So one of the female members of the Knesset, out parliament, decided that a law regarding custody over children when the parents divorced needed re-evaluation. She believed, and rightly so in my opinion, that the law was a tad unfair. The committee in charge of looking over said law agreed with her sentiments, and an alteration will soon be put up to the vote. At the moment, when a couple divorced, custody of all children of six and below automatically went to the mother. Frankly, custody of most children goes to the mother in any case, and only when the mother is truly unable to, as it were, be a mother, does custody goes to the father. This resulted in a multitude thereof of divorced men who can visit their children for two to four hours a week. As of late, said men have been gathering in groups, mainly on message boards. Their sentiments regarding their former wives and, frankly, women in general, are not pleasant. In a way, I can sympathise with them, and I will explain now. Now, let’s return to the custody law. The change that is currently being brought to the vote is the complete removal of said clause, so that children of six and below don’t automatically go to their mother. This brought much wroth from feminist and women’s rights movements. The arguments of the feminist groups make me wonder whether to laugh or cry. Apparently, men only want custody of their children for reasons of money, so that they wouldn’t be forced to pay alimony. Hark. Now, said groups of divorced men have been lobbying and protesting the current judicial modus operandi, in which joint custody seems to be an unknown concept. In come the feminist groups again, who say that joint custody is very bad. After all, men don’t want the kids. Men can’t raise kids in any case. They just want to keep their money in their own pockets. Men are, in fact, greedy fuck-ups. :roll: For the record, the number of divorced men in Israel is several hundred thousand. Most of them, if they see their kids at all, see them once or twice a week. The current situation has created what can only be described as anti-female hate groups, consisting of divorced men. From their former wives, to feminist and women’s rights groups, to the entire female sex, their hatred grows. They’re not doing anything beyond grumbling and protesting at courts, mind, but it may go beyond that sooner or later. The situation at hand is that men don’t have a right to raise their kids after a divorce. I’m an avid supported of joint custody on children as the best course of action, unless one of the parents is truly unable to raise a child. The change in the current law may, or may not, create a change in the opinions of judges on the matter. I consider the current law unjust and, quite frankly, stupid. Changing it would be a step on the right track, in my opinion. Opinions? edit: Fixed spelling, including that of the topic title.
The current law is stupid. Custody should go to whichever parent is better fit to raise the child. That is not always the mother. I'm not sure about joint custody because I think it's confusing for the child to have to travel back and forth between homes. A child needs stability. That doesn't mean that the non-custodial parent shouldn't be able to see the child more often. It depends on the individual case. I don't see how having custody could be saving the father money. Yes, the father doesn't have to pay child support, but he has to to pay for his child's care. It's much easier financially to write a cheque once a month than to have to buy food for your child whenever he needs it--whether you have money in the bank or not. You can't say to your child, "Sorry there's no money for milk this week. You'll have to wait till next week." The man-bashing and woman-bashing is stupid and unproductive.
Yeah, that pretty sums up my opinion too. Of course in Britain we have "Fathers4Justice" (if only they learnt to use proper english...) who have resorted to several publicity stunts*, which have generally worked, especially on an awareness front. I don't think the unfairness will last that much longer in the modern** countries. *The guy in a batman suit who managed to climb onto a blacony of Buckingham Palace being the most famous. **For lack of a better word
I think the unfairness against men will last quite a bit longer yet. It is becoming less unfair but the ballance will still be in favour of women for a long time to come I think. One of the main problems with this is that most women believe women are better child carers; but so do most men (it's mostly men that make these laws in the first place), which is a pity for the men who've evolved beyond this archaic way of thinking. I also can't help but ponder cliches about reaping and sowing, or being hoisted by one's own petard; generation after generation of men, stretching back thousands of years, has proclaimed women the supreme expert on childcare to the point of excluding them from anything else. And vice versa, the same proclaimations have been used as the excuse for why men go out to work and do not get involved with childcare - it's so deeply ingrained in many societies, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries, that it's going to take a lot of work and rethinking to unravel the threads of misconception that have been spun over such a long period of time. Still, it is a positive step forward in our evolution I think that people are starting to question the way we do things like this.
Building on what Maljonic has said, that might explain why some feminists think there is an ulterior motive--e.g. saving money--to the men's claims. It could be considered odd that for so many years, men have not appeared to want to have anything to do with childcare, and to treat it as a job for women, and now suddenly they want to raise children by themselves.
I think it's a natural progression from the women's liberation movement where, after World War Two in particular, women have shown that they can do "men's" work just as well as men, and they are triving for equal rights in all areas of life and work. Many men are obviously going to wonder whether or not they'd be just as good at caring for children and bringing up their own kids as women, as a result of more people being forced by modern equality thinking to view things from the other sex's point of view.
Sadly, our enlightened society is more interested in flash solutions than in anything else. Appeasing groups like femenist and women's rights groups included not only giving women rights they deserve, but taking away rights from men in the proccess. The same with any interest group that raised a public outcry. So, for example, if I were a lesbian black woman, not only would I be more likely to get a job, under the current laws, but I would be impossible to fire. This creates resentment. As does the bias against men in custody cases. The oppressed are becoming the oppressors, as it were, because instead of thinking long and hard about the consequences, our society looks for the quickest way to do something in the flashiest way possible. This is called politics. Femenist groups have turned into anti-men hate groups, really. Other, more moderate groups, are being dragged along because he who shouts loudest is the one who leads the mob, sadly. So the end result is stupid declarations and shocking opinions, which are not heralded as such by society because we haven't finished appeasing those groups yet, so we must be nice to them. So the situation remains mostly fucked up, because problems that are ignored remain problems, and our society, fucked up as it is, can't admit that yesterday's solution, that was heralded as The Next Great Thing, was in fact just another Great Big Flop. We need to learn from France. Specifically, we need to learn from France's mistakes. What we need is balance. Achieving this balance will take time, and matters will not change as long as we keep opinions that are, frankly, stupid. Once upon a time, femenism fought against a particular way men view women. Now, they fight *for* a particular view they hold of men. The greatest irony here is that in both cases the large group is the one that wishes to resist change in these matters. The very same group that once fought the views of women's rights, now fights *with* them, albiet unknowingly. This time, it may have more women than it had before, and some less men, but the group as a whole is still the same one Perhaps the very best way to bring some balance to matters is to tell that group that they're supporting femenist views.
[quote:c5f8fed778="Roman_K"] Femenist groups have turned into anti-men hate groups, really. Other, more moderate groups, are being dragged along because he who shouts loudest is the one who leads the mob, sadly. [/quote:c5f8fed778] I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with this. Any "anti-men hate group" is not a feminist one. Feminism was, and still is, about equality. Not changing the imbalance of power from men to women. Sure enough, it is these militant and extreme groups that shout the loudest, but they are not being supported in any way by the feminist groups. I would even say that they are being a hindrance to the feminist cause. On the actual topic at hand, basically everyone has said everything that I agree with. I personally would hate to be given to my mother if my parents ever divorced. Thats the only thing that I object to about this whole thing, usually the battle for custody is between the parents and their lawyers. Far more power needs to be given to the children, as they are the ones who are going to be effected the most.
[quote:49e46a505f="Andalusian"] On the actual topic at hand, basically everyone has said everything that I agree with. I personally would hate to be given to my mother if my parents ever divorced. Thats the only thing that I object to about this whole thing, usually the battle for custody is between the parents and their lawyers. Far more power needs to be given to the children, as they are the ones who are going to be effected the most.[/quote:49e46a505f] I have to agree with you here. I love both my parents (most of the time), but I can think of several close friends of mine who would rather eat hot lead than live only with their mothers. I think that at a certain age, an adolescent is capable of deciding which parent is more fit to look after them for whatever reason. Though I have to say a six year old is not likely to be able to make as informed a decision as, say, a sixteen year old. Though it depends on the child.
[quote:667ec8fa99="Andalusian"][quote:667ec8fa99="Roman_K"] Femenist groups have turned into anti-men hate groups, really. Other, more moderate groups, are being dragged along because he who shouts loudest is the one who leads the mob, sadly. [/quote:667ec8fa99] I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with this. Any "anti-men hate group" is not a feminist one. Feminism was, and still is, about equality. Not changing the imbalance of power from men to women. Sure enough, it is these militant and extreme groups that shout the loudest, but they are not being supported in any way by the feminist groups. I would even say that they are being a hindrance to the feminist cause.[/quote:667ec8fa99] Really? I have yet to see a femenist group that supports the changing of the aforementioned law. Frankly, it's all objections, and rather loud objections at that. Feminism is not so much for complete equality as for equality for women. Feminist groups are interest groups.
[quote:30fd9998d7="Roman_K"] Feminism is not so much for complete equality as for equality for women. Feminist groups are interest groups.[/quote:30fd9998d7] If they're for equality for women, then they're likewise for equality for men . You can't have someone being more equal than the rest. And personally I'm all for joint custody, provided a) both parents are equally capable of providing a healthy and happy environment for the kid, and c) they don't live so far apart from each other that the kid will be worn out by the constant travelling.
[quote:a96d523e5b="Roman_K"] Feminism is not so much for complete equality as for equality for women. Feminist groups are interest groups.[/quote:a96d523e5b] If they're for equality for women, then they're likewise for equality for men . You can't have someone being more equal than the rest. And personally I'm all for joint custody, provided a) both parents are equally capable of providing a healthy and happy environment for the kid, and c) they don't live so far apart from each other that the kid will be worn out by the constant travelling. edit:: sorry for the double-post
[quote:be4ea28969="mowgli"]If they're for equality for women, then they're likewise for equality for men . You can't have someone being more equal than the rest. .[/quote:be4ea28969] That’s not necessarily true. Feminist groups fight for the inequalities of women. Not for the sexism that men face. So While feminists would fight for equal pay between genders, I doubt they'd put much effort into fighting for paternal custody rights or reasonable paternity leave for new fathers.
hence Rush Limbaugh's (and probably others of the Republican talkshows) use of the word "Feminazi". Depressingly accurate sometimes; so many of the girls in college are extremely hostile to men.
I don't recall that much hostility from the females at college (university). And it's not like I was a ladies man or anything.
That's because at the time I didn't know that Drexel tech guys were favored, salary-and-responsibility-wise, at the expense of Drexel tech girls! GRRRRR! (And yes I know that it wasn't your fault, but ground would have been fertile for the "you MEN!!!" kind of rebellion!)
Yes but how tall were the tech folks Mowgli? Perhaps you get paid more for being tall? oh, and perhaps the original topic, custody of the kids should also be dependent on height. [color=blue:fd43f69970]This[/color:fd43f69970] article might explain. Well if the respondents to an online questionnaire said so, then it must be right </sarcasm> *shakes head* bloody students these days..... (edited for stupid typos)
And this is psychology? This is research? This is crappy statistics! If statistical prediction and research are accurate then Shimon Peres, the all time political loser, the man who is The Little Engine That Couldn't of the Israeli political system, the man who, even when he headed the Avoda(Labour) party, the main left-winged party in Israel, could only ever become PM via a tie, should have won every single election! Oh, for crying out loud... *sobs*
[quote:813b763ea8="Bradthewonderllama"]Are you sure that it wasn't just a lack of motivation....[/quote:813b763ea8] In my case, yes . But you said that other girls - who worked their bums off- were shortchanged as well! As for the questionaire....eh! Even if there IS a link between a woman's physical appearance (due to extra testosterone) and her career decisions, what will change because of it?
There was a thread on the old HC board about how men who are taller tend to be more successful. (I think the thread was just about men.) If it's accurate for women as well, then taller women, being more likely to experience successes in their careers, would be more likely to focus their energies on their careers. Positive reinforcement. And negative reinforcement for the short women who don't pass job interviews on the basis of appearance. I think it has less to do with testosterone than with standing out in a crowd.
[quote:431c0e95e8="Marcia"]There was a thread on the old HC board about how men who are taller tend to be more successful.[/quote:431c0e95e8] I think both Kenny and Doors disprove that theory.
Have you heard about the Chinese having surgery to increase their height? I have seen a couple of news reports. People are undergoing months of painful procedures involving having their legs broken and having a contraption hold the ends of the bones a fraction of an inch apart, as the bone heals the device is lengthened, until the person has a few extra inches of height, say 3 or 4. I am height challenged (5'3") but I can't imagine doing that for anything, let alone a couple of inches in height.
This is daft. Each divorce should be treated on a case-by-case basis and joint custody ought to be one of the options available. The feminists ought to battle for the real issues of gender discrimination, like the fact that women are generally paid less by men and the glass cieling when it comes to promotions.
[quote:b86c8da3e0="Roman_K"]And this is psychology? This is research? This is crappy statistics! If statistical prediction and research are accurate then Shimon Peres, the all time political loser, the man who is The Little Engine That Couldn't of the Israeli political system, the man who, even when he headed the Avoda(Labour) party, the main left-winged party in Israel, could only ever become PM via a tie, should have won every single election! Oh, for crying out loud... *sobs*[/quote:b86c8da3e0] Yes! Indeed, if there's even one counterexample, then statistical trends [i:b86c8da3e0]must[/i:b86c8da3e0] be false! For example, it's cold here in Lucerne Valley, which means that global warming must be a myth. Condoleezza Rice makes more money than Bob the fry cook, so women do not tend to get paid less than men. Ba knows a smoker who lived into his nineties, so cigarettes do not tend to shorten one's lifespan. Clearly, statistics are stupid and useless and no one should listen to them. Trends are stupid, so let's not pay any attention to them. It doesn't matter if a lot of people are doing something, if not everyone is doing it, then it doesn't matter.
Just found out about a family situation that's straight from Roman's description of things. My aunt is divorcing her husband; they have a two-year-old son. My ex-uncle wants a "50-50" custody, meaning the kid will spend half of each week living with him, and another half living with Mom. My aunt's response went as follows: "Absolutly not! A child needs to sleep at home, not here today and elsewhere tomorrow. Besides, you know he (the ex-husband) is only doing this so he can pay less alimony - he didn't spend any time with his son while we were married, he can certainly make do with 2 days a week now that we're apart." I'm not saying that all ex-husbands are greedy and uncaring; only that custody cases are a complicated thing that should be decided based on a TON of individual criteria - where each parent lives, how much do they make, does their schedule allow them to spend enough time with the kid, how they treated the kid when they were still married, etc.
Are you talking about alimony or child support? Alimony seems a bit old-fashioned to me, back from the days when it wasn't possible for a woman to get a job and support herself and her family. Nowadays plenty of women--both married and single--are the breadwinners in their homes.
There are still a lot of women getting alimony... Here, you have the right to get alimony if you can make believable that due to taking care of the children, you can't make money, or not as much as you'd need to support a household. It does make kind of sense in a state where searching for a day care solution for your child under three years is like playing the lottery, where private solutions cost more than the average worker earns, and where it's still regarded as neglegtive by many people to put your small child into day care instead of "caring for it yourself" (a choice of words that alone annoys me, because I gave it into half-day day care because I want to finish my education [i:54f8791526]and [/i:54f8791526]because it's good for her to have a permanent group of other children to not only play with, but bond with too.)
I agree - if it's a good day-care (i.e. not like old Soviet ones, where kids constantly got sick), then it's good for both moms and kids Some people just equate good mothering with unconditional martyrdom!
[quote:f86be80706="Ba"]Yes! Indeed, if there's even one counterexample, then statistical trends [i:f86be80706]must[/i:f86be80706] be false! For example, it's cold here in Lucerne Valley, which means that global warming must be a myth. Condoleezza Rice makes more money than Bob the fry cook, so women do not tend to get paid less than men. Ba knows a smoker who lived into his nineties, so cigarettes do not tend to shorten one's lifespan. Clearly, statistics are stupid and useless and no one should listen to them. Trends are stupid, so let's not pay any attention to them. It doesn't matter if a lot of people are doing something, if not everyone is doing it, then it doesn't matter.[/quote:f86be80706] Not quite. Statistical trends are, on the other hand, drastically overrated and overused. That online questionnaire is quite possibly the best example of this, as those two students used an online questionnaire to create the test group for their study. An online questionnaire. For the sake of the students' study, I hope that at least half of those that answered the questuionnaire were even women. The first rule of statistical analasis is that the test group has to be carefully chosen and regulated. This is a phase that is skipped far more often than not. Statistical studies depend largely on test groups, and it's no surprise that one finds studies that contradict each other. In some cases, the researches already expect a certain answer, and it's easy enough to fit the fact to one's mindset by choosing questions that, even unknowingly, allow only a certain conclusion. Statistical research is a very tough field. Smoker lifespans and women salaries are not the same as most statistical studies, as the test group involved is different. The bigger your group, the more accurate the study is. If the information you have takes into consideration a large percentage of the population, while each possible population group has a roughly same percentage of the whole, then the study will be far more accurate. When you take ten people, twenty people, even a hundred people as representatives of a group of hundreds of millions, then the study is far less accurate, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Now, global warming is a different kettle of fish altogether. Here, the research doesn't involve people, which makes it all the easier. It involves facts, not questions.
[quote:f9a9f4cd93="mowgli"]Just found out about a family situation that's straight from Roman's description of things. My aunt is divorcing her husband; they have a two-year-old son. My ex-uncle wants a "50-50" custody, meaning the kid will spend half of each week living with him, and another half living with Mom. My aunt's response went as follows: "Absolutly not! A child needs to sleep at home, not here today and elsewhere tomorrow. Besides, you know he (the ex-husband) is only doing this so he can pay less alimony - he didn't spend any time with his son while we were married, he can certainly make do with 2 days a week now that we're apart." I'm not saying that all ex-husbands are greedy and uncaring; only that custody cases are a complicated thing that should be decided based on a TON of individual criteria - where each parent lives, how much do they make, does their schedule allow them to spend enough time with the kid, how they treated the kid when they were still married, etc.[/quote:f9a9f4cd93] Indeed. Now, in the case of your aunt, did she mean that the child will spend two days out of seven with his father, or that the father will have two days a week to visit? A different issue altogether, you'll agree.
If Roman felt the survey was flawed, he should have said so, and said how it was flawed. The argument he used was spurious.
[quote:b45f6d5f77="Ba"]If Roman felt the survey was flawed, he should have said so, and said how it was flawed. The argument he used was spurious.[/quote:b45f6d5f77] *shrug* Badly controlled test group.
Not really. The rant was just that, a rant. A result of annoyance at seeing one innacurate statistical survey too many.
Well, in the future, argue against actual flaws in the study. Straw men save time, but they're still fallacies.
I went into generalities and sort of skipped the particulars. A mistake I shall endeavor not to repeat.
[quote:da9c2f039c="Hsing"]There are still a lot of women getting alimony... Here, you have the right to get alimony if you can make believable that due to taking care of the children, you can't make money, or not as much as you'd need to support a household. [/quote:da9c2f039c] That is what I would call "child support." Money that goes to the parent that has custody to help the parent take care of the child, whether to help pay for the child's food, nappies, medical expenses, help pay the cost of child care, etc. Alimony is separate from child support. It is money that goes to the spouse. From Dictionary.com Alimony: 1. Law. An allowance for support made under court order to a divorced person by the former spouse, usually the chief provider during the marriage. Alimony may also be granted without a divorce, as between legally separated persons. 2. A means of livelihood; maintenance It's more of the idea that the man supported the woman throughout the marriage; she wouldn't be able to make enough money to live in the style to which she is accustomed without a man. It has nothing to do with child support, that is paid separately. It's money that goes to the spouse directly. It's the idea that a woman needs a man to support her, so until/if she gets remarried, the ex-husband is still responsible for her. Part of the idea behind it is that by her "wifely activities", she helped the husband earn money, so that she is entitled to some of his money. For example, cooking and taking care of the house so the husband ccould work longer hours and concentrate more on his work, working to help pay for the husband's law or medical school tuition early in the marriage, etc. Of course, in cases where the woman was supporting the man during marriage, the woman would pay alimony, but that is rare.
[quote:d87bc5ee4b="Ba"]Yes! Indeed, if there's even one counterexample, then statistical trends [i:d87bc5ee4b]must[/i:d87bc5ee4b] be false! For example, it's cold here in Lucerne Valley, which means that global warming must be a myth. Condoleezza Rice makes more money than Bob the fry cook, so women do not tend to get paid less than men. Ba knows a smoker who lived into his nineties, so cigarettes do not tend to shorten one's lifespan. Clearly, statistics are stupid and useless and no one should listen to them. Trends are stupid, so let's not pay any attention to them. It doesn't matter if a lot of people are doing something, if not everyone is doing it, then it doesn't matter.[/quote:d87bc5ee4b] [quote:d87bc5ee4b="Roman_K"]Statistical research is a very tough field. Smoker lifespans and women salaries are not the same as most statistical studies, as the test group involved is different. The bigger your group, the more accurate the study is. If the information you have takes into consideration a large percentage of the population, while each possible population group has a roughly same percentage of the whole, then the study will be far more accurate. When you take ten people, twenty people, even a hundred people as representatives of a group of hundreds of millions, then the study is far less accurate, and should be taken with a grain of salt.[/quote:d87bc5ee4b] The most evident problems with statistics is as you have said by using a limited sample group and trying to fit that to the whole test population. It quite plainly does not work in most cases as it is unfaesable to use a large enough sample to avoid misleading averages etc insert other statistical mumbo jumbo. Second often the statistical tests are not repeated with a second sample groups and so on. Meaning a possible skewed result is applied to the whole population. Further the wrong questsions are asked, in most cases to engineer the solution the tester wishes. [quote:d87bc5ee4b="Roman_K"]Now, global warming is a different kettle of fish altogether. Here, the research doesn't involve people, which makes it all the easier. It involves facts, not questions.[/quote:d87bc5ee4b] Actually not really as this sort of study is like trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle blindfold in kenny's shed with terry. Choosing what is significant from all the noise is quite difficult. Facts don't bend either, those counter-examples and limitations of said facts stand out evenmore on closer examination.
[quote:ab5dd027c7="Pepster"]Further the wrong questsions are asked, in most cases to engineer the solution the tester wishes. [/quote:ab5dd027c7] *points to own post* [quote:ab5dd027c7="Pepster"] [quote:ab5dd027c7="Roman_K"]Now, global warming is a different kettle of fish altogether. Here, the research doesn't involve people, which makes it all the easier. It involves facts, not questions.[/quote:ab5dd027c7] Actually not really as this sort of study is like trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle blindfold in kenny's shed with terry. Choosing what is significant from all the noise is quite difficult. Facts don't bend either, those counter-examples and limitations of said facts stand out evenmore on closer examination. [/quote:ab5dd027c7] True, my mistake.
Reading these Post I can see why the world is in such bad shape. If we can't agree on something as important as our children how are we ever going to agree on anything? I think a completely impartially person should be the one to decide who gets the kids. I have seen to many woman get the kids and then use the Child Support for themself. Men will have a problem because its assumed they will have to find someone to take care of the kids. As for womens groups hating men, I believe men in their harts know that what these groups are saying is the truth. Women have been abused, there is no getting away from that. Don't forget, its only been a few generations ago that women and children were considered property. I also think that some men are threatened by the new women.
[quote:d3806510b3="Marcia"]Are you talking about alimony or child support? Alimony seems a bit old-fashioned to me, back from the days when it wasn't possible for a woman to get a job and support herself and her family. Nowadays plenty of women--both married and single--are the breadwinners in their homes.[/quote:d3806510b3] I know this is a bit off-topic, but it reminded me of something we were talking about recently. Apparently there's quite a bit of trouble with divorced couples now, where the husband always used to support the wife, therefore she never paid National Insurance. As a result, she is not eligible for a pension of any kind. More relevant to the conversation, I think there is still a very large amount of women supported by men. At the moment, I am one, and I know I am far from being alone. I have plenty of friends who either live the stereotypical man-as-breadwinner life or, like myself, gave up work to have a baby and just didn't go back. I don't consider this a bad thing, and I think it needs to be considered in terms of childcare.
Same here - although not quite willingly: When I got pregnant, my education wasn't yet finished (I am currently working on that), and his was. No one was to give me any well paid work, whereas he... well, cross out well paid. Anyways, thus, trying the alternative -him staying at home, me bringing in the money- was out of option. We figured out finishing my studies instead of taking on some odd jobs would make more sense in the long run. Still, there remains the fact that right now, we all three finanicially depend on him, and that I very, very likely would have gotten my degree in the meantime if I hadn't had the child. Some background info: We started searching for a day care place when my daughter was three months old, and found one when she was 18 months old. We were put on more than 21 waiting lists every six months in the meantime. Finding proper day care for children under three years old is extremely hard here, especially if you don't have the money to pay for a private nanny. I share that situation with a lot of young women in Germany, and I belive it is one of the reasons why many qualified women here simply don't have children at all. I suppose in cases of divorce where the share of duties was fairly traditional -with him working most of the time and her taking care of the children-, the logic behind paying a divorced woman with children alimony is A) she's not able to work because there is hardly any child care that would allow them to do so without eating every cent they'd be earning, especially outside the bigger cities. They can as well get money to live from and do it themselves. After all, raising children is a job, too. and B) they would be more qualified without having taken care of the children, thus it's only fair they get, for some time after the divorce, a share of their former husband's wages until they at least had a chance to catch up. I am not saying this is my personal point of view. I'd hate ending up depending from a man I'd not even be living with anymore, and my personal ideal is still that of being self supporting, and I am planning to share both income and family duties on a more 50 to 50 base as soon as that is possible. But a lot of women stay in a relatively traditional mother role for various reasons. As my husband is now fighting for his job, and thus for our financial existance, I am somehow trapped in third row - he can't take the child, the child has to be taken care of, and so, I can try and catch up with my studies in the time that remains. And I can blame it on no one, really. Many couples I know decide they want children, and that, with the situation described as above, means that if there isn't a retired mom/dad/friend/sister in the background eager to play the babysitter, means that someone has to stay at home and take care of the child at least for a while. Rationally as they are, that should always be the person earning less, so that the one earning more can support the family. Strangely, this is, almost always, the woman. I know there are different cases. In my family, my mother always earnt more than my father - right now, twice as much. But - they are the minority. Also, I do not know many people with secure jobs that allow you to work only, say, three days a weel, or even four, so that a father might have time to take over a bigger part in his children's upbringing than, say, his father had. I always dreamt of the two of us both having such jobs, so we could be the perfect couple sharing both duties to equal parts. But most working places are not designed like that, it seems. Simply assume that a woman who spent the last few years mainly being a mother -for what reasons ever- can take main care of the kids five days a week -which many of them do, as most of us observed- and earn her living as if her career had not been interrupted is unrealistic. I don't like these circumstances as they are, for many reasons. Some of these things make me pretty angry. But I suppose a lot of conditions would have to be changed before the rest clicks into place. More on topic: I know most children love both their parents, and a loss of either one would hurt them. I suppose joint custody would be the wish of most children, and that should weigh a lot. By joint custody I mean that the child gets to "keep" both parents as far as that is organizable. Living half of the week here and the other half there is impossible. Also, the parent having most of the responsibility should have more right to meet decisions - everything else is not practicable. An example to explain what I mean: A befriended couple has split, and agreed on joint custody. Now he wants to immigrate to another continent, and plans to visit his child -now 1 year old- every six months for a few weeks. He wants to keep the state of joint custody as has been decided on. She asked the department what that would mean for her, in practice. That would, theoretically, mean that although he lives on the other side of the globe, she'd still need his okay before operations, before deciding about which school the kid is being sent on, and under various other documents, applications and requests. Another case of joint custody -in my family- is working well, at least for the children. When my sister was divorced, my nephew, then six years old, insisted upon being heard in court. He stated, in a friendly chat with the family judge, that he wanted to live with his mother, in his grandmother's house, but that he loved both his parents and didn't want to loose his father. The children are having lunch at their father's house after school every weekday, and spend every second weekend with him. That way, they get to see him almost every day.
weighing in late as usual... My brother and his partner never got around to getting married but when they separated they worked out amongst themselves equal custody of their son. Its not perfect and requires them both to organise their working lives and custody times around each other but overall it has worked for them. Even when they couldn't stand to talk to each other they still managed to come up with a working solution. I think in some cases custody becomes a football to score points off the partner rather than as a way to let both parents contribute in some way to the up-bringing of the child. You can hate your former partner but your child doesn't have to as well. Child support is common in australia, and is often not paid. Alimony is not.
[quote:8c1773607d="Hermia"][quote:8c1773607d="Marcia"]Are you talking about alimony or child support? Alimony seems a bit old-fashioned to me, back from the days when it wasn't possible for a woman to get a job and support herself and her family. Nowadays plenty of women--both married and single--are the breadwinners in their homes.[/quote:8c1773607d] I know this is a bit off-topic, but it reminded me of something we were talking about recently. Apparently there's quite a bit of trouble with divorced couples now, where the husband always used to support the wife, therefore she never paid National Insurance. As a result, she is not eligible for a pension of any kind. [/quote:8c1773607d] I work for a pensions comany, so I'm studying this at my job. To be honest, it's hard for me to feel sorry for women who had the privilege of being able to stay at home to take care of their families when women like my mother, my grandmother (as well as many women nowadays) had to work a full shift (or 2) outside the home and then come home and work an additional shift taking care of their home and family. Interestingly enough, I was reading a letter to the editor in one of the newspapers where someone mentioned how "working class women" weren't accustomed to work outside the home. I suppose this is a British vs. American cultural thing, because in the US if you can afford to live in a household with only one spouse working, you are higher than working class.
I disagree with the England Vs America statment. I know that it is possible for one spouse to work and easily support the family. My step-dad is a prime example. My mother aswell. They're both capable or earning over £50k. I think that that letter to the editor was probably by some sexist git that couldn't face the change in society. I'm currently on work experience and plenty of the women that work there have proved beyond doubt that they're capable of more than house work. I hate discrimination of any sort, They're useually made by arrogent, obnoxiouse arseholes that try to use sweeping generalisations to back up their highly offensive claims. Grrrr
[quote:8b127f15eb="Dane"]I disagree with the England Vs America statment. I know that it is possible for one spouse to work and easily support the family. My step-dad is a prime example. My mother aswell. They're both capable or earning over £50k. [/quote:8b127f15eb] Exactly. Someone who is capable of earning over £50k is not working class. Working class is someone who cleans other people's houses, for example. I was saying that it's not possible for one spouse to support a family on a "working class" salary. Your family would be middle class, according to my American view of class structure. That's why I think it's a cultural/language difference.
OOH, I see. I stand by my rant on the sexism statment though! I'd have more to say on the social classes issue but it almost 12 here which means I'm gonna get booted any time now :evil: Anywho I'm not to sure about social classes in England, I don't really follow many above the teenage level. Ask me anything about the teenage social classes in England and I'd be able to give you an essay but tahst where my class knowledge kinda fades away.
I have to admit I saw it more from the point of view regarding the balance between the partners. I'd say, in the current state, viewing the family and the things being done for it as a whole - breadwinning, childraising, household, organization - we both share 50 % of the work that is there. That means, all things put together, we both have a 12 to 13 hour day. Its just that my work isn't paid, and his is - not that I'm fretting about that, but that's the way it is. Why, then, should the work of those, say, three years where I'm not earning any money put me in a disadvantage regarding things like pension plans, in comparison to him? I'm not saying he's per se responsible for me. But right now, this is a team project of ours, and where the work is shared, the gain should, to a degree, be too. I'm neither saying I am [i:5682c9cedb]not [/i:5682c9cedb]privileged - my own mother, who also was the family's main breadwinner, did envy me a little for the entire year I had with my daughter, even though it wasn't quite voluntary on my part. We're way below 50.ooo Euros a year -to be frank, it's more like 13.500 Euros. But we get along, or I wouldn't grant myself the privilege to get my degree instead of getting some paid job (thank God there are no university fees in Münster yet). But even if I had wanted to do so, there would have been one big, practical problem to be solved: here, there are day care places for 0,2% of all kids under three years old. I know that brings a lot of young families into trouble who could really need the second income, but have no idea where to park the baby. Helpful families seem to be rare these days. And the neighbours? I am eternally grateful they're not the complaining kind... but that's it. The only neighbour of mine who declared she'd like to babysit my daughter made clear that she'd like to see payment. I'm just going into detail that much because, although I can see Marcia's point, it's not just laziness or folly on the women's part that keeps them from winning their own bread once there are kids. I'm sorry if I get back on my personal situation to illustrate that a lot, it just serves the cause - it does not mean I take the discussion personal.
[quote:e385ae2c9a="Marcia"]To be honest, it's hard for me to feel sorry for women who had the privilege of being able to stay at home to take care of their families when women like my mother, my grandmother (as well as many women nowadays) had to work a full shift (or 2) outside the home and then come home and work an additional shift taking care of their home and family. [/quote:e385ae2c9a] I've met plenty of people who don't work because a childcare place would cost a day's wages, so there would be absolutely no point. This is one of my considerations, although I am one of the few who is lucky enough that my qualifications could earn me more than minimum wage. Anyway, whether you agree with it or not, should a woman be pushed into poverty in her old age purely because she was "lucky" when she was younger? Doesn't sound so lucky to me. Having said that, as far as state pensions go, women who stay at home because of children now have their statutory pension protected. This is obviously just an opinion, but I feel this is the way it should be. If I looked after someone else's child it would count as a full time job - why is it suddenly an extra-curricular activity just because it's my child? Edited to correct my appalling grammar.
Mowgli: Here, the majority's point of view regarding childcare has been, until recently, more conservative than in our neighbour countries. To put it bluntly, you were, and for many people still are, considered a bad mother when you don't stay at home and take care of your children exclusively. My mother met quite a few predjudices when she moved to the country side, as a full time working mother of three. And I often received pity as a child (and never was quite sure why) when I mentioned that my mother came home from work in the evening instead of putting a meal on the table at two o'clock after school. That most school's days end between 12.00 and 14.00 (full-day-schools are the exception) is also one of the things that make it a little harder to organize a working life when you're a parent (and this goes for both parents). My father always used to do nightshifts (he was a member of a private Watch company - yes, Nightwatch!). That solved the problem at least temporarily. One historical reason for this is that both the Nazi regime and the Socialist state in the GDR, which Western Germany always tried to contrast, both took over as much of the childrens education as was possible, to make sure the youngsters grew up as loyal servants of their respective states. Another is that in Germany in the last 200 years, there was always a strong, conservative, bourgeois current; not necessarily politically, but virtue-wise, as ideological background noise. And according to that, only a loving mother and a loving mother alone can really make a child happy and give it the possibilities it needs to unfold. Only a few years ago the political mainstream realized that it was missing on the qualifications of a lot of young women that way, and also that a lot of other, qualified women decided not to waste their qualification and have no children, or delay it as far as possible. A decision I can understand, taking my own experiences into account. From my point of view, keeping a child almost entirely at home means depriving it of more than it can receive. I can't replace children, for example, and children need other children! She also gets a lot, but not too much, input, and learns earlier than children who leave their mother for the first time on a regular base when school starts, that I come back everytime, and that the world doesn't end as soon as I leave the room. That was -and still is- a great experience for both of us. I learnt a lot about my daughter by "giving her away" - unusually early for German standards, by the way.
[quote:c136106b0c="Hermia"][quote:c136106b0c="Marcia"]To be honest, it's hard for me to feel sorry for women who had the privilege of being able to stay at home to take care of their families when women like my mother, my grandmother (as well as many women nowadays) had to work a full shift (or 2) outside the home and then come home and work an additional shift taking care of their home and family. [/quote:c136106b0c] Anyway, whether you agree with it or not, should a women be pushed into poverty in her old age purely because she was "lucky" when she was younger? Doesn't sound so lucky to me.][/quote:c136106b0c] No, I'm not saying that she should be punished with poverty. But what about all the people who are impoverished in their old age not because they've lost the support of the person who allowed them to live comfortably, but because they've lived in poverty their whole lives? What about the single mothers who never had the opportunity to think about living off a husband's pension because they never had a husband. [quote:c136106b0c]Having said that, as far as state pensions go, women who stay at home because of children now have their statutory pension protected. [/quote:c136106b0c] A woman can also get part of her ex-husband's pension as part of a divorce settlement. Another odd thing is that in the UK you have to work almost 40 years to be eligibile for a full state pension. In the US it is only 10 years. With a 10 year minimum, you could easily stay home in the early years of your child's life, and still have worked full-time enough years to get a state pension. Also, the retirement age in the UK for women is only 60, which is ridiculously young. So a woman can spend a good 20-30 years of her life not being allowed to work and earn money, even when she is perfectly healthy and capable and wants to work. I was a bit upset when I got my job contract and it said that I would be forced to retire on my 60th birthday. I'm already 40 and my grandmother lived to her mid-90s. They are supposed to be raising it to 65, to match the male retirement age, but even that, in my opinion, is very young. And I have no idea why currently the female retirement age is lower than the male retirement age, when women live longer?
Yes, a lot of systems don't yet work quite logically when it comes to working life and gender differences. I also agree that women who had nothing to start with, and are or have been relying on themselves alone, are being treated very unsocially by a lot of systems. It sometimes looks as if some states are still punishing women for raising their children outside the traditional family constellation.
Because that is the mandatory retirement age at the company where I work. Assuming that I don't quit or get fired, my employment automatically ends on my 60th birthday. And there are very few companies in the UK that would hire a 60-year-old woman, so unless I become self-employed, there's not much hope of finding work anywhere after that.
[quote:f60974e99e="Marcia"]No, I'm not saying that she should be punished with poverty. But what about all the people who are impoverished in their old age not because they've lost the support of the person who allowed them to live comfortably, but because they've lived in poverty their whole lives? What about the single mothers who never had the opportunity to think about living off a husband's pension because they never had a husband. [/quote:f60974e99e] I'm not belittling the problems of these people - I just think all the examples of people so far should be allowed to live comfortably, and if pensions are the way to do that, they should all be allowed pensions. [quote:f60974e99e]They are supposed to be raising it to 65, to match the male retirement age, but even that, in my opinion, is very young.[/quote:f60974e99e] It depends on the job and the person. For a healthy office worker, yes, it's young. But the thought of retiring as late as 65 is a hideous thought for someone like my father, who has been doing hard manual work since he was 15, and whose body is consequently exhausted.
