🚀 go-pugleaf

In <twdayE6DEE7.LJH@netcom.com> twday@netcom.com (Tom Day) writes: 
>
(edit)

>  The problem isn't that women "have it made."  The problem is that 
>women haven't (until, maybe recently) kept up with the changes in our 
>society.  They have hung onto the quaint and foolish idea that
homemaking is a fulltime, skilled job, comparable with real jobs.  What
that has done is convert what was once a marriage partnership into
involuntary >servitude for the working spouse (of either sex).  

    ---------
        The marriage contract is rather polite in that it doesn't tell
        you what you must "do" in the marriage.  The courts would pre-
        fer that you grownups make your own choices.  That means if one
        spouse sacrifices by staying home and caring for kids, the 
        other spouse gains the benefit of that sacrifice.  The courts
        will continue to see that form of sacrifice from mom or dad as
        a benefit to society.  Thus, they will continue to make sure   
        both parties are not injured in the bargain.

        Lefty
        
>
>You can't get out without paying for the unproductive spouse's
personal >mistakes.  If you stay in long enough to raise your children,
you will >liable for a lifetime of alimony and you will lose everything
you have >managed to save during that lifetime.  It's a no-win
situation.  

        ----------
        I know a houswife who has raised six children.  She has few
        job-related skills, but her children are now all productive
        members of society.  Her husband is a professional.  Should he
        want to divorce her, he would have to pay her alimony since 
        she sacrificed her career to raise their children.  I don't 
        think the courts would have any problem with that, nor would
        I.  The whole enchilada depends upon the agreement of the 
        spouses when they marry and the continued agreement as evi-
        denced by thier continued relationship.  The courts are not
        going to listen to some one-sided crappola about HER poor 
        choices.  The judge will tell you that married folks have a
        fiduciary duty to one another, AND that you could have left
        the marriage at any point where you failed to agree.  Grow
        up;  go tell your couch potato that you impliedly agreed 
        with her wishes to stay home, because, in fact, you did.

        Lefty


>-- 
>========================================== 
>T.W. Day               
>twday@worldnet.att.net or twday@netcom.com

On Sat, 1 Mar 1997 15:15:43 GMT, twday@netcom.com (Tom Day) wrote:

>MRX (e-mail-is-MRX@Lonet.ca) wrote:
>
>: 2 salaries are usually not needed if one person is educated and has a
>: job reflecting that. if both people work at 7-11, then yeah, 2 jobs
>: are needed....that is assuming you don't have 2 cars, a mansion, etc.
>: :)
>
>You can't be serious.  If both partners worked at 7-11, they will both be 
>barely making it.  We're talking about $6 an hour, $12,000 a year 
>(without overtime) per worker.  No unrusted cars or mansions there.  You 
>can live in $24k, but you won't be buying a lot of luxuries.  

I am serious. I think we all know of people who have gotten by quite
nicely with precious little. About $24K does not mean luxury, but I
can see food, clothing & shelter, the necessities in that amount.
Ideally, the more the better, but $24K should do adequately, depending
upon the number of mouths to feed. But 2 parents and one kid should be
ok.


>  The problem isn't that women "have it made."  The problem is that 
>women haven't (until, maybe recently) kept up with the changes in our 
>society.  They have hung onto the quaint and foolish idea that homemaking 
>is a fulltime, skilled job, comparable with real jobs.  What that has 
>done is convert what was once a marriage partnership into involuntary 
>servitude for the working spouse (of either sex).  

They are entering universities in greater numbers than ever, and are
getting degrees at greater rates than ever. they are now equal in
opportunities based on that alone. 

But some choose to stay at home....key word is "choose"...and will
inevitably squawk about it. but they'll get it all back if they ever
divorce.

>You can't get out without paying for the unproductive spouse's personal 
>mistakes.  If you stay in long enough to raise your children, you will 
>liable for a lifetime of alimony and you will lose everything you have 
>managed to save during that lifetime.  It's a no-win situation.  

Well said.

>-- 
>========================================== 
>T.W. Day               
>twday@worldnet.att.net or twday@netcom.com

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Humbly yours,

MRX

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

MRX wrote:
>


> I am serious. I think we all know of people who have gotten by quite
> nicely with precious little. About $24K does not mean luxury, but I
> can see food, clothing & shelter, the necessities in that amount.
> Ideally, the more the better, but $24K should do adequately, depending
> upon the number of mouths to feed. But 2 parents and one kid should be
> ok.
>
>
> Humbly yours,
>
> MRX
>
> *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
******************************************************************

You can even survive well on an income of ~$26,000 quite nicely with a
family of six. That's food, shelter, clothing...all the basics PLUS the
upkeep of a very expensive computer hobby:-) It's all in how you manage
your money. That's why I never did understand people who collected tons
of CP and said it wasn't enough - I'm sorry, but if I could raise 3 kids
on $900.00/month for 3 years...obviously, many people waste a lot of
money on non-essentials. Some splurges are fine (one might say essential
for one's sanity<G>), but realistically, you can live decently on a
little money.

JMO, of course - few people ever agree with me on this subject!

Stephanie
wife to John, and mom to Rob, Marissa, Michael, and Timothy

In article <331A2FF4.550A@aros.net>, The Jordans <pegasus@aros.net> wrote:


>
> You can even survive well on an income of ~$26,000 quite nicely with a
> family of six. That's food, shelter, clothing...all the basics PLUS the
> upkeep of a very expensive computer hobby:-) It's all in how you manage
> your money. That's why I never did understand people who collected tons
> of CP and said it wasn't enough - I'm sorry, but if I could raise 3 kids
> on $900.00/month for 3 years...obviously, many people waste a lot of
> money on non-essentials.

Yeah, wasting it on things like a mortgage. Oh and the $500 a month food bill.

--
Lifes Little Instruction Book--H. Jackson Brown Jr.

43.  Never give up on anybody.  Miracles happen every day.
44.  Show respect for teachers.
45.  Show respect for police officers and firefighters.
46.  Show respect for military personnel.
47.  Don't waste time learing the "tricks of the trade".
     Instead, learn the trade.

leftylu@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:

>In <twdayE6DEE7.LJH@netcom.com> twday@netcom.com (Tom Day) writes:
>>
>(edit)
>
>>  The problem isn't that women "have it made."  The problem is that
>>women haven't (until, maybe recently) kept up with the changes in our
>>society.  They have hung onto the quaint and foolish idea that
>homemaking is a fulltime, skilled job, comparable with real jobs.  What
>that has done is convert what was once a marriage partnership into
>involuntary >servitude for the working spouse (of either sex).

This is what makes this newsgroup soo interesting <sigh> I just left a
post telling me how women who choose to work are "pushing their
children away" and are not good mothers.  Now you are telling me tht
if I stay home and work hard to raise my children the right way, I am
"quaint and foolish" and am not doing a "real" job.
I'm here to tell you, you are both full of crap!
When a man and a woman marry, it is up to the two of
them to decide how to carry on in that marriage.  If they choose for
one not to work, but to stay home and care for the children,  OR to
work so the other partner can further their education, that is their
agreement.  And if down the road one decides to break their marriage
vows, then they shouldn't start whining about the agreements they
made and how they  have to help the person who gave up t heir ability
to make a living , agreements that they were in full agreement with
until they decided the grass was greener in another pasture.



--'Mina--

As the Wind blows,
So the living tree bends..

http://www.livenet.net/~armina

Tom Day <twday@netcom.com> wrote in article <twdayE6DEE7.LJH@netcom.com>...
> MRX (e-mail-is-MRX@Lonet.ca) wrote:

>   The problem isn't that women "have it made."  The problem is that
> women haven't (until, maybe recently) kept up with the changes in our
> society.  They have hung onto the quaint and foolish idea that homemaking

> is a fulltime, skilled job, comparable with real jobs.  What that has
> done is convert what was once a marriage partnership into involuntary
> servitude for the working spouse (of either sex).

Tom, I couldn't DISAGREE with you more.  Quaint and foolish idea?  I have
to say that homemaking IS a fulltime job!!  I am from a family of 8...and
my mother had MORE THAN a fulltime job!!

armina@livenet.net wrote:

: When a man and a woman marry, it is up to the two of
: them to decide how to carry on in that marriage.  If they choose for
: one not to work, but to stay home and care for the children,  OR to
: work so the other partner can further their education, that is their
: agreement. . . 

And how do they legally document this "agreement" so that it will be 
enforced as it was agreed upon when the marriage fails?  Prenuptials 
don't work because the courts will toss them out on a variety of whims.  
If a woman refuses to work, how does her husband make her live up to her 
portion of the "agreement?"  If a husband gives up, works for two, and 
loses contact with his children because of that effort, he gets penalized 
because he "made" his wife dependent.  So how do you decide if "they" 
chose not to work or she chose not to work?  Easy, right?  She's always 
right.  And he's always the victimizer.

That's my issue with marriage.  There is no way for the competent member 
of the marriage to win.  If you get lucky and both are competent and 
remain so, it's not a bad deal.  But if one (especially the wife) decides 
to drop out and lose her employment credentials, the other pays the price.

-- 
========================================== 
T.W. Day               
twday@worldnet.att.net or twday@netcom.com

On Mon, 3 Mar 1997 04:29:29 GMT, Tom Day wrote:


>And how do they legally document this "agreement" so that it will be
>enforced as it was agreed upon when the marriage fails?  Prenuptials
>don't work because the courts will toss them out on a variety of whims.
>If a woman refuses to work, how does her husband make her live up to her
>portion of the "agreement?"  If a husband gives up, works for two, and
>loses contact with his children because of that effort, he gets penalized
>because he "made" his wife dependent.  So how do you decide if "they"
>chose not to work or she chose not to work?  Easy, right?  She's always
>right.  And he's always the victimizer.

>That's my issue with marriage.  There is no way for the competent member
>of the marriage to win.  If you get lucky and both are competent and
>remain so, it's not a bad deal.  But if one (especially the wife) decides
>to drop out and lose her employment credentials, the other pays the >price.

Well, that particular knife cuts both ways, my friend.  I had a
sister-in-law whose husband kept quitting jobs for no particular
reason.  Oh, he HAD "reasons" but when you sifted through all the
organic fertilizer, it all came down to "I didn't feel like
working there any more".  He would come home, explain to her and
anyone else who was patient and/or dumb enough to stand there and
listen how the boss was unfair, or the company politics were
unfair, or whatever else he could think of to say, and then he'd
go pop open a brew and plop down on the sofa to watch the sports
channel.  And there he'd sit, for weeks on end, until she could
pump him up enough to go get another job, where he would work for
maybe two weeks until the cycle repeated.  What could she do?
She put her two preschoolers in day care (she tried letting Dad
watch the kids until they damn near got run over because Dad was
too engrossed in his TV show to realize that the kids were out
playing in the street) and went to work full-time.  When she came
home early one day, having gotten ill at work, and found Dad
playing cutesy games with the housewife from across the street,
she realized exactly what a losing game she was playing, and got
out while she still could.

Not every useless person on the face of the earth has ovaries,
you know.



>twday@worldnet.att.net or twday@netcom.com

Cici in Texas