the parents only think for/about themselves; all you should have to do is ask the kids what happened, ask the kids how they feel, but people are stupid morons.

I need some whiskey now.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.08.29 04:08:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Roosterton
So, here in Canada, a couple (let's call them Mark and Judy) who I've known for a while are getting divorced - they got married in 2004. They seemed like a nice enough couple, Mark was one of my best friends, and Judy was always very polite and friendly. They had two kids (six and five), and Mark worked as a transportation engineer. In May this year, though, Mark told me that Judy was divorcing him. He sounded stunned.

We were originally having a lunch meeting for work-related purposes, but we forgot all about the work and ended up talking about his divorce instead. Apparently, Judy had written a 46-page document accusing him of everything under the sun (child molestation, neglect, wife-beating, doing drugs, etc) and was, in court, trying to get him to pay $12,000 PER MONTH to support a single mom and two kids.

Anyway, that's mostly besides the point. The main thing to say is that, with the interim agreement, Mark only gets to see his kids once a week, and Mark has to pay a couple thousand a month to support Judy and their kids. Oh, and Judy also took the house. Why is this? Why is it that, when a couple files for a divorce and separates, everyone's heart goes out to her, and it's her who ends up with primary custody of the kids, as well as a clear monetary advantage?

It just irritates me. I'm not sure if this is a problem with Canada's justice system, or does this happen throughout the world? Neutral

Another thing - what the hell could you possibly spend 12,000 CAD/month (144k a year) on, for a woman and two kids? She wouldn't even need to work for the rest of her life. It's a blatant attempt to extort as much money out of him as possible. But I digress, this wasn't the point of my post.




I had an acquaintance spend two years BEATING false child molestation charges and they were going to charge him a third time (which is against the law but prosecutorial misconduct in the USA is a whole other topic that has another friend getting harassed in his county) until they burned down his house and threatened him before the court date.

There is a whole slew of articles out there on how men are basically screwed in the courts, and this is one of the biggest reasons why men won't marry. It's a play-out of the truth that is resulting from the "big lie". The "Big Lie" started around 100 years ago and was based on the "all women are oppressed" model. So chivalrous generations of men made it so that women have all the balls in the court (and not just certain kinds of balls).

The result is... what you saw in the OP.


And that men are doing what women would not have done if what was said about them was true. Women were never so oppressed as the man-haters (true feminists don't hate men) claim, but men now are as oppressed. Let's face it, any deal where a man could simply be given the heave-ho for no reason and made into an economic mule for 22 years is no deal any man would sign up for.

Thankfully, we have beer, guns, MMOs, and sci-fi and occasionally a hooker - and that's the only honest woman you can find Razz

OK just kidding about that, but to be more specific, marriage is what it is because of government intervention and the state's willingness to crush the family (this is the Prussian model).



Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2011.08.29 08:07:00 - [4]
 

In some cases, the male is forced to support children that aren't even biologically his. Even when DNA testing proves that the child is not his own, the courts often decide that he has acted as a 'father figure' and has assumed financial responsibility - and is forced to pay child support.

I work in construction and I hear a lot of horror stories. One of my engineer coworkers had the misfortune of marrying (and divorcing) a lawyer, and she took him for everything while managing to legally protect her own assets.

I get the feeling a lot of so-called 'deadbeat dads' are willing to shoulder some of the burden of child-rearing, but they are so severely screwed by the divorce courts that they just refuse to play ball and skip town.

Agree with the previous poster - seems to be a pretty efficient way to destroy marriage - who would willingly sign up for that kind of liability?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.29 08:24:00 - [5]
 


It's called a prenup (or whatever the local equivalent might be).
Getting married without something like that is like autopiloting through a bit of 0.0 - sure, it could be no problem, but you just know that if there's even the tiniest of problems, it will end badly.

If the future marriage partner goes "but, baby, we don't need a prenup nor anything like it, we're going to love eachother forever and ever and never grow apart" and refuse to sign it no matter how you try to reason with them, they deserve to get dumped on the spot and marriage plans canceled, either for being a manipulative bastard or for being a completely hopelessly optimistic moron.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.29 10:40:00 - [6]
 

Maybe it is just me, but I really dislike the marrige institution. Why do I need to get the approval of anyone to be with a person I like? I will be with whoever I want on my own terms, and some silly "official" approval means nothing to me (besides, why would I make a commitmet to be with anyone for "life" when what life is really about is change?). :)

Sure, it might end up costing me some more in taxes were I live, but so be it.

Kurfin
Amarr
Posted - 2011.08.29 11:25:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
Maybe it is just me, but I really dislike the marrige institution. Why do I need to get the approval of anyone to be with a person I like? I will be with whoever I want on my own terms, and some silly "official" approval means nothing to me (besides, why would I make a commitmet to be with anyone for "life" when what life is really about is change?). :)

Sure, it might end up costing me some more in taxes were I live, but so be it.


Marriage isn't that hard to split up from, as long as you haven't misbehaved, the scope for you ex to screw you over is reasonably limited. If you have kids of dependant age, married or not, she has got you by the proverbials.

Florio
Miniature Giant Space Hamsters
Posted - 2011.08.29 11:38:00 - [8]
 

To be honest it sounds like, despite the wife's crazy antics, the Canadian court arrived at a fair decision that is best for the children (which is the priority). Being able to see the children only once per week sounds a bit weird; I very much doubt that is factually correct.

Wilhelm Riley
Posted - 2011.08.29 12:05:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Wilhelm Riley on 29/08/2011 12:07:44
Well it certainly is unfair. I can't speak to all cases like this but don't forget that in this case she is the one making all the accusations, so the authorities are bound to side with her for the short term.

It's somewhat unrelated but my family went through a bit of a trial when I was young, my dad had been accused of something that was entirely false by another member of the family and some kind of authority figure came by (I was quite young, don't remember what kind of job he had) and interviewed my siblings and I to make sure we weren't being mistreated. We weren't, of course.

The point being I'd worry more about the kids than the adults. Certainly, it's not fair to the father but don't forget that this event could have a real impact.

Originally by: Akita T

It's called a prenup (or whatever the local equivalent might be).



What Akita said. Marriage is basically a contract to stab you repeatedly in the chest, a prenup is like a stab-proof vest!

Karl Planck
Labyrinth Obtaining Chaotic Kangaroos
Posted - 2011.08.29 12:36:00 - [10]
 

There are some funny points in this topic that are worth commenting on.

First, if the wife is making those kinds of charges in the court, the alimony+child support is going to be the least of Marks problems. While that does suck, someone above me was correct in that the children are gonna suffer on this. That much hate between parents always screws with the children and parents that expose their kids to it are usually extremely selfish.

Next, as far as the money goes you most people in here have a funny view on what the point of alimony and child support is. Child support is determined to keep the child's standard of living the same after the divorce as it was before, and to keep people off of welfare. Even though child support can be a pretty penny, I think most people can agree that in principle it is a good idea. However, there is no to demand how parents should spend that money, which is rediculas. I have quite a story about how little of the money I saw from child support and how my mother spent my college funds that my father had put away for me.

Whats really twists people's nipples it seems though is alimony. I have to say that I am probably one of the few guys that supports it, at least the American execution of it. These laws are meant to keep a wife at the standard of living they had during the marriage for a period of time (usually like 6 - 10 years without a prenup). Although this ****es a lot of guys off (you guys aren't together anymore, why should you have to give them money) you did enter into a contract as a household. If one person wasn't working, there was a reason for it that was agreed upon by both parties. When the wife isn't working and people divorce the alimony is HUGE. Alimony+child support usually eats more than 50% of a man's paycheck. However, if the women was working during the marriage the alimony is actually quite small. Lots of specifics in here, but the general point is that even though you get separated from your partner you still have OBLIGATIONS to them.

Be a man, suck it up and live with your bad decisions with your head held high.

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.08.29 12:37:00 - [11]
 

The not-so-latest scam in divorce is when all paperwork has been signed and payment plans to your ex-wife have been mutually agreed in line with inflation etc.

What can happen (believe it or not) is if the man gets a new job which pays more money, the ex-wife can have you back in court again for more money. I think they call it 'future income' or something like that.

Anyways - to cheer everyone up, here's a video of how someone imaginatively proposed using Portal and great level design Linky winky



Takseen
Posted - 2011.08.29 14:38:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Karl Planck


Next, as far as the money goes you most people in here have a funny view on what the point of alimony and child support is. Child support is determined to keep the child's standard of living the same after the divorce as it was before, and to keep people off of welfare.

Whats really twists people's nipples it seems though is alimony. These laws are meant to keep a wife at the standard of living they had during the marriage for a period of time (usually like 6 - 10 years without a prenup).


I don't see that its fair that the husband(or whoever ends up paying out the cash) is expected to keep the wife and kids on the exact same standard of living. Cohabiting is simply a more economical means of living because you're sharing more resources. Its inevitable that if the parents go their seperate ways their quality of life is going to drop. So I'd hope that the law takes that into account in some way.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.29 15:15:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Bane Necran on 29/08/2011 15:17:19
I've often thought it's sexist, but apparently feminists are ok with women being regarded as weak and powerless as long as there's money in it for them.

Yeah, i went there.

Something Random
Gallente
The Barrow Boys
Posted - 2011.08.29 15:18:00 - [14]
 

OP - It sounds like your mate got a bit cosy and maybe fattened up a bit over those years, he also without doubt royally ****ed off the missus somehow.

You have kids with a woman now (in UK, and i believe any progressive nation) you are going to pay for there life. You should too.

Dont get too cosy al you guys living (in sin) with a woman and never planning to marry, in the UK at least - the moment she walked through that door she had dibs on a lot of your stuff and the longer she stays there the more she gets dibs on. The ****ed up thing ? A woman can move in with you, never get married to you, but with a good lawyer and a long relationship in the past she could easily walk away with the house she never paid a penny for.

Apparently the way to do it is to treat your partner as a lodger... right down to a weekly rent and invoices.

THEN your stuff is yours. AND ONLY THEN.

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.29 17:55:00 - [15]
 

Don't let wives be solely stay at home... because then you do have to pay for them...
Simply put it was their job to take care of the kids. This doesnt make much sense as other women have jobs/careers and kids so whats to prevent her lazy ass from doing the same?

Law isn't always right.

Had my best friend from 5 years old go throw this. She packed up and moved out, even before the divorce. He couldnt move back because he had to work to support them. Once again even though the mother is slightly crazy now and not making rational decisions (Had a 1/4 life crisis) as she was the main care taker...she gets near sole custody.

This does however give me hope for my dream as a house husband who just cooks and plays xbox all day. My future ex wife will pay for me to maintain my current lifestyle for at least half a decade...

Nimrod Nemesis
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2011.08.29 18:08:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Blacksquirrel

This does however give me hope for my dream as a house husband who just cooks and plays xbox all day. My future ex wife will pay for me to maintain my current lifestyle for at least half a decade...



Sounds like a good way to hedge my retirement. Where's the Forbes list of rich single middle-aged women, when you need it?

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.08.29 18:14:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Roosterton on 29/08/2011 18:15:06
Some interesting responses here - thanks, I guess this isn't only a Canadian thing.

Anyway, I get that the man should be paying to support the children, but shouldn't the woman be paying an equal amount to support the children? 50/50?

Sure, the husband might be the one working, but the children are just as much hers as they are his - and when she decides to split up and stop supporting her husband (no longer doing things such as cooking and cleaning for them) then why is he obligated to keep providing 100% financial support? It just strikes me as one-sided. Sad

I wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed - if it was, as you say, a house-husband and a working mom. Would things shift or stay the same? Twisted Evil

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.29 19:05:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Blacksquirrel on 29/08/2011 19:07:08
Originally by: Roosterton
Edited by: Roosterton on 29/08/2011 18:15:06
Some interesting responses here - thanks, I guess this isn't only a Canadian thing.

Anyway, I get that the man should be paying to support the children, but shouldn't the woman be paying an equal amount to support the children? 50/50?

Sure, the husband might be the one working, but the children are just as much hers as they are his - and when she decides to split up and stop supporting her husband (no longer doing things such as cooking and cleaning for them) then why is he obligated to keep providing 100% financial support? It just strikes me as one-sided. Sad

I wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed - if it was, as you say, a house-husband and a working mom. Would things shift or stay the same? Twisted Evil


Yeah it would...least here in the US. Custody is usually awarded to the person that gives the most "hands on care" Usually the mom especially whens shes a stay at home. The reasoning behind this is... The women couldn't have gone to school or get a job because of the "Home making" aspects. So awarding payment is usually not for life rather a certain period of time in which said provider can get their **** together and get a job or go to school (Usually part time so payments last 4-10 years) and as it was a marriage they become accustomed to a certain lifestyle that you provided. (Therefore she can't claim more money than you make. Say a guy makes 60k a year...lives in a modest home. She can't claim over half that as she never had it to begin with, and you reasonably can't make more than 60k after the divorce.)

This in turn is broken when one parent is deemed to be super un fit. Drugs, mental instability, gambling, crime etc etc. But you have to prove it, and they actually have to be pretty ****ed up to not get awarded custody (Usually in terms of the mother. Dad just needs to be a little ****ed up)

Which is why I stated earlier send that ***** to school and tell her to get a job!!! Cleaning cooking, and yelling at kids isnt as difficult as they say... Especially when they get old enough to go to school. (they're not even home for half the damned day) As a kid I had to make my own lunch, do my own laundry, clean my own room, get myself to and from school..all around the age of 10+ After school i had to be on some sports team... Which means unless your kid is ******ed anyone around the same age can do it as well.

A nanny or daycare would have been cheaper in the long run though. Think about it.

Something Random
Gallente
The Barrow Boys
Posted - 2011.08.29 20:36:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Blacksquirrel

A nanny or daycare would have been cheaper in the long run though. Think about it.


A great point brought up - it makes me laugh the 'justification' you hear of a stay at home that they save 500 a month on day care when actually even a remedial job would be bringing in 500 extra on the 500 spent each month...

think about that too ;-) then call her lazy and send her to work !!!!

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2011.08.29 23:21:00 - [20]
 

What is really screwed up?

Suppose the father has an income of $75K a year. Divorce, alimony and child support payments are set, based on that income. If the father busts his ass, gets a raise, earns more income in the future, surprise, surprise, the child support payments go up as well.

Now, in the opposite (and more likely case) the father takes the divorce hard and gets fired - or the economy just sucks and he is laid off - whatever.

He is still on the hook for child support AS IF he was earning 75K a year, even if his actual income is only a fraction of that. The payments DO NOT get reduced. If you can't meet those obligations on your reduced income, the law comes for you and can throw you in jail.

The feminist rationale? Men allegedly quit their jobs (or take a lower paying job) out of spite in an attempt to avoid the child support payments. So the obvious solution is to peg child support/alimony at your highest earning year, and criminalize men who are experiencing a run of bad luck during a recession. Or at least drive them into abject poverty, when nothing is left over from their new part-time service-sector $25K/year job. Rolling Eyes

Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.08.30 05:23:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Florio
To be honest it sounds like, despite the wife's crazy antics, the Canadian court arrived at a fair decision that is best for the children (which is the priority). Being able to see the children only once per week sounds a bit weird; I very much doubt that is factually correct.


Nope, sounds about right to me. Thats how these things usually go. As for a "fair decision", think about 12 grand per month.

$144,000 a year. You could raise a kid from birth to emancipation (minimum 16 years) on less then that.

Florio
Miniature Giant Space Hamsters
Posted - 2011.08.30 06:13:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Sir Substance
think about 12 grand per month.


That would indeed seem unreasonable unless the man was very rich. If you read the OP, however, you will see that the court arrived at a different decision.

The wife shouldn't have to pay 50/50 if she is the prime child carer.

To those of you who think parenting is easy LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing Listen kiddo, you cleaned your room and did your chores because your parents made you, they were great parents in this respect and I can assure you that they took an awful lot of consideration, discussion, planning and effort to get you to the point where you did those chores.

When you're in your 20s I think many people alienate themselves from their parents and don't understand what they've done. It's only when they become parents themselves that they think back and realise what dilemmas and tough choices their parents went through. As a good rule of thumb, every parenting choice has a positive side and a negative side. Often to get the positive outcomes you have to live with the negative outcomes. When you're remembering your childhood, don't just view the negatives by themselves.


Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.08.30 06:51:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Sir Substance on 30/08/2011 06:55:13
Edited by: Sir Substance on 30/08/2011 06:54:20
Originally by: Florio

The wife shouldn't have to pay 50/50 if she is the prime child carer.



Bull****. She chose to file for devorce, she chose to request to be prime carer. She has full responsibility on the matter. That comes with consequences. To honor and obey, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. That was the bargin.

By all accounts, the father was unaware of this until she filed, which means he wasn't given a clear oppertunity to try and fix whatever the problem was. If you want to cut and run like that, fair enough. But you don't get to take their annual salary with you. If you chose to cut of a marrage without even trying to fix it when you have no way of supporting yourself, that's your own idiocy. Get your own damned salery to cover it.

As it stands, $144,000 a year is asking to be paid the equivilent of a well off medical professional to be a full time mum. Get ****ed.

Child support is meant to cover enough money that the mother doesn't have to neglect her kids in order to pay to raise them. She can work while they are at school. She will lose about three hours a day of work to do that, assuming a 9-5 work week vs a 9-3:15 school week plus extra running around time. Thats about 21 hours a week. Call that $2500 a month, and its reasonable. 12 grand? Thats what we call a scam, and she should be fined for trying.

Takseen
Posted - 2011.08.30 07:05:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Sir Substance


Bull****. She chose to file for devorce, she chose to request to be prime carer. She has full responsibility on the matter. That comes with consequences. To honor and obey, in sickness and in health, until death do us part. That was the bargin.



We don't really have a reliable source for how the marriage broke down. And these are modern times, we don't expect married folk to stick together when they're just making each other miserable. The "till death to us part" isn't really a part of the deal any more in practice, nor should it be.

Quote:
If you chose to cut of a marrage without even trying to fix it when you have no way of supporting yourself, that's your own idiocy. Get your own damned salery to cover it.


What a load of nonsense. Guess what? Even now, when people get married and have kids, the woman often quits her job to look after the kids full time. Even if she can get a (part-time) job right after the divorce, she's not going to be able to get much of an income. And oftentimes it was that inability to support themselves that prevented abused women from leaving their husbands.

Besides, they're the husbands kids too, he has to pay *something* to support them. Don't like that, don't have kids.


Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.08.30 08:41:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Takseen

we don't expect married folk to stick together when they're just making each other miserable.

The "till death to us part" isn't really a part of the deal any more in practice, nor should it be.

Besides, they're the husbands kids too, he has to pay *something* to support them. Don't like that, don't have kids.




I'll address each of these three points. The first two are intertwined, so I'll answer them as one. Bear in mind, I come from a christian raising but consider myself firmly agnostic. I have friends who work as psychologists in the local child protection agency, so I know a fair emount, if not a professional level, about what these kind of split ups do to children.

1 & 2. Marrage isn't something that either works or doesn't. Get you a brief honeymoon period of "I can't believe we are actually married" after the marrage, and then it gets steadily harder after that.

You have to work at making yourself and your partner happy. People who go into marrage thinking "if it doesn't work out, I can just divorce him/her" will inevitably divorce, because they don't put the work ing. I have no respect for them for doing so.

Now, there are expcetions. Spousal abuse (in either direction) is something that people find very hard to get out of, phychologically, and I attach no stigma to them for leaving on that front. But if your wife started taking drugs, and you left her (or vice versa), no respect. If you can't help your wife/husband through a drug addiction, who on the whole planet will?

So yes, I do think "until death do us part" is part of the deal. That's what marrage is. It isn't a legal thing, it isn't a financial thing, its a commitment. When you get married, you are saying "I'm so certain I want to live with you and love you that I'm willing to throw everything I have, everything I am, everything I own and everything I will ever earn into the mix, and I will spend the rest of my life trying to make you as happy as I can". Its a promise to help the other party through their life. They make the same pledge to you.

Thats marrage. That's what you are asking for. If you don't know what you are asking, perhaps you shouldn't be popping the question. If you back out of it when the going gets tough, then with but a small handful of exceptions, you are spineless.

3. I agree. Children are as big a commitment as marrage, you don't get away scott free just because it was the other party in your marrage that backed out. But its a matter of balance. If you don't get to see the kids, ever, then the state is saying they aren't yours.

Equal time would indicate equal money. If the father gets no time with the kids, then in my opinion, the mother is saying "I don't want you involved in raising them". That being the case, his responsibility is reduced, by her own request, to ensuring they are fed, watered, clothed and sheltered, but nothing else. Saying "I'll do the raising, you do the paying" is not how it works. That's a real free ride. Raising the kids is the fun part. Working day in day out for your kids but never seeing them, thats the grind. For all the hell children give you, would you rather take crap from your kids or your boss?

Takseen
Posted - 2011.08.30 09:44:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Sir Substance


Quote:
3. I agree. Children are as big a commitment as marrage, you don't get away scott free just because it was the other party in your marrage that backed out. But its a matter of balance. If you don't get to see the kids, ever, then the state is saying they aren't yours.


Or its the state saying you're in no fit condition to look after your kids. Or you not wanting to see the kids. Either way, you've still got to pay to support them. Government can't cut off genetic connections.

Quote:
Equal time would indicate equal money. If the father gets no time with the kids, then in my opinion, the mother is saying "I don't want you involved in raising them". That being the case, his responsibility is reduced, by her own request, to ensuring they are fed, watered, clothed and sheltered, but nothing else. Saying "I'll do the raising, you do the paying" is not how it works. That's a real free ride. Raising the kids is the fun part. Working day in day out for your kids but never seeing them, thats the grind. For all the hell children give you, would you rather take crap from your kids or your boss?



Looking after kids is a free ride? Sure thing broseph. They're not even vaguely self sufficient till their teenage years. Even a 100% healthy in mind and body, well-behaved kid takes a lot of work. You seem to agree with me though, that even when the father isn't at all involved in raising the kids, he should still pay something towards their upkeep.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.08.30 10:23:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Edited by: Bane Necran on 29/08/2011 15:17:19
I've often thought it's sexist, but apparently feminists are ok with women being regarded as weak and powerless as long as there's money in it for them.

Yeah, i went there.


Oh for sure. A guy gets drunk and drives his car into a line of schoolkids waiting for the bus: HIS FAULT.

A girl gets drunk and sleeps with a guy she then decides she doesn't like so much: NOT HER FAULT, HIS FAULT.

Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.30 14:34:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Sir Substance
...1 & 2. Marrage isn't something that either works or doesn't. Get you a brief honeymoon period of "I can't believe we are actually married" after the marrage, and then it gets steadily harder after that...


Actually, the entirety of your married life comes under the heading of "I can't believe we're actually married"... it's just that after she inevitably morphs into the soulless and vengeful screaming harpy clone of her mother she was so determined not to be when you first met, the inference is different is all.



Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.08.30 15:28:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Takseen
Originally by: Sir Substance


Quote:
3. I agree. Children are as big a commitment as marrage, you don't get away scott free just because it was the other party in your marrage that backed out. But its a matter of balance. If you don't get to see the kids, ever, then the state is saying they aren't yours.


Or its the state saying you're in no fit condition to look after your kids. Or you not wanting to see the kids. Either way, you've still got to pay to support them. Government can't cut off genetic connections.

Quote:
Equal time would indicate equal money. If the father gets no time with the kids, then in my opinion, the mother is saying "I don't want you involved in raising them". That being the case, his responsibility is reduced, by her own request, to ensuring they are fed, watered, clothed and sheltered, but nothing else. Saying "I'll do the raising, you do the paying" is not how it works. That's a real free ride. Raising the kids is the fun part. Working day in day out for your kids but never seeing them, thats the grind. For all the hell children give you, would you rather take crap from your kids or your boss?



Looking after kids is a free ride? Sure thing broseph. They're not even vaguely self sufficient till their teenage years. Even a 100% healthy in mind and body, well-behaved kid takes a lot of work. You seem to agree with me though, that even when the father isn't at all involved in raising the kids, he should still pay something towards their upkeep.


Of course - 50/50, like I said. If Judy wanted the FULL, continuous, 100% support of her husband (as one should get when entering a marriage) she should still be giving her husband her support. But when she takes the house, and doesn't let her husband see the kids... Why should the husband still be fully providing for her? Neutral

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.30 15:36:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Takseen
Looking after kids is a free ride? Sure thing broseph. They're not even vaguely self sufficient till their teenage years. Even a 100% healthy in mind and body, well-behaved kid takes a lot of work.


Assuming you love your children and enjoy spending time with them, yes, it's a helluva lot better than working construction or slaving away in a cubicle 8 hours a day.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only