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

Takseen
Posted - 2011.08.30 16:45:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
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.


Apples and oranges. Your average 9 to 5 job is more intense work, but you can leave it at the end of the day and you still have your weekends free. Not that easy to take a break from looking after your kids.
I don't buy this thing where looking after kids isn't work because you should love your kids and enjoy doing it "for free". Lots of people love their jobs too, but its still work and they get paid for it appropriately.

Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.08.31 01:34:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Takseen
Originally by: Bane Necran
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.


Apples and oranges. Your average 9 to 5 job is more intense work, but you can leave it at the end of the day and you still have your weekends free. Not that easy to take a break from looking after your kids.
I don't buy this thing where looking after kids isn't work because you should love your kids and enjoy doing it "for free". Lots of people love their jobs too, but its still work and they get paid for it appropriately.


Since when do you "get paid" to look after kids? Child raising is, inherently, a charatable act. Asking to get given enough money to raise your kids in a supportive environment is fine. Asking to "get paid" to raise your kids is what we have an issue with.

SupaKudoRio
Posted - 2011.08.31 02:02:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: SupaKudoRio on 31/08/2011 02:03:27
I do not need a legal document to validate or enforce my relationships. It's a piece of paper. It is not a expression of love or commitment. It's an expression of insecurity and lack of trust.

Plus, relationships come and go; that is human nature. Nothing any woman does will alter a man's need for change, despite how much they want and try to change that. Child support payments extracted from fathers who up and run is a good idea, but billing them more than what is needed to care for their child(ren) does no one any good. On the point of being billed for children that aren't biologically yours; if the father had no prior knowledge the kids aren't his, how is he responsible for his woman cheating on him?

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.08.31 04:12:00 - [34]
 

I keep a series of articles on this topic, and whenever some youngster I meet is thinking of joining the armed forces to "serve his country" or "protect freedom" or some other tripe, this is one of the topics I teach him about.

Then I ask if he wants to risk coming back dead or missing his legs just to still have no rights and be treated like a second class citizen.

Works every time.



Takseen
Posted - 2011.08.31 06:47:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Sir Substance


Since when do you "get paid" to look after kids? Child raising is, inherently, a charatable act. Asking to get given enough money to raise your kids in a supportive environment is fine. Asking to "get paid" to raise your kids is what we have an issue with.


No, looking after *your own kids* is an obligation. Looking after *someone else's kids* for free would be a charitable act. As the philosopher Chris Rock once said "You're SUPPOSED to look after your kids. Do you want a cookie!?"

Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.08.31 11:55:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Takseen
Originally by: Sir Substance


Since when do you "get paid" to look after kids? Child raising is, inherently, a charatable act. Asking to get given enough money to raise your kids in a supportive environment is fine. Asking to "get paid" to raise your kids is what we have an issue with.


No, looking after *your own kids* is an obligation. Looking after *someone else's kids* for free would be a charitable act. As the philosopher Chris Rock once said "You're SUPPOSED to look after your kids. Do you want a cookie!?"


TO clarify, when I say that raising kids is a charitable act, I mean that it is something that you should not be profiting from, not that it is something optional. If you are receiving $5k a month in child support, you should be spending $5k a month on your children. Not $5k a month on average, but $5k a month, every month.

Using child support money to buy anything for yourself, even so little as a bar of chocolate, is not part of the bargain.

Takseen
Posted - 2011.08.31 12:12:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Sir Substance


TO clarify, when I say that raising kids is a charitable act, I mean that it is something that you should not be profiting from, not that it is something optional. If you are receiving $5k a month in child support, you should be spending $5k a month on your children. Not $5k a month on average, but $5k a month, every month.
Using child support money to buy anything for yourself, even so little as a bar of chocolate, is not part of the bargain.


There is still a labour component to raising children, which means the parent either has to forego full-time employment or pay someone else to mind the children while the parent goes to work.
Also.
Quote:
Not $5k a month on average, but $5k a month, every month.

The hell!? Its a household, not a bloody government department budget. Some months you gotta spend more money, especially right before the school term and before Christmas. That comment makes me question how much you actually know about the subject.


Sir Substance
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.08.31 13:18:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Takseen

The hell!? Its a household, not a bloody government department budget. Some months you gotta spend more money, especially right before the school term and before Christmas. That comment makes me question how much you actually know about the subject.




Your comment makes me wonder if you've ever had to thanklessly tire your life away for someone elses benefit.

Asking someone to pay child support is asking them to spend at least a decade passing hard earned money to someone else to very little personal benefit. Don't forget, I know a lot about how it goes down in the court when these splitups happen. The mother ALWAYS gets favored, even when she shouldn't.

When you ask a father to pay several thousand dollars a month, and tell him that he cannot see the mother or the children except on occasion, you are deliberately inflicting decades long suffering and deprivation on him. Don't forget, in a shared household, you only need one of everything. Double the households, double the costs. Many fathers paying child support find themselves unable to pay for even the smallest luxuries and sometimes even the basic necessities.

Of course, when they apply for community benefits like income support, housing support etc. they get told they are horrible, child abandoning financial bunglers who get everything they deserve.

You, Takseen, have no idea what the **** you are talking about in that regard. Child support drives honest, innocent people into the dirt and jumps on the back of their head.

So if you are inflicting that on people, there had better be a damned good reason. Making sure children are raised properly? That's a damned good reason, and its why many fathers are happy to pay child support, even though it means they have to live in Cockroach infested ****holes in suburbs where owning a car is a bad idea, because it'll get firebombed.

But if you are taking on that kind of burden, the money had better be going where it's meant to. If the person receiving child support on a monthly basis has excess at the end of most months, then there is something wrong. Child support is there to cover the basics, not the extras. Its the divorced fathers job to ensure, as I said earlier, that the children are fed, watered, clothed and housed. Those costs don't change.

Mother wants to send the children to a private school (public school is free here BTW, and its the norm, not the exception. Just so we are clear on my context), she can pay for that. Uniform costs etc. are not so high that you need to ask child support to cover them. A few hundred per child at most. A student income would cover that, let alone a full time employment wage.

So don't tell me that the mother needs to put aside 1k every month for 8 months of the year to cover the four months of the term starting. Its not $2k a term, don't bull**** to me here. Not unless you have 10 kids, and not every term even then (you won't be replacing their whole uniform every term, even during the biggest growth spurts). That kind of excess is saving up for a new TV size money.

It's also not the fathers job to cover unforeseen events. He isn't being given a choice of where the children live and are educated. Why should he have to pay if the place the mother chose gets burgled?

Fundamentally, this is about choice. Divorces are a choice. Electing to be the primary carer of the children is a choice.

You play eve man, don't tell me you don't understand that everything has repercussions. Real life is worse then eve. Real life matters. There is a reason why many bad couples stay together for the kids.

Mothers are responsible for these choices as much as fathers. Across the board, given the rates of who is more likely to initiate a divorce, they are in some ways more responsible.


Takseen
Posted - 2011.08.31 13:59:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Takseen on 31/08/2011 13:59:09
Originally by: Sir Substance

Mothers are responsible for these choices as much as fathers. Across the board, given the rates of who is more likely to initiate a divorce, they are in some ways more responsible.




That's hardly a surprising statistic. Its also not a very useful method for assigning "blame" for a divorce, unless you know the reasons behind filing for it.
There is a suggestion that women are more likely to file for divorce based on the fact that custody rights are biased in their favour, that could definitely do with some adjustment. Provided the husband isn't abusive, there's no reason why he shouldn't get to see his kids more often.
Also, is that $5000 a month figure very common? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_raising_a_child
has a figure of about $5-8k a YEAR for raising a kid. Throw in another $8-10k a year for childcare costs if the mother is workinglinky, or the cover the extra work she has to do and you're left with quite a bit less than the $5k a month/$60k a year you're talking about.

Tell ya what. You tell me what you think is a reasonable amount a father should pay to a mother and the 3 kids. Let's assume its a no fault divorce and the father can't see the kids because he works overseas or something.

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.08.31 19:43:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Roosterton on 31/08/2011 19:50:43
Edited by: Roosterton on 31/08/2011 19:45:22
Originally by: Takseen
Edited by: Takseen on 31/08/2011 13:59:09
Originally by: Sir Substance

Mothers are responsible for these choices as much as fathers. Across the board, given the rates of who is more likely to initiate a divorce, they are in some ways more responsible.




That's hardly a surprising statistic. Its also not a very useful method for assigning "blame" for a divorce, unless you know the reasons behind filing for it.
There is a suggestion that women are more likely to file for divorce based on the fact that custody rights are biased in their favour, that could definitely do with some adjustment. Provided the husband isn't abusive, there's no reason why he shouldn't get to see his kids more often.
Also, is that $5000 a month figure very common? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_raising_a_child
has a figure of about $5-8k a YEAR for raising a kid. Throw in another $8-10k a year for childcare costs if the mother is workinglinky, or the cover the extra work she has to do and you're left with quite a bit less than the $5k a month/$60k a year you're talking about.

Tell ya what. You tell me what you think is a reasonable amount a father should pay to a mother and the 3 kids. Let's assume its a no fault divorce and the father can't see the kids because he works overseas or something.



I'm pretty sure my OP said two kids, not three. Razz

5-8k a year for raising a kid... let's go with 6.5k per year per kid since that's right between. For two kids, that's 13k a year. That means, per month, the total kid-expenses are 1.04k. Each parent should pay 520$ a month. Even if the man is feeling generous enough (or is forced) to pay all of it, that's still only 1.04k a month.

Nowhere near the bloody $12,000 mark per month that Judy wants. ugh And as it stands, Mark is already paying more than that. What the hell, "justice?"

Edit: Oh, and the mother isn't working in this situation. Just to clarify. If the mother is working, she should be paying for the daycare herself, as she's doing less work taking care of the children and making money, you know, by working. Otherwise it's just robbery. Confused

Takseen
Posted - 2011.09.01 08:31:00 - [41]
 

Ok we'll just have to disagree there. Thanks for the discussion, and I'm sorry about your friend Mark.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.09.01 12:31:00 - [42]
 

Raising children is such hard work - you'd think the mother would be only too glad to let the father shoulder more of the burden.

I shared a house with a friend of mine for a couple of years, and his ex was always yanking his chain about not letting him see his could. He literally couldn't try and win the smallest of points without her playing the "well if you're going to be like that you're not seeing your daughter this weekend".

So I advised him, the next time she said that, to say "OK, I'm sorry you feel that way, I guess I'll see her the weekend after". He did, and she went mental, and yelled "YOU WONT SEE HER FOR A MONTH YOU [redacted]ing [redacted]hole!" - right in front of the kid who was maybe 3 or 4 years old. Nice example.

He was crawling up the walls with worry, but I told him to calm down. "Your ex is a selfish, lazy [redacted] and she won't last 2 weeks without her precious weekends off. Now why don't we make some plans and go out and have some fun this Saturday".

Monday or Tuesday, she calls him and says what a bad father he is, she'll get the CSA on him, etc etc. Empty threats, because he was already paying more than the CSA would have made him, and if she brought them in, she'd actually see less of the money.

Well it gets to Saturday lunchtime of the second weekend, and we're finishing a very pleasant pub lunch with a couple of mates & watching the football - he was just saying how it's actually nice to have a weekend to himself for a change even though he does miss his kid, and suddenly his phone rings:

"Why haven't you come to pick your daughter up, you're a lazy slob, you're no help whatsoever, etc etc."

Ofc all 4 of us all burst out laughing, and she could plainly hear us, and my friend (with a massive grin on his face) said to her "Doesn't a month go past quick?"

She didn't try that trick again while I was there (although she pulled plenty of others).

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.09.01 16:45:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Roosterton5-8k a year for raising a kid... let's go with 6.5k per year per kid since that's right between. For two kids, that's 13k a year. That means, per month, the total kid-expenses are 1.04k. Each parent should pay 520$ a month. Even if the man is feeling generous enough (or is forced) to pay all of it, that's still only 1.04k a month.
[:?




WTF?

My X had 4 kids and it didn't cost that much.

Yes, it WILL cost that much when you but them every toy they want, take them to every kids movie that comes out, buy them cable TV so they can watch Spongebob, and take them out to Chucky Cheese every time they want to go (which would be every day if you let them choose).
Is this is an averaged out figure over a yearly term to spike for lavishing them with tons of gifts for birthday and Christmas?

Are those figures from an American source? The child-raising doctrine in the US is to spoil the hell out of kids with junk toys and junk food every two seconds. My sister followed that doctrine and on trash day you could fill a truck every week and the kids had enough toys to fill my house twice over.

Kids are not that expensive when you don't spoil them rotten and let television tell you how to raise them.



Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.09.01 16:55:00 - [44]
 

This of course can all be solved by using birth control. kids after all are a negative investment.

Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc.
Posted - 2011.09.01 17:55:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 01/09/2011 18:07:43

Originally by: Blacksquirrel
This of course can all be solved by using birth control. kids after all are a potential negative financial investment.


FYP 2x

Now, one could say that kids can be an all around negative investment, but I bet you would find a a good portion of parents would disagree with that statement.


Slade

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.09.01 18:11:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Originally by: Roosterton5-8k a year for raising a kid... let's go with 6.5k per year per kid since that's right between. For two kids, that's 13k a year. That means, per month, the total kid-expenses are 1.04k. Each parent should pay 520$ a month. Even if the man is feeling generous enough (or is forced) to pay all of it, that's still only 1.04k a month.
[:?




WTF?

My X had 4 kids and it didn't cost that much.

Yes, it WILL cost that much when you but them every toy they want, take them to every kids movie that comes out, buy them cable TV so they can watch Spongebob, and take them out to Chucky Cheese every time they want to go (which would be every day if you let them choose).
Is this is an averaged out figure over a yearly term to spike for lavishing them with tons of gifts for birthday and Christmas?

Are those figures from an American source? The child-raising doctrine in the US is to spoil the hell out of kids with junk toys and junk food every two seconds. My sister followed that doctrine and on trash day you could fill a truck every week and the kids had enough toys to fill my house twice over.

Kids are not that expensive when you don't spoil them rotten and let television tell you how to raise them.





I don't know, ask the guy I was quoting. He was the one who gave me the numbers Laughing

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.09.01 22:19:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Roosterton on 01/09/2011 22:18:48
Originally by: Takseen
Ok we'll just have to disagree there. Thanks for the discussion, and I'm sorry about your friend Mark.


I'm a little confused, disagree on what...? I was just answering your question about how much I think is a reasonable amount to pay per month. Razz

Azelor Delaria
Caldari
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming
Posted - 2011.09.01 23:59:00 - [48]
 

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.


Yeah, a lot of lawyers representing women in divorce proceedings like to play the "sexual abuse" card, be it on the kids, on the woman, on the family dog...whatever. It's meant to "win points" with a judge, because honestly, how do you prove it didn't happen?

Judges in the United States are scared of femi****s. It's to the point that if they rule in favor of the man on anything, they expect to be picketed, have hate mail, etc. A lot of lawyers know this, and honestly as far as I'm concerned, when you pull stuff like this it's what gives lawyers a bad name. Honestly, criminal defense attorneys do their job in providing a zealous defense of the client. Lawyers who represent and goad these "vindictive *****es" into these cards just make the whole system look bad.

As to why the woman is demanding that much, it's because no sane judge is going to give her that much. He's going to cut it, to a maximum of maybe $4,000. It's all for more money. That's it. And for men in these proceedings, it's difficult to defend.


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