X
Xantippe
Guest
Exactly. But these are often very young people, and they were still odd for a long time, even when they lived at home.
- Status
T
theplummer
Guest
Xantippe,
What does that have to do with the lost time with their children, or the lost parental right to make decisions and provide a recriprocical meaningful inclusion to each other’s lives.
I already know your position, as we’ve butted heads in the past, and you didn’t disappoint again, going straight to the only thing that society cares about men’s role in their children’s lives, and that my dear is the MONEY.
Take some time and mull over this do inn and get back to me.
fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf
G
GreyWings
Guest
Marriage can be restored. But it takes two willing participates, along with communication and mutual service/sacrifice.
I’m educated but I’m a bit old fashioned. I would love to serve a husband as long as he made an effort to serve me, too.
It’s not 50/50, it’s 100/100 all the way.
I’m educated but I’m a bit old fashioned. I would love to serve a husband as long as he made an effort to serve me, too.
It’s not 50/50, it’s 100/100 all the way.
P
pianistclare
Guest
My point being, that free babysitting come from CARING parents, who genuinely want to help out in a pinch and are available mostly due to their proximity.
Also, those odd kids are odd because they were left alone to their own devices. In fact, most of them DO live alone, with a parent who indulges their desire to stay in the basement and play video games, make no friends “he’s shy” and then are delighted when he shows an “Interest” in something. Like guns. If there was a huge family around??? These things might have been noticed, corrected, and not so readily tolerated.
People make excuses for their kids. Families make corrections and adjustments.
Most of the time, LOL
J
JimG
Guest
Wow, this is the first encouraging thing I’ve heard! Everything that has been said about marriage seems kind of depressing. Marriage really is a 100% proposition on both sides. Especially now, if one goes into marriage only willing to give 50% it’s not a good sign.
X
Xantippe
Guest
That’s a huge PDF file from the late 1990s. Got anything more up to date, more concise or some actual points from that huge PDF file?
X
Xantippe
Guest
T
theplummer
Guest
Yes I understand it’s a huge PDF file. It is because it’s a VERY complicated issue that has been perpetuating for many years, so ther is quite a lot of history to account for. As far as the document coming from the 1990’s, does not make it irrelevant, in fact, if you would take the time necessary to read it, you’d find that it’s awfully prophetic in nature. And plays well right into your correct observation of the single parenthood epidemic that we now face and has been growing for decades now.
I find it interesting that this point is the only thing you picked out of my original post about why men are choosing to go their own way and honed in with laser p(name removed by moderator)oint accuracy to attack based on your sweeping generalizations about what “average” child support payments were with such dated material.
You surely didn’t refute that men by and large are being denied even 50/50 custody, you didn’t deny that mothers retain primary custody in 85% of all custody cases and that only 5% of custody cases the father retains custody. Nor do you point out that while father’s forced to pay support are doing so at nearly 70% compliance, while mothers forced to pay are barely registering at even 1%. Full compliance and less than 10% partial compliance.
Yes single parenthood is at an epidemic level. It creates unnecessary poverty, criminal behavior, poor school performance, increased drug abuse, and increased teenage suicide.
The question to ask is WHY? The article I linked identifies and addresses the issue clearly and head on. It also identifies the real evil perpetrators of such a travesty, as well as offers a concise solution as to how to remedy the current climate.
For me to try to summarize the file would do a great injustice to both the research invested in the article, as well as to you.
P
pianistclare
Guest
Well, in my parish…apparently all over the place. One of our regular Thursday volunteers just brought her grandkids to the office with her today, and said she had them for another week.
Same with another family in our close circle. We’ve had oodles of visiting grandkids over the summer in the parish. And we have many who bring them to Mass weekly.
My friend whom I invited for lunch tomorrow said, oh no, I’ve got the grandkids fro another 2 weeks…I’ll call you when I free up.
My mom when she was alive was like “Ok, drop the girls over…you don’t have to rush home…” hint hint.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Go ahead and try!
P
pensmama87
Guest
You get really, really lucky.
My in-laws are like that. Would my parents do it, though? Not in a million years (they come visit once a year or so). My brother’s wife is having a baby in a month or so and they live about 45 minutes away from my parents. I am curious to see how my parents are with their granddaughter who will be very close to them. My SIL also, apparently, prefers my parents’ company to her parents’ company and in fact lived in my parents’ home for a while when my brother was away at school. So I have no idea if they will be different with this new grandchild or not. I know my mom says all the time she wishes we lived closer to her (and will in fact send job postings in my husband’s field that are nearby) but I don’t feel confident that things would be all that different.
One thing I do think about is adding more children in the future and how that will change the babysitting picture. I feel spoiled that my in-laws will take our kids for two nights once a month (when they are here - they are snowbirds and spend several months out of the year about 1,000 miles away). But they are in their 60s and I can tell my kids wear them out even though they’re thrilled to have them. It’s a time when I wish my husband wasn’t an only child so there were some nearby aunts and uncles we could start parcelling them out to - and of course I’d be willing to return the favor. My MIL grew up in a neighborhood where she was pretty much related to everyone who lived within three blocks. So they were her family and her friends and her schoolmates and the same kids she saw at church. That would probably be a little much for me - but I do note that when she married my FIL they moved about 30 minutes away from there, which is enough for a buffer but still close enough to visit a couple times a week. We live about 45 minutes away from them, which IMO is just about perfect. We have our own households and our own ways of doing things, but we can still see each other and help out a lot.
T
theplummer
Guest
So you just dismiss my original link as “out of date” therefore it’s not even worthy of review.
Ok, I see where this is going.
Rather than stand back and throw stats around and start to question the reliability of said statistics(which will be your next move) when I debunk them for the feminist gynocentric tripe that they are, how about you justify the disparity among father’s that did not desire a unilateral divorce nor were willing to give up custody in your statistics, instead of lumping the bunch of father’s who really don’t want to be a father to include “all men”. Very sexist and very high on the " you can’t generalize" scale.
How about proving that mothers always make better parents and therefore that should be the de facto position in almost ALL custody cases, as is the current traditional model for divorce. Just because a certain percentage of men don’t really want meaningful time with their kids does not mean that ALL men want the same thing.
Just swallow your feminist supremist pride and read the article, look at it objectively and ask yourself, “What if I had been born a man”.
Oh, and before you go crying to the moderators, complaining that I’m being “uncharitable”, my position is that the truth being proclaimed IS the highest form of charity one could do for another.
M
MJJean
Guest
Unless the father is disinterested or unfit, here the norm is 50/50 custody, rotating holidays. The support set is based on the income of BOTH parents and parenting time. Spousal support is limited based on how long the couple were married as well as the earnings/earning potential of the lower income spouse and assets along with debt are typically split 50/50.
Hardly a worse deal for the male than the female.
Besides, not marrying doesn’t guarantee anything.
A man doesn’t need to have been married to be charged child support, a share of daycare, and a share of medical costs.
We have palimony. So, if a couple live together and one stays home or makes significantly less, the lower income partner can go to court for maintenance payments just like a former spouse can.
And, of course, the relationships debts can also be aired before a judge and each partner made responsible for their share.
If a couple owned assets together, those will also have to be divided by a judge. House, cars, boats, etc.
Seems like not marrying doesn’t change much for either gender if a LTR ends. It just complicates things. In the event of a divorce, all child/spousal support, division of assets and debts, etc. is handled in one fell swoop approx. 3-6 months after filing. Less if the couple comes to an agreement outside of court. For those unmarried and splitting up, there are multiple court appearances over months/years to get everything settled.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Is that California? It sounds very exotic as a system.
That’s another issue to bear in mind–law varies a lot from state to state, so there really isn’t a lot of point in generalizing. Obviously, there are national trends (like toward gay marriage or toward joint custody), but there regional oddities.
T
theplummer
Guest
Your first assumption that 50/50 custody is the default position is patently false. The Social Security Administration Title IX-D federal child support enforcement block grants prevent father’s from having an equal shake in custody matters. States, counties, and family courts, and all family service organizations , and its employees, including judges, benifit financially by maintaining the status quo of biased family court proceedings.
The whole divorce industry is corrupt, and BIG BUSINESS. In order for this industry to profit, one party MUST have a dostinct advantage to the utilization of the system, which forces the disadvantaged into fighting the system, therefore feeding the system to its own guaranteed profitability.
I mostly agree with the rest of your post, and I must bring up the fact that what you articulate brings us back “full circle” to my original post as to why men are choosing to opt out of relationships with women and there’s a name for it. MGTOW.
Equality feminists created this problem and MGTOW’s are happy to let women lie in the bed that they made for themselves. No longer will they be duped into a relationship that does not protect them or benifit them, and essentially hands women a loaded gun, hoping she never gets angry enough to “pull the trigger”.
This is why I feel that the article I linked above is so critical for serious review.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I’m not in the habit of crying to the moderators.
That said, you’re assuming that I hold a lot of beliefs that I don’t.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Here’s a question for you:
Do you believe that childcare should be divided 50/50 between spouses within marriage?
If not, why believe that childcare outside of marriage should be split 50/50?
If a couple has never achieved a 50/50 split within marriage, why believe that they can manage it when divorced?
(Just for fun, I’ll answer my own question. I don’t think a 50/50 childcare split is necessary within marriage, but I don’t think that it is necessary after divorce, either.)
T
theplummer
Guest
I’m going to have to ask you to cite your source to support your claim that ther is some “trend” for equal custody. Fact is, NOW has recently doubled down on their efforts to maintain the status quo.
Why is it that a 2000 year old document still holds relevancy to modern life, but yet you dismiss out of hand a peer reviewed study completed in 1999 as irrelevant. Were there not prophecies in the bible also. Maybe this author is a prophet also.
Stop being so hard headed and at least read the foreword.
BTW, sorry for the typos. I’m on a iPhone and have big thumbs.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
This is hilarious. I googled your “movement”, and the Facebook page only has about 8k likes. Who knows how many of those are people who just ‘liked’ it randomly one day? The “movement” isn’t mentioned in any sort of mainstream articles or on any non MRA type sites. I’ve never heard heard of anything like this in real life.
I checked out a couple of forums…and I’m not convinced these are guys that anyone wanted to be with in the first place. How many strong, masculine men need an online “movement” dedicated to making their own life choices? How many respectable, successful men actually eschew all romantic relationships with women? Sure, they may not marry or marry early, but actually avoid getting involved all together? More to the point, I have a hard time believing that people who spend so much time and energy on these sites aren’t actually slaves to their desire for a companion. It sounds like most would jump at the chance for a relationship. But I saw a lot of gloating similar to yours about how “the feminists” will suffer from this “boycott”. At 8K and no mainstream respect or even visibility… that sounds like desperate, grasping spite.
X
Xantippe
Guest
A 20-year-old PDF is not Holy Writ. If it says smart things, you can summarize it!
Things have changed a lot in the US since 1999–demographics, welfare regulations, food stamp prevalence, attitudes toward food stamps, attitudes toward unwed mothers, beliefs about divorce, parenting styles, etc.
One important thing that has happened over the last 20+ years is the emergence of a high-(name removed by moderator)ut, high-pressure middle class parenting style that emphasizes education, achievement, and requires close teamwork between two (TWO) parents and the children. See, for example, the infamous Tiger Mom. The Tiger Mom is not, needless to say, a single or divorced mother. At some point, even super duper progressive parents (while paying lipservice to heroic single mothers) started realizing that their lifestyle would be impossible without two fully-engaged parents. This is most noticeable in the coastal US. We used to live in a nice part of DC. At some point I realized, hey, I don’t know any middle class single mothers here! The reason was, a middle class single mother could not survive in DC. The only way to survive as a middle class family in the expensive parts of the US is as a two-parent (often two-income) family. At some point over the last 20 years, divorce became taboo in that kind of family.
- Status