J
JanetF
Guest
Because everyone always tunes out and doesn’t hear the rest of Ephesians 5, where husbands are instructed to love their wives like Christ loves the church.
"Marry Him and Be Submissive - "One Italian Wife’s Countercultural Message to Women
- Status
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Why should I be mad about what I learned? Profiting from knowledge is a far better use of time.Still mad that a Western man just can’t get a fair shake in this world?
I would settle for more libertarian policy myself. Though as a skeptic of democracy, I believe that very few people whether women or men have any business voting.
I will settle for scrapping DV law based on the Duluth model, alimony only in certain narrowly defined cases, replacing the Tender Years Doctrine with a default presumption of joint custody, and requiring accountability for how child support is spent.
We can talk about taxing, titling, and licensing of women some other time.
T
TCEL
Guest
Because everyone always tunes out and doesn’t hear the rest of Ephesians 5, where husbands are instructed to love their wives like Christ loves the church.
Yep. Christ gave His whole self, to the bloody end.Chivalry arose in the Christian ethos. Chivalry also seems deeply offensive to modern sensibilities. Darned if you do, darned if you don’t.
P
pensmama87
Guest
I think you may have been revising my post in your head as you replied.
(And actually, based on the information you’ve presented, I’m not inclined to think this person was necessarily wrong. Before the highly specific, technical knowledge about the female reproductive system we have today, it seems very highly probable that people who wished to not have children may have abstained for possibly even very long periods of time. Situations like that still exist today
)
X
Xantippe
Guest
BlueEyedLady,Why should I be mad about what I learned? Profiting from knowledge is a far better use of time.I would settle for more libertarian policy myself. Though as a skeptic of democracy, I believe that very few people whether women or men have any business voting.I will settle for scrapping DV law based on the Duluth model, alimony only in certain narrowly defined cases, replacing the Tender Years Doctrine with a default presumption of joint custody, and requiring accountability for how child support is spent.
We can talk about taxing, titling, and licensing of women some other time.
Am I right in thinking that that isn’t a good representation of current US family law?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but alimony is very hard to get under contemporary US (even for career housewives) and there’s a strong trend toward joint custody.
The lack of alimony encourages working married mothers., and the prevalence of joint custody for married parents discourages poor mothers from marriage. (You might ask yourself–if divorce is such a financial bonanza for women, why so much out-of-wedlock childbearing?)
Regarding accountability for how child support is spent–I don’t think Starshiptrooper understands how expensive children are in the contemporary US. For example, the median child support payment was about $430 in the 2010 census.
census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/children/cb12-109.html
Meanwhile, custodial parents can expect to spend around $500 a month for daycare (more in higher-cost areas). So, just going to work will bring net child support down to negative $70 a month…
I guess you make it up on volume…
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I’m on my phone, so I can’t answer in detail, but yes, I laughed when I saw mention of the Tender Years Doctrine. Now, it’s all about the best interests of the child. But that’s harder to argue against.BlueEyedLady,
Am I right in thinking that that isn’t a good representation of current US family law?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but alimony is very hard to get under contemporary US (even for career housewives) and there’s a strong trend toward joint custody.
The lack of alimony encourages working married mothers., and the prevalence of joint custody for married parents discourages poor mothers from marriage. (You might ask yourself–if divorce is such a financial bonanza for women, why so much out-of-wedlock childbearing?)
Regarding accountability for how child support is spent–I don’t think Starshiptrooper understands how expensive children are in the contemporary US. For example, the median child support payment was about $430 in the 2010 census.
census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/children/cb12-109.html
Meanwhile, custodial parents can expect to spend around $500 a month for daycare (more in higher-cost areas). So, just going to work will bring net child support down to negative $70 a month…
I guess you make it up on volume…
Anyone can look up the data. When fathers fight for their kids, they tend to win at least joint custody. The dirty little secret is that a lot of men simply don’t push for it.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Also, come to think of it, if current US law turns men into a veritable pinata–why don’t women have more children?
You’d think that if child support is lavish, and every additional child generates more child support that it would be a no-brainer to max out the kids.
Given that the US TFR has been flatlining at or below 2 children per woman for the last 45 years–since roughly all of these legal changes came in, I think that demonstrates that the legal changes were not in fact incredibly lucrative for women.
In short–on average, there are no “cash and prizes.”
You’d think that if child support is lavish, and every additional child generates more child support that it would be a no-brainer to max out the kids.
Given that the US TFR has been flatlining at or below 2 children per woman for the last 45 years–since roughly all of these legal changes came in, I think that demonstrates that the legal changes were not in fact incredibly lucrative for women.
In short–on average, there are no “cash and prizes.”
P
pensmama87
Guest
I don’t agree with SST, but to be fair, I think you can find some countries that have tried very, very hard to incentivize having children and yet their birth rates don’t rise much.
Some lawmakers in Sweden even want to give their employees a one-hour break from work every week to get down to babymaking.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Wait, you’re telling me that divorced women don’t live in the lap of luxury once the second income, second set of hands, and only other fellow adult support in the house leaves? I’m shocked!
When we found out I’m pregnant, we looked up the CS obligation my husband would have if we divorced (out of playful, teasing curiosity). Assuming our incomes are the same as they are now (we both work FT), I got custody and paid for childcare and health insurance, he would owe just under $1900 a month. Which just about covers daycare (ours will be about $320/wk) and health insurance.
Guess what, neither of us wants to try to afford living that way, financially, mentally, or emotionally. Total nightmare situation.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Ah, but that’s spare change–SST is talking about alimony for life and lavish child support! Cruises, lattes, bonbons and manicures until the cows come home!
The German kindergeld is around 200 Euro a month
“Starting in January 2016 the benefit has been raised to €190 per month for each of the first two children, €196 for the third child and €221 for each subsequent one.”
Woohoo!
200 Euro is (sad to say) only about $212 US nowadays.
howtogermany.com/pages/kindergeld.html
P
pensmama87
Guest
Man, sign me up!
T
ThePCWife
Guest
Florida still has alimony for life, and New York did until pretty recently, IIRC. And in Oregon remarriage doesn’t cut off any child support or alimony as it often does in other states.
In general women aren’t “winning”, but on a state by state level, circumstances vary wildly. It could be that the people loudest about cash and prizes live in the few parts of the country where generous alimony and child support laws still exist and still heavily favor women.
In general women aren’t “winning”, but on a state by state level, circumstances vary wildly. It could be that the people loudest about cash and prizes live in the few parts of the country where generous alimony and child support laws still exist and still heavily favor women.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Interestingly, NY has a very low divorce rate.
statisticbrain.com/u-s-divorce-rate-statistics/
They only got no-fault divorce in 2010.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_divorce_law
Also:
“In New York, spousal support is rarely granted on a permanent basis, except in cases of physical or mental disability or when the parties are elderly (about 60 years old or older). Generally, it is granted for a set period of time so the other party can get back on their feet after the termination of the marriage. The length of time depends on the facts of the case as the judge sees fit to award.”
So, even NY is not that happy to grant permanent spousal support…
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
50 states, 50 different laws, all of which are subject to interpretation by a judge.
As I have pointed out previously, the state has a direct financial incentive to award custody to the mother.
Alpha tingles, beta bux.
How does that have anything to do with requiring documentation of how the money is spent?
Take a look at the stats on single mothers sometime. Then explain to me how that arrangement is in the best interests of the child.I’m on my phone, so I can’t answer in detail, but yes, I laughed when I saw mention of the Tender Years Doctrine. Now, it’s all about the best interests of the child. But that’s harder to argue against.
That proves nothing. The state usually wins the majority of criminal cases at trial too. Why? Because they only take cases to trial that the prosecutor thinks he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt!
It is balancing act. You need to be able to find the next mark, and having too many kids gets in the way of your job.
You mean to tell me that one of the most feminist and pc countries in the world has a terrible fertility rate? Why I am absolutely shocked and surprised by this news. I definitely did not see it coming at all.
Okay, assuming you both work and have a combined household income of $120,000 (which puts you in the top income quintile). You get divorce and now the other half is making $60,000. That $1900 monthly adds up to about $22,800 yearly. Now looking at the 2016 tax brackets, a single person will pay between $10k and $11k in federal income taxes on a yearly income of $60k. Former husband is now living $30,000 yearly before accounting for state income taxes and any other debts. Signing up for a 50/50 chance of that seems like a great idea for a man. You might as well just play roulette instead.
Granted, I am no expert in civil law, but that looks pretty dang unappealing.
L
Lea101
Guest
Lol, true! Red pill men generally have so much anger towards women and genuinely believe women are scheming people that need the leadership of an “alpha” male (trying my best to be charitable, but the whole alpha and beta idea sounds too childish for me).
You always have people going from one extreme to the other.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
That assumes I had full custody. He would pretty much have to show up to court on coke for that to happen. Also, our incomes are not equal; that’s one of the reasons for the high amount. I passed the bar in July and I work for a nonprofit firm. Our combined income is slightly higher than your guess, but he makes more than double what I do, and he will for at least the next few years, but very likely, forever. Even with the 23K moving to me annually, he would be just fine in a decent one bedroom in this area. I on the other hand would certainly struggle, especially with a child (remember, this amount assumes full-time childcare and insurance).
And that’s the point you missed. There is no financial incentive for me to leave (or for him). That would be just a downright stupid decision for either of us. That money he’s paying in CS would be going to that childcare and insurance anyway, but I would be on my own for everything else. He could leave if he wanted, but he still loses my income. Either way you look at it, the fact is, two homes are more expensive than one, and two incomes are more lucrative. Or, to put it in terms you might appreciate: I can leave for 23K, or hang around for way more than that.
And those are just the financial benefits of staying married. Sorry, but women aren’t being pried out of marriage with riches. They fare worse than men post divorce anyway.
I’ll keep my eyes open for these glamorous single moms though.
B
buffalo
Guest
Wives, be Subject to Your Husbands: The Authority of the Husband According to the Magisterium
INTRODUCTION
The words, “Wives, be subject to your husbands,” jar many modern ears. Even though this exhortation comes from an inspired text in Sacred Scripture (Ephesians 5:22), many people–including practicing Catholics–are troubled by what appears to be a relic of Marriage customs “rightly” abandoned by contemporary culture. Those who resist any notion of hierarchy or patriarchy in the social order vigorously reject St. Paul’s concept of Marriage as an attack on the dignity of women. Even those Christians not hostile to Paul’s teaching may believe that given the state of modern society, there is little to be gained by investigating–let alone applying–Paul’s prescriptions concerning the relationship of the spouses. However, one Catholic scholar, Stephen Clark, suggests that the controversy or unease over the family order described in Ephesians 5:21-33 is a relatively recent phenomenon. Regarding the question of a “head of the family” he writes, “Few areas in early Christian teaching are as uniform and fewer still were held with the same consistency as long as this one, since the first Christian voices advocating a different approach were raised only in about the nineteenth century.” Clark continues, “There are few instances where it is clearer that a change in the approach of Christians is an abandonment of Christian tradition, and not only of tradition, but of every source of authoritative teaching that can lay claim on a Christian.”
INTRODUCTION
The words, “Wives, be subject to your husbands,” jar many modern ears. Even though this exhortation comes from an inspired text in Sacred Scripture (Ephesians 5:22), many people–including practicing Catholics–are troubled by what appears to be a relic of Marriage customs “rightly” abandoned by contemporary culture. Those who resist any notion of hierarchy or patriarchy in the social order vigorously reject St. Paul’s concept of Marriage as an attack on the dignity of women. Even those Christians not hostile to Paul’s teaching may believe that given the state of modern society, there is little to be gained by investigating–let alone applying–Paul’s prescriptions concerning the relationship of the spouses. However, one Catholic scholar, Stephen Clark, suggests that the controversy or unease over the family order described in Ephesians 5:21-33 is a relatively recent phenomenon. Regarding the question of a “head of the family” he writes, “Few areas in early Christian teaching are as uniform and fewer still were held with the same consistency as long as this one, since the first Christian voices advocating a different approach were raised only in about the nineteenth century.” Clark continues, “There are few instances where it is clearer that a change in the approach of Christians is an abandonment of Christian tradition, and not only of tradition, but of every source of authoritative teaching that can lay claim on a Christian.”
T
ThePCWife
Guest
Yeah, the 50% divorce rate is more myth than reality. It never quite materialized, though this doesn’t stop certain people from asserting it as hard fact.
Also, as I have said here and in my own little spot, marriage and kids are now a pay to play endeavor, with people who can’t pony up mostly not having children or having only one. Divorce is not something women are eager for in these economically challenging times.
I think, forcing things back to the OP, that some women just want to feel unique for treating their husband normally rather than sniping at him like the ones in sitcoms do.
I also think there’s little discussion of the distinction between macho and masculine, as they are not the same and the difference means a lot when a woman marries thinking she has one type of man and has actually married the other type.
Also, as I have said here and in my own little spot, marriage and kids are now a pay to play endeavor, with people who can’t pony up mostly not having children or having only one. Divorce is not something women are eager for in these economically challenging times.
I think, forcing things back to the OP, that some women just want to feel unique for treating their husband normally rather than sniping at him like the ones in sitcoms do.
I also think there’s little discussion of the distinction between macho and masculine, as they are not the same and the difference means a lot when a woman marries thinking she has one type of man and has actually married the other type.
B
buffalo
Guest
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I had to come back to this. The stats on single moms have nothing to do with Tender Years. Arguing against family courts on the TYD is like arguing against capital punishment with public hangings. There may be problems with the system, but lets identify them correctly.
SNIP
That proves nothing. The state usually wins the majority of criminal cases at trial too. Why? Because they only take cases to trial that the prosecutor thinks he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt!
Two, family courts don’t operate on “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Barring major dysfunction or a large geographic distance, a man who tries will get something. Your argument is essentially “But these men have reason to believe the courts will find them to be unfit parents!” Well…maybe that’s the first thing to address. At the end of the day though, too many people grew up with dads who just didn’t care enough to try after a divorce, and from the perspective of a child, it doesn’t matter what happened between the parents, there’s no excuse for that.
- Status