Re: There They Go, Bad-Mouthing Divorce Again

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Jeff Bone (
Date: Fri Sep 22 2000 - 19:12:24 PDT

> *sighs* I hate this kind of logic. Case in point. My mother, in
> all her infinite wisdom, and at the behest of my father stayed home
> for the greater part of my brothers and my maturing lives, stayign
> home and taking care of us. She made very little money, since she
> was a full time mom. By your logic, if my parents had divorced,
> she'd get little to nothing, and socially (more likely than not) have
> the full responsibility to take care fo the kids.

Not true! You are excluded a later argument of mine from this
now-ancient thread. Homemakers should be paid! It should be a
contractual arrangement between the parties involved, i.e. the
"breadwinner" and the "homemaker." I in no way am trying to downplay the
investment made by the parent who stays home. Those people are heros who
should be paid, up front, explicitly.


It should be contractual. There should be no --- especially no
gender-biased --- social default. As with all contracts, it should be
explicit and consensual. Anything else is just plain wrong. Anything
else is gender-based discrimination and special-casing. "Women are such
victims, boo hoo." GMAFB.

> Basically, it keeps boys (or girls for that matter) from being
> flighty bastards.

There's nothing in the world that can prevent this, and frankly, it's
sure as shit not the role of gov't or law to ensure it. Why should it
be? If you can't trust your mate, then find another one --- there's
about 3 billion other opposite sex opportunities to choose from. No law,
nor even social convention is going to prevent it --- the divorce stats
prove that.

> I live with my boyfriend now, but what stops him, short of my emotional
> well-being,
> from finding some other pretty number or just getting tired of my
> shit ;) ?

Nothing except how willing *you* are to insure his happiness. Bottom
line. I'm oddly (ab)using Tom's and Gene's whole "100% on both parts"
argument here. If you're not both in it to make sure the other one is
100% happy, you're freeloading --- you're basically engaging in the
emotional equivalent of welfare. Do your job, or get out. There are no
emotional entitlements. The notion of marriage providing negative
incentives for an unhappy person to decide to *not* to leave is a TOTAL

> Really , nothing. Marriage provides somewhat of an
> incentive to stay with a person, either socially, legally or
> financially. IT makes sense, and generally I support it. Not
> everyone does and I can understand that.

Again, makes no sense --- incent everybody to do the right thing.
Punative measures in relationships are just wrong, and punitive legal
measures are egregious.

> I've known quite a few relationships taht do exist in this way. And
> they're great. And marriage shoudl n't just be a opposite sex,
> single party pheonomenon. I think marriage should be opened up to
> different lifestyles (perhaps within reason, say within species
> guidelines or requiring two living people ;).

Really? Where do I apply?

> Sometimes marriage
> wouldn't work in those situations, but even if you're in a long term
> situation to that extreme, it sort of deals with the flighty nature
> that I warned about in my last paragraph.

Humans are flighty. We have to understand that and base our expectations
on that, rather than waiting for Mother Society to make all the bad stuff
go away.

> 'Can't we all just get along? ' -- Sorry.. Couldn't help myself.

Thass what I'm SAYIN'! Girrrrl!

> While you'r eright to a point, let me revise a bit in that statement.
> 1) First it takes two people . If the father doesn't want to be
> liable, but a condom on.

Nope, the decision to bump uglies is a joint decision. Conversely, one
could say if the mother doesn't want the child, then either force the
condom issue or be responsible herself. TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY,
WOMEN! That whole notion will never work for either gender, as long as
there's alcohol (or infatuation, or whatever) on the planet, so given
that the only effective birth control in edge cases is retroactive, and
that totally resides in the mother's realm, it's all on her.

> SOrry, I just don't deal well with this 'I
> wasn't responsible, and now I'm screwed' argument.

Nope, nobody's screwed, except via the total unwillingness of society to
treat *women* fairly rather than as victims. A WOMAN HAS THE AUTHORITY!
It's her body, her pregnancy, her process, her call. Given all that,
it's out of the guy's hands. All he contributed was a roll in the hay
and some cells. The mom's the one who makes all the calls after that
point, so she FREAKIN ought to live with them.

> 2) I think the reason primarily its weighed more for the woman is 1)
> the woman carries the kid

...makes the decision to carry the child...

> 2) the woman deals with/raises the kid.

...makes the decision to raise the child...

> The father is pretty much exempt if he wishes to be ( I know many
> fathers who do not wish this, and thats a different story),

Um, not in THIS country, toots.

> and the
> state feels, good or bad, that since he did help to create a life,
> he's also obligated to deal with it. Why is this so wrong? Gee,
> responsibility is bad ....

When you AREN'T making a decision about lifelong fiduciary and emotional
responsibility (and give me a break, a passion-addled decision isn't
that, and there's nobody that could be held to that standard) then being
saddled with it against your will IS BAD! Your equation would mean that
every decision to have sex is tantamount to a decision to have a child.
Sorry, but I believe there are procreative and recreational uses of sex
which are separate and distinct. As long as you believe that, AND as
long as the father cannot unilaterally decide to abort a pregnancy BUT
the mother can, THEN *all* responsibility must reside in the mother. End
of story.

> THIS I do agree with. To a point. QUite a few friends have had the
> situation where they notified the father, 9 months or a year or what
> not rolled around and THEN he stepped in and said 'I don't want you
> to have the kid' (I dont' want to make payments). THe law doesn't
> deal with all cases fairly (by any means) but I think it tries.

It tries. It fails. :shrug.

Loved it! Bring it on, BB!



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 22 2000 - 20:35:24 PDT