🚀 go-pugleaf

>> Another shock that might stun the world is that a whole lot of men don't
>> enjoy work and would take the housekeeper option if it offered them
>> anywhere near the kind of security and benifits that it does women.  The
>> joys of working in corporate America (and elsewhere) are grossly
>> overrated by those who don't do it.  There is a reason that men tend to
>> have heart disease much earlier than women, and it isn't that their
>> hearts have withstood too much fun during their careers.

If you don't like your job, you're in the wrong career.
As to men working at home and women going out in the work force,
that's ok too.  Whatever you and your
spouse decide together is great.  But its a good idea to have t his
discussion when you're planning your wedding, not your second child's
birth ;-)




--'Mina--

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

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

Tom Day <twday@netcom.com> wrote in article <twdayE6C80G.I0z@netcom.com>...
> John Dyson (jrdyson@pipeline.com) wrote:
> : This may be a little bit of a shock (and I don't mean that in a smart
way,
> : at all), but there are a LOT of women who ENJOY not having to
work...who
> : enjoy taking care of their own kids, who enjoy being an awesome
housewife
> : and taking care of the home. . .

> Another shock that might stun the world is that a whole lot of men don't
> enjoy work and would take the housekeeper option if it offered them
> anywhere near the kind of security and benifits that it does women.  The
> joys of working in corporate America (and elsewhere) are grossly
> overrated by those who don't do it.  There is a reason that men tend to
> have heart disease much earlier than women, and it isn't that their
> hearts have withstood too much fun during their careers.

I think we're arguing the same point here, in a different way.    :-)


jrdyson@pipeline.com
http://www.pipeline.com/~jrdyson

Gee, what a revelation from Armina.  Thanx.  We middle class divorced Dad's
paying half our pay to our ex for one child will just go back to school,
through the jail system of course.

Larry

>
> If you don't like your job, you're in the wrong career.

Larry Rogers (larry_rogers@dg.com) wrote:
: Gee, what a revelation from Armina.  Thanx.  We middle class divorced Dad's
: paying half our pay to our ex for one child will just go back to school,
: through the jail system of course.

: > If you don't like your job, you're in the wrong career. 

Nah, what she means is that we can quit work, take our time, find 
something "meaningful" to do while our ex-wives support us.  Or maybe she 
means our current wives who refuse to commit to careers that pay more 
than minimum wage.
-- 
========================================== 
T.W. Day               
twday@worldnet.att.net or twday@netcom.com

twday@netcom.com (Tom Day) wrote:

>Larry Rogers (larry_rogers@dg.com) wrote:
>: Gee, what a revelation from Armina.  Thanx.  We middle class divorced Dad's
>: paying half our pay to our ex for one child will just go back to school,
>: through the jail system of course.
You didn't quote anything so Im not sure what you're replying to...
Speaking from my own experience only... I don't get half my ex's pay
(nor do I want it) in c hild support.

>
>: > If you don't like your job, you're in the wrong career.

What I mean here is, if you don't like your job, why did you go into
that field?  I went into the Health care field because I like helping
people who can't help themselves (and I guarantee, it AIN'T for the
pay) If you don't like your job, yes you may pay for it physically.
But it isn't your wife (or ex wife's) fault what career YOU chose to
go into.
What you don't seem to understand is that a lot of women forego a
career for the sake of their marriage and their children.  Not cause
they want to sit home eating bon-bons but because they feel their
marriage and children are important and need their full-time
attention.  Also please note I was speaking of marriages in which
there is a partnership, in which these decisions are made together...
and should be agreed upon even before the marriage takes place.  If
you don't know this much at least about your partner(If they want
children, how they want to raise those children, what are their career
goals, etc), why are you marrying?
>
>Nah, what she means is that we can quit work, take our time, find
>something "meaningful" to do while our ex-wives support us.  Or maybe she
>means our current wives who refuse to commit to careers that pay more
>than minimum wage.

Sounds like  you married great, twice.  Why do you think that is?
Did you ask your present wife, before you married, if she liked her
present job or if she had aspirations to move higher?? Maybe she loves
what she is doing and doesn't want to move.  Doesn't she have that
right?



--'Mina--

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

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

armina@livenet.net wrote:

: What I mean here is, if you don't like your job, why did you go into
: that field? . .

The usual reason, the career I wanted wouldn't pay for a non-working wife 
and two children.  I needed the money, being the sole support of my family.

: What you don't seem to understand is that a lot of women forego a
: career for the sake of their marriage and their children. . .

You can only "forego a career" when you have the skills, initative, 
commitment, and intelligence to have one.  Otherwise, it's just bailing 
out when the going gets tough.  You can only make that choice for the 
sake of the marriage when both members of the marriage are allowed a voice 
in the choice.  That is considerably less common that you may think.  Men 
often give in to their wife's demand that she not be required to return, 
or go in the first place, to work because it's less painful than 
listening to the whining and dealing with the pouting.  That doesn't mean 
they agree with the decision.  

: . . .  Also please note I was speaking of marriages in which
: there is a partnership, in which these decisions are made together...
: and should be agreed upon even before the marriage takes place. . . 

That's a rare situation, I think.  Since nothing decided before marriage 
has any binding force on a wife, you can decide all you want but she can 
do what she wants after the marriage.  We've beaten pre and post nupts 
to death, but the general concensus is that they are worthless.  It's 
cute to believe that you can look into someone's heart and know what is 
there before marriage, but it's not practical.  If the many failures of 
psychology tell us anything, it's that we don't have a clue what others 
are thinking.  Time is the only accurate measure.  Experience is the only 
teacher.

: Sounds like  you married great, twice. . .

You lost me there.  I've only been married once, for 30 years.
-- 
========================================== 
T.W. Day               
twday@worldnet.att.net or twday@netcom.com

In article <331ef6ae.9671228@news.livenet.net>,  <armina@livenet.net> wrote:
>twday@netcom.com (Tom Day) wrote:
>What I mean here is, if you don't like your job, why did you go into
>that field?  I went into the Health care field because I like helping
>people who can't help themselves (and I guarantee, it AIN'T for the pay)

That you chose a fulfilling career is no accident, since you can
demand a certain minimum financial standard from a potential mate,
a standard which does not apply to your own labor. This is hardly
suprising, since our culture permits women this indulgence and
demands that men make up the financial slack.

>If you don't like your job, yes you may pay for it physically.
>But it isn't your wife (or ex wife's) fault what career YOU chose to
>go into.

Your are correct in that it wasn't specifically his *wife* who factored
into his decision; that decision was probably made before he met his wife.
However, what women demand from men in terms of financial success
sure as hell *is* part and parcel of the decision process a man goes
through when deciding what career to pursue, and it would be denying
reality to claim otherwise.

>What you don't seem to understand is that a lot of women forego a
>career for the sake of their marriage and their children.

Again, they do what is fulfilling rather than what is not, because
they can.

>Sounds like  you married great, twice.  Why do you think that is?
>Did you ask your present wife, before you married, if she liked her
>present job or if she had aspirations to move higher?? Maybe she loves
>what she is doing and doesn't want to move.  Doesn't she have that right?

Sure, she can do anything she wants. But if she demands a standard
of financial success from her husband that she does not demand
from herself, she's a greedy hypocrite.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.

In article <twdayE6nKy1.E8K@netcom.com>, Tom Day <twday@netcom.com>
writes
>: . . .  Also please note I was speaking of marriages in which
>: there is a partnership, in which these decisions are made together...
>: and should be agreed upon even before the marriage takes place. . .
>
>That's a rare situation, I think.  Since nothing decided before marriage
>has any binding force on a wife, you can decide all you want but she can
>do what she wants after the marriage.

So can he!

But going back to choosing an unwanted career because it would keep a
non-earning wife, why instead didn't you choose to marry an earning wife
(one who was keen to continue her career with minimal child-care breaks)
and do the career you really wanted?

OK, the way society worked was rather different 30-40 years ago, and it
might not have been easy for you to do as suggested above, but things
are very different now and most young women these days expect that they
will have only a limited non-earning time with young kids at home, maybe
5-10 or years in total during the full length of a marriage. Most young
women now will expect to back in the workforce, at least part time, once
the youngest child is at full-time school, and probably full-time by the
time the youngest child hits adolescence... as a minimum.

The thing is, Tom, the situation has changed and what happened in your
marriage is not the norm for more recent marriages.

--
Pat Winstanley

James Buster wrote:
>
> In article <331ef6ae.9671228@news.livenet.net>,  <armina@livenet.net> wrote:
> >twday@netcom.com (Tom Day) wrote:
> >What I mean here is, if you don't like your job, why did you go into
> >that field?  I went into the Health care field because I like helping
> >people who can't help themselves (and I guarantee, it AIN'T for the pay)
>
> That you chose a fulfilling career is no accident, since you can
> demand a certain minimum financial standard from a potential mate,
> a standard which does not apply to your own labor. This is hardly
> suprising, since our culture permits women this indulgence and
> demands that men make up the financial slack.
>
> >If you don't like your job, yes you may pay for it physically.
> >But it isn't your wife (or ex wife's) fault what career YOU chose to
> >go into.
>
> Your are correct in that it wasn't specifically his *wife* who factored
> into his decision; that decision was probably made before he met his wife.
> However, what women demand from men in terms of financial success
> sure as hell *is* part and parcel of the decision process a man goes
> through when deciding what career to pursue, and it would be denying
> reality to claim otherwise.
>
> >What you don't seem to understand is that a lot of women forego a
> >career for the sake of their marriage and their children.
>
> Again, they do what is fulfilling rather than what is not, because
> they can.
>
> >Sounds like  you married great, twice.  Why do you think that is?
> >Did you ask your present wife, before you married, if she liked her
> >present job or if she had aspirations to move higher?? Maybe she loves
> >what she is doing and doesn't want to move.  Doesn't she have that right?
>
> Sure, she can do anything she wants. But if she demands a standard
> of financial success from her husband that she does not demand
> from herself, she's a greedy hypocrite.
> --
> Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
> atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
> much like Earth.
I work with a guy who was very resentful to his wife for a long time.
They both worked and had bills that two incomes would have to pay for.
Then one day, she just decides to quit her job because she didn't want
to work any more. He had to work as much overtime as the company would
let him work to pay the two income bills. This started about four years
ago, and is still continuing. Sometimes he talks about her as if he
doesn't like her very much.

>That's a rare situation, I think.  Since nothing decided before marriage
>has any binding force on a wife, you can decide all you want but she can
>do what she wants after the marriage.

    Pat> So can he!

On what planet?  He is most likely paying out the bulk of what he
earns in alimony and child support.  If he loves his kids, he is held
captive to the whims of the CP.  How in the freak can he do what he
wants, pray tell Pat?

Larry
--

Pat, read the first paragraph again.  It explicitly says "she can do
what she wants after the marriage".

You said, "So can he".  Then below you say he can only during the
marriage.

What is it. Can he or can't he?  Only is family court knows for sure.

Larry

>>That's a rare situation, I think.  Since nothing decided before
>>marriage has any binding force on a wife, you can decide all you
>>want but she can
>>do what she wants after the marriage.
>
>    Pat> So can he!
>
>On what planet?  He is most likely paying out the bulk of what he
>earns in alimony and child support.  If he loves his kids, he is held
>captive to the whims of the CP.  How in the freak can he do what he
>wants, pray tell Pat?
>

    Pat> After the marriage has begun (before it has ended)!

--

bitbug@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) wrote:

>In article <331ef6ae.9671228@news.livenet.net>,  <armina@livenet.net> wrote:
>>twday@netcom.com (Tom Day) wrote:
>>What I mean here is, if you don't like your job, why did you go into
>>that field?  I went into the Health care field because I like helping
>>people who can't help themselves (and I guarantee, it AIN'T for the pay)
>
>That you chose a fulfilling career is no accident, since you can
>demand a certain minimum financial standard from a potential mate,
>a standard which does not apply to your own labor. This is hardly
>suprising, since our culture permits women this indulgence and
>demands that men make up the financial slack.

I beg your pardon?  I've been a living on my own for
almost 15 years now.  No man is taking up my financial "slack".

>
>>If you don't like your job, yes you may pay for it physically.
>>But it isn't your wife (or ex wife's) fault what career YOU chose to
>>go into.
>
>Your are correct in that it wasn't specifically his *wife* who factored
>into his decision; that decision was probably made before he met his wife.
>However, what women demand from men in terms of financial success
>sure as hell *is* part and parcel of the decision process a man goes
>through when deciding what career to pursue, and it would be denying
>reality to claim otherwise.

You put the priority where it is important to you.
When I married my ex he didnt have a pot to ... well, you know.  *I*
worked to put him thru school, he *wanted* to work in computers and
didn't know the first thing about them.  *I* knew someone at work
who's husband ran a computing business and *I* got him his first job
in computers.  I married him because I loved  him, not because he was
financially successful.   If having a wife who loves  you for YOU is
important to you, then look for one who is capable of that, rather
than the trophy - who I guarantee will expect the finances in that
cold trade-off.
If you expect your partner to become something they aren't because
they marry you,  your marriage is doomed.

>
>>What you don't seem to understand is that a lot of women forego a
>>career for the sake of their marriage and their children.
>
>Again, they do what is fulfilling rather than what is not, because
>they can.

Exactly what both should be doing.  What is fulfilling.
My point being that each should know and understand what the other
feels IS fulfilling BEFORE they marry.  It will have a vast impact on
your life.
>
>>Sounds like  you married great, twice.  Why do you think that is?
>>Did you ask your present wife, before you married, if she liked her
>>present job or if she had aspirations to move higher?? Maybe she loves
>>what she is doing and doesn't want to move.  Doesn't she have that right?
>
>Sure, she can do anything she wants. But if she demands a standard
>of financial success from her husband that she does not demand
>from herself, she's a greedy hypocrite.

No argument there.
The problem with so many marriages is that neither partner really
knows what the other wants... they just assume the other wants the
same thing they do.  Then when they discover that isn't the case, they
are angry and resentful.  And this is true of both.
>

--'Mina--

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

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

In article <LROGERS.97Mar7132637@boris.webo.dg.com>, Larry Rogers
<lrogers@boris.webo.dg.com> writes
>
>>That's a rare situation, I think.  Since nothing decided before marriage
>>has any binding force on a wife, you can decide all you want but she can
>>do what she wants after the marriage.
>
>    Pat> So can he!
>
>On what planet?  He is most likely paying out the bulk of what he
>earns in alimony and child support.  If he loves his kids, he is held
>captive to the whims of the CP.  How in the freak can he do what he
>wants, pray tell Pat?
>

After the marriage has begun (before it has ended)!

--
Pat Winstanley

Then Armina, you agree that no women should be allowed to make a man make up
for her financial slack?

Larry

> I beg your pardon?  I've been a living on my own for
> almost 15 years now.  No man is taking up my financial "slack".

On 7 Mar 97 13:26:37, Larry Rogers wrote:


>>That's a rare situation, I think.  Since nothing decided before marriage
>>has any binding force on a wife, you can decide all you want but she can
>>do what she wants after the marriage.

>    Pat> So can he!

>On what planet?  He is most likely paying out the bulk of what he
>earns in alimony and child support.  If he loves his kids, he is held
>captive to the whims of the CP.  How in the freak can he do what he
>wants, pray tell Pat?

>Larry

Well, I'm not Pat but my response is gee, that's funny, my ex
wasn't paying any child support or alimony when I married him.
Nor was he earning big bucks -- he was an apprentice electrician.
Nor is he paying the bulk of his earnings out in child support --
or ANYTHING in alimony -- NOW.  But that's beside the point,
anyway, because I thought we were talking about *first*
marriages.  Did someone change the subject when I wasn't looking?


Cici in Texas

Spam-Block Alert:  Remove * from email address to reply in email).

In article <LROGERS.97Mar8105538@boris.webo.dg.com>, Larry Rogers
<lrogers@boris.webo.dg.com> writes
>
>Pat, read the first paragraph again.  It explicitly says "she can do
>what she wants after the marriage".
>

You read it again! It doesn't even imply a divorce - just that decisions
made before the wedding are only binding on the husband after the
wedding...

... now if what you really meant referred to before the wedding and
after the divorce, why not say that?

>
>>>That's a rare situation, I think.  Since nothing decided before
>>>marriage has any binding force on a wife, you can decide all you
>>>want but she can
>>>do what she wants after the marriage.
>>
>>    Pat> So can he!

--
Pat Winstanley

So what Cici.  Just cuz your husband is doing ok, doesn't mean many
are not getting raped by the system.  And maybe your state is fair.
Mine certainly is not.

Bottom line, I want to see my son, I have to live where my ex chooses
to live.  If I want custody, I have to pay a fortune to even have a
10% chance of getting it.  If I leave to pursue a new life after being
estranged, I abandoned my kids.  If I get joint physical custody I
still have to pay the same CS to my ex.  Yeah, lots of choices.

Get real.  Men have no say other than how fast they can open their
wallets post divorce.  I never said anything about choice during the
marriage, but such punitive guidelines as many of the bleeding heart
liberal states have give the woman all the cards there too.

Larry

    Cici> Well, I'm not Pat but my response is gee, that's funny, my
    Cici> ex wasn't paying any child support or alimony when I married
    Cici> him.  Nor was he earning big bucks -- he was an apprentice
    Cici> electrician.  Nor is he paying the bulk of his earnings out
    Cici> in child support -- or ANYTHING in alimony -- NOW.  But
    Cici> that's beside the point, anyway, because I thought we were
    Cici> talking about *first* marriages.  Did someone change the
    Cici> subject when I wasn't looking?


    Cici> Cici in Texas

    Cici> Spam-Block Alert: Remove * from email address to reply in
    Cici> email).




--

On 10 Mar 97 12:44:20, Larry Rogers wrote:


>So what Cici.  Just cuz your husband is doing ok, doesn't mean many
>are not getting raped by the system.  And maybe your state is fair.
>Mine certainly is not.

No, my state is not particularly fair.  But *I* am.  My state did
not set the amount of the child support my ex pays -- *we* did.
I guess you've missed my previous posts about this.  Having
worked as a legal secretary, I had seen enough of the system to
know that I did not trust it, and I explained this to my
almost-ex during the divorce process in order to make him
understand why we needed to work these things out ourselves.  The
system *can* work the way it was intended to, but you can't count
on it -- way too often, it just chews people up and spits them
out.  I explained to him that we had two choices -- we could work
things out like civilized adults, or we could spend the next 15
years tearing each other to pieces and giving all our money to
lawyers.  Being no fool, he saw the reasonableness of working
things out between us utilizing *one* lawyer to put everything
into legalese and walk it through the system to get the judge's
signature, and that's what we did.  And *that* is why my
ex-husband is "doing okay" as you put it.

>Bottom line, I want to see my son, I have to live where my ex chooses
>to live.  If I want custody, I have to pay a fortune to even have a
>10% chance of getting it.  If I leave to pursue a new life after being
>estranged, I abandoned my kids.  If I get joint physical custody I
>still have to pay the same CS to my ex.  Yeah, lots of choices.

Not at all, and you'll not find me defending the system as it
exists.

>Get real.  Men have no say other than how fast they can open their
>wallets post divorce.  I never said anything about choice during the
>marriage, but such punitive guidelines as many of the bleeding heart
>liberal states have give the woman all the cards there too.
>Larry

So it seems, from what I've learned here.  Of course, not many
states are really all that 'bleeding-heart-liberal' and there are

quite a few custodial moms out there who are holding pretty
worthless cards, themselves.  The system is *very* selective
about whom it favors, and it goes for the big bucks EVERY TIME.
A custodial mother who is trying to collect outrageous amounts of
child support from an NCP dad who earns a six-figure or
high-five-figure salary actually has a far better chance of
utilizing the system to her advantage than a mom who is trying to
collect a reasonable amount or even a *token* amount.  Now, if
THAT'S not screwy, I don't know what is.


Cici in Texas

(Remove * from email address to reply.)

Cici Clovis wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 97 12:44:20, Larry Rogers wrote:
>
> >So what Cici.  Just cuz your husband is doing ok, doesn't mean many
> >are not getting raped by the system.  And maybe your state is fair.
> >Mine certainly is not.
>
> No, my state is not particularly fair.  But *I* am.  My state did
> not set the amount of the child support my ex pays -- *we* did.
> I guess you've missed my previous posts about this.  Having
> worked as a legal secretary, I had seen enough of the system to
> know that I did not trust it, and I explained this to my
> almost-ex during the divorce process in order to make him
> understand why we needed to work these things out ourselves.  The
> system *can* work the way it was intended to, but you can't count
> on it -- way too often, it just chews people up and spits them
> out.  I explained to him that we had two choices -- we could work
> things out like civilized adults, or we could spend the next 15
> years tearing each other to pieces and giving all our money to
> lawyers.  Being no fool, he saw the reasonableness of working
> things out between us utilizing *one* lawyer to put everything
> into legalese and walk it through the system to get the judge's
> signature, and that's what we did.  And *that* is why my
> ex-husband is "doing okay" as you put it.
>
> >Bottom line, I want to see my son, I have to live where my ex chooses
> >to live.  If I want custody, I have to pay a fortune to even have a
> >10% chance of getting it.  If I leave to pursue a new life after being
> >estranged, I abandoned my kids.  If I get joint physical custody I
> >still have to pay the same CS to my ex.  Yeah, lots of choices.
>
> Not at all, and you'll not find me defending the system as it
> exists.
>
> >Get real.  Men have no say other than how fast they can open their
> >wallets post divorce.  I never said anything about choice during the
> >marriage, but such punitive guidelines as many of the bleeding heart
> >liberal states have give the woman all the cards there too.
> >Larry
>
> So it seems, from what I've learned here.  Of course, not many
> states are really all that 'bleeding-heart-liberal' and there are
>
> quite a few custodial moms out there who are holding pretty
> worthless cards, themselves.  The system is *very* selective
> about whom it favors, and it goes for the big bucks EVERY TIME.
> A custodial mother who is trying to collect outrageous amounts of
> child support from an NCP dad who earns a six-figure or
> high-five-figure salary actually has a far better chance of
> utilizing the system to her advantage than a mom who is trying to
> collect a reasonable amount or even a *token* amount.  Now, if
> THAT'S not screwy, I don't know what is.

One must always look at the results and analyze them.  The results are
what count.  What is said vs what it is when it comes to
CS/custody....are completely different.  When the system is failing in
what it is supposed to accomplish like it does.....protect the best
interest of children......there are two likely explanations.  One is
that the system in place isn't designed to accomplish its objectives.
Two, the objectives of the system are not what is said.  I see no
evidence that the system from beginning to end has anything to do with
the best interest of children.  I know what I think it is set up to
do...how about you???

Greg Palumbo


>
> Cici in Texas
>
> (Remove * from email address to reply.)