Marital Concepts from the 1950s

[truncated]

Lots of things would be nice, here are a few more, only slightly less realistic:

 

"Oh the buzzin' of the bees

In the cigarette trees

Near the soda water fountain

At the lemonade springs

Where the bluebird sings

On the big rock candy mountain

 

There's a lake of gin

We can both jump in

And the handouts grow on bushes

In the new-mown hay

We can sleep all day

And the bars all have free lunches

Where the mail train stops ...."

 

How is it not realistic? it's simple enough, if there is the political will to make it happen.

Fund adequate daycare, provide a tax credit to families, etc.

 

Here, we get the child tax credit and universal child care supplement. Helps a bit, but more would be nice.

 

Some may cite " you;d have to raise taxes to do it", but really, if the government became more efficient and eliminated waste, it would go a long way towards helping foot the bill.

 

We do it with health care, and it works fairly well, not perfectly, but well enough.

[123321]

How is it not realistic? it's simple enough, if there is the political will to make it happen.

Fund adequate daycare, provide a tax credit to families, etc.

 

 

 

Well let me take it a little at a time then.

 

To me, instated of it being men vs. women in parenting and working, shouldn't it be better for a society to try and reach a point where a parent can feel lie they have a choice, and don't feel obligated to either have to work or have to stay at home?

 

First, men would have to stop feeling as if they are being judged and evaluated on how good they are as a earner as a yardstick of their quality as relationship material. We may be making (very slow) advances there overall but it's pretty slow and very much still the case, and likely will be so for the foreseeable future for the most part. It would help a lot if women didn't actually (for the most part, overall) really evaluate this, but they do. It's partly social and partly biological, and it's going to be hard to shake, if it's even possible.

 

Second, to 'feel like they have a choice' we have to either live in a world where one partner is willing and ABLE to support a family in a decent manner. Human nature is to always want to give as much as possible materially to our kids, so it's difficult to imagine a world where, even if a family COULD be supported by one earner (in fact, it's possible NOW, just not often DONE) few people would opt for that choice. I only say this because it's what we do now. The experiment is being run over and over as we speak and the results are very one-sided.

 

The only way to practically 'fix' this would be, as you say, to subsidize raising kids. This disgusts me. I don't mind your lifestyle choices, I expect you to tolerate mine, but when we start saying other people should PAY for the lifestyle we think we deserve, it's truly disgusting. When we force the issue via men with guns, it should be criminal.

 

 

 

They can do what is best for their child, be that mom staying home, dad staying home, or whatever other arrangement is best for the child?

 

The difference between theory and reality is that while they are the same in theory, they differ in reality.

 

I agree the concepts (less the State sanctioned theft) above are good, but I see no reasonable way to ensure many people do so. Except "Near the soda water fountain

At the lemonade springs"

[RedRobin]

Ha, remembering a phrase I heard as a child, and not just from my own mother, but others, when anyone questioned their ostensibly subservient role in the home, specifically 'your father may be the head of the household but I'm the neck and the head turns where I direct it', this generally when I thought, mistakenly, that I could get away with more mischief with mother than father. Indeed, all it took was a quiet word between wife and husband when he got home from work and my goose was cooked

 

Extrapolating, it makes sense that men make up the predominant residents of our prison system since men are the violent and aggressive gender and women, generally, enlist us to perform acts which they are not equipped to do or find distasteful. That's nothing new. Goes back to the 'neck' thing. Know the right sexual or emotional buttons to push in a man and he can function like a programmed robot. Women of the 50's knew this, as all women before them did. It wasn't rocket science.

 

I am glad to live in a time where I can express myself directly... Not have to go through some guy or develop passive aggressive skills because I have no real power... Just the so called power some guy deigns to offer the little wifey so she doesn't feel so bad being the indentured servant.

 

I am glad to have been raised in a family of strong men and women who believed in teamwork.

 

I don't view traditional roles really working for the majority of people... When they have a choice...

[truncated]

Well let me take it a little at a time then.

 

 

 

First, men would have to stop feeling as if they are being judged and evaluated on how good they are as a earner as a yardstick of their quality as relationship material. We may be making (very slow) advances there overall but it's pretty slow and very much still the case, and likely will be so for the foreseeable future for the most part. It would help a lot if women didn't actually (for the most part, overall) really evaluate this, but they do. It's partly social and partly biological, and it's going to be hard to shake, if it's even possible.

 

Second, to 'feel like they have a choice' we have to either live in a world where one partner is willing and ABLE to support a family in a decent manner. Human nature is to always want to give as much as possible materially to our kids, so it's difficult to imagine a world where, even if a family COULD be supported by one earner (in fact, it's possible NOW, just not often DONE) few people would opt for that choice. I only say this because it's what we do now. The experiment is being run over and over as we speak and the results are very one-sided.

 

The only way to practically 'fix' this would be, as you say, to subsidize raising kids. This disgusts me. I don't mind your lifestyle choices, I expect you to tolerate mine, but when we start saying other people should PAY for the lifestyle we think we deserve, it's truly disgusting. When we force the issue via men with guns, it should be criminal.

 

 

 

 

 

The difference between theory and reality is that while they are the same in theory, they differ in reality.

 

I agree the concepts (less the State sanctioned theft) above are good, but I see no reasonable way to ensure many people do so. Except "Near the soda water fountain

At the lemonade springs"

 

 

Not sure where you live, but if that's the way things are where you live , I can assure you, it is very different in other countries.

 

There are men who who do stay at home, and as far as I can tell, no one looks down on them or judges them harshly. Mind you, they could be judging themselves, but if that's the case, that's on them.

 

In my country, either mom or dad are free to be able to stay at home should they wish to do so, and no "men with guns" were needed to make that happen.

 

As for me staying home, I do it because my kids need me to be with them, and to the way of thinking for me and my spouse, that's a hell of a lot more important than whether or not they get the latest gadget or can be involved in every club and extra curricular going. They are involved in some, but not all.

Edited May 26, 2015 by truncated

[123321]

In my country, either mom or dad are free to be able to stay at home should they wish to do so, and no "men with guns" were needed to make that happen.

 

Do they get State funded support or other assistance for the kids, such as tax breaks? If so, men with guns make sure that happens.

[ufo8mycat]

I, too, live in an affluent and progressive area, and it's completely different. Here, dads and moms are both common in the carpool line. A friend just had a baby and I saw her pilot husband yesterday. He'll have about a month of leave for the birth.

 

Our area has a lot of PhDs, academics, tech jobs, etc. Two working parents is common, with both sharing childcare duties.

 

What is important, imo, is for the laws to provide the choice to families for dad to take parental leave, if that is what works for that family. There is no need to make it compulsory or anything. But there is also no need to deny it based on gender.

 

This is common in my area too. Most of my friends have shared the early child raising taking six months off each.

 

I get that TFY has a very traditional view of roles but most men that I know don't want to be slaves to their jobs (even self employed) at the expense of living life. These are all affluent, educated people but the view of Gen Y is different. The idea of only having time to choke down a sandwich for lunch for the next 40 years sounds like hell.

 

Why should men do the heavy lifting when it can be shared. The discussion here is about how feminism only benefits women but in my view, changing perceptions of gender roles gives choices to men and women.

 

But the feeling I get is lots of men don't want the status quo to change. They like it how it is.

[ufo8mycat]

Do they get State funded support or other assistance for the kids, such as tax breaks? If so, men with guns make sure that happens.

 

What does this even mean?

 

Australia has government funded parental leave and many employers offer additional leave. Families are eligible for income tax breaks as well as means tested child care rebates.

 

But who are the men with guns? Defence force sanctioned parental leave?

 

We have some of the tightest gun control laws in the world so I would credit the men and women who vote rather than the men with guns.

 

But maybe thats just a saying in 'murica.

[xxoo]

But the feeling I get is lots of men don't want the status quo to change. They like it how it is.

 

The ones who welcome the change have already changed themselves, Gen Y as an example.

 

It's a sad story now, due to his untimely death, but Sheryl Sandberg of "Lean In" fame and her husband Dave Goldberg were Gen Xers and great advocates of the "peer marriage". Both were high ranking business execs.

[alphamale]

But the feeling I get is lots of men don't want the status quo to change. They like it how it is.

that really hits the nail on the head

[123321]

But who are the men with guns?

 

As a single person, try paying taxes at the reduced married with kids rate and see who they eventually send to collect.

 

*Yes, it means that eventually someone will come and use violence to MAKE you pay, or punish you.

Edited May 27, 2015 by 123321

[ufo8mycat]

As a single person, try paying taxes at the reduced married with kids rate and see who they eventually send to collect.

 

*Yes, it means that eventually someone will come and use violence to MAKE you pay, or punish you.

 

The tax system here is more sophisticated. You pay tax based on your earnings not based on the number of children. You then claim deductions when you lodge your tax return. You get a bill or refund. No guns required to collect monies owed.

 

 

So I think is a uniquely America approach.

[xxoo]

The tax system here is more sophisticated. You pay tax based on your earnings not based on the number of children. You then claim deductions when you lodge your tax return. You get a bill or refund. No guns required to collect monies owed.

 

 

So I think is a uniquely America approach.

 

What you're describing doesn't sound unlike the US system.

 

Ive never heard of gun involvement. Sometimes garnished wages, or a lien on a home I guess.

[RedRobin]

The ones who welcome the change have already changed themselves, Gen Y as an example.

 

It's a sad story now, due to his untimely death, but Sheryl Sandberg of "Lean In" fame and her husband Dave Goldberg were Gen Xers and great advocates of the "peer marriage". Both were high ranking business execs.

 

Great article. Nice to know that 72 percent of those under 30 believe in shared childcare and wage earning.

[123321]

You get a bill or refund. No guns required to collect monies owed.

 

It's so hard to tell disingenuity from the real thing, so I'll explain it simply as I can. If you don't pay, force is used to make you pay, or to convince others (your employers payroll dept, for instance) to do so.

 

The State is the entity that reserves the right to do violence, that's how government works. Taxes are, ultimately, taken by force. If the cause is just, that's justifiable use of force, if the cause is not (if the citizens are being pillaged) it is not. Forcing others to pay for my lifestyle choices is wrong, and if the government taxes to do this, it is using force unjustly.

 

 

Shorthand for this: "they will send men with guns".

[thefooloftheyear]

This is common in my area too. Most of my friends have shared the early child raising taking six months off each.

 

I get that TFY has a very traditional view of roles but most men that I know don't want to be slaves to their jobs (even self employed) at the expense of living life. These are all affluent, educated people but the view of Gen Y is different. The idea of only having time to choke down a sandwich for lunch for the next 40 years sounds like hell.

 

Why should men do the heavy lifting when it can be shared. The discussion here is about how feminism only benefits women but in my view, changing perceptions of gender roles gives choices to men and women.

 

But the feeling I get is lots of men don't want the status quo to change. They like it how it is.

 

And the women don't want the status quo regarding divorce laws to change either...They still want the right to take the guy to the cleaners..

 

Most men that I know are big providers and gladly accept the role...We don't want our kids raised by a bunch of strangers....Ive made a comfortable life for my family and my daughters life is completely set at the ripe old age of 12...Don't be too concerned with my quality of life...I'm fine..

 

Choking down a lunch break ain't shyt....I'm thrilled to death that I don't have some stupid Dilbert 9-5 job where I take breaks like a sheep and hope for some Mickey Mouse raise I might get....Oh boy....a week off so I can sit at home and play X box....whoopee..!!

 

No effin thanks...

 

If you ask most men and they don't have their balls in their wives pockets, they'll be honest enough to answer that they don't posess the same nurturing and patient way needed for proper care of an infant...And the last time I checked, we cant breast feed, either...

 

So while you go off to work, just make sure he doesn't fall asleep in his bowl of Cheerios and cause some catastrophic situation, God forbid..

 

All tongue and cheek aside, if it works for y'all, great..Good for you...Maybe there is a reason though that guys dont want a status quo change...just maybe...

 

 

 

TFY

[xxoo]

...

 

If you ask most men and they don't have their balls in their wives pockets, they'll be honest enough to answer that they don't posess the same nurturing and patient way needed for proper care of an infant...And the last time I checked, we cant breast feed, either...

 

So while you go off to work, just make sure he doesn't fall asleep in his bowl of Cheerios and cause some catastrophic situation, God forbid..

 

All tongue and cheek aside, if it works for y'all, great..Good for you...Maybe there is a reason though that guys And the women don't want the status quo regarding divorce laws to change either...They still want the right to take the guy to the cleaners..

ine.. want a status quo change...just maybe...

 

 

 

TFY

 

The point is, not all women are fulfilled by staying home with kids, either. And women are high wage earners these days. A man could sue for support.

 

Having an unemployed partner raises the risk of paying support. Sharing the wage earning lowers or negates the risk.

[123321]

The point is, not all women are fulfilled by staying home with kids, either. And women are high wage earners these days. A man could sue for support.

 

Having an unemployed partner raises the risk of paying support. Sharing the wage earning lowers or negates the risk.

 

Spousal support. Typically someone with a penis is going to pay child support, with just enough exceptions to prove the rule.

 

Which is OK if it were computed fairly, after all one of the purposes of the marriage contract is to forge the couple into a single child producing unit. If the unit breaks the original purpose still holds for any kids that were produced.

 

 

Which is why (1) we don't need marriage as a legal construct any more, and (2) same sex marriage is a goofy concept.

[RedRobin]

For the record, my current BF and the one before him split the custody of their kids 50/50 and neither of them pay child support or alimony.

 

Both of their wives worked.

 

People should read the article xoxo posted. It talks about the beneficial effects of peer marriage on kids.

[xxoo]

Spousal support. Typically someone with a penis is going to pay child support, with just enough exceptions to prove the rule.

 

Which is OK if it were computed fairly, after all one of the purposes of the marriage contract is to forge the couple into a single child producing unit. If the unit breaks the original purpose still holds for any kids that were produced.

 

 

Which is why (1) we don't need marriage as a legal construct any more, and (2) same sex marriage is a goofy concept.

 

I'm familiar with spousal support.

 

But in the divorces I've personally witnessed, with two working spouses, it hasn't been a factor. And 50/50 custody is common among my kids' friends from divorced homes, unless one parent is completely out of the picture.

[Woggle]

I see the feminists in this thread are pro fatherhood but other places they seem to men as nothing more than sperm donors and walking wallets. The attitude seems to be that men should donate the sperm and in some cases send the check but otherwise stay out of it. I heard one comment that said once the seeds are planted you throw away the bag.

 

If more feminists supported fatherhood I am sure the backlash wouldn't be nearly as strong.

[thefooloftheyear]

For the record, my current BF and the one before him split the custody of their kids 50/50 and neither of them pay child support or alimony.

 

Both of their wives worked.

 

People should read the article xoxo posted. It talks about the beneficial effects of peer marriage on kids.

 

 

More than likely because they were broke and weren't worth shyt....otherwise they'd be paying..My guess it wasn't out of some enlightened sense of paternal duty on their part...but ill just say its a hunch..

 

So, as a result, they have to watch the kids...

 

Just a guess here,,,

 

TFY

Edited May 27, 2015 by thefooloftheyear

[thefooloftheyear]

I see the feminists in this thread are pro fatherhood but other places they seem to men as nothing more than sperm donors and walking wallets. The attitude seems to be that men should donate the sperm and in some cases send the check but otherwise stay out of it. I heard one comment that said once the seeds are planted you throw away the bag.

 

If more feminists supported fatherhood I am sure the backlash wouldn't be nearly as strong.

 

If you haven't figured it out yet, feminists cherry pick and morph how they apply the ideology, and do so only when it advances their cause...be it fair or not...

 

TFY

[Sassy Girl]

What does this even mean?

 

Australia has government funded parental leave and many employers offer additional leave. Families are eligible for income tax breaks as well as means tested child care rebates.

 

But who are the men with guns? Defence force sanctioned parental leave?

 

We have some of the tightest gun control laws in the world so I would credit the men and women who vote rather than the men with guns.

 

But maybe thats just a saying in 'murica.

 

Can I 'like' this a gazillion times?

[ufo8mycat]

I'm familiar with spousal support.

 

But in the divorces I've personally witnessed, with two working spouses, it hasn't been a factor. And 50/50 custody is common among my kids' friends from divorced homes, unless one parent is completely out of the picture.

 

I am in the process of separating from my husband and I generally don't understand this "taking to the cleaners" business. We both worked. When my parents separated by mum got half of everything as she raised the kids while dad worked. It was considered 50/50.

 

But we don't have alimony - only property settlement and child support.

 

For us, we will be splitting assets 50/50. Which isn't entirely fair given that he built the debt while I built the assets but the law is disinterested and it doesn't really matter what I think. All assets and debt collected during the marriage is split 50/50 unless there is some factor otherwise such as assets brought into the partnership.

 

There are significant advantages to negotiating settlement and custody arrangements outside the family court system.

[RedRobin]

More than likely because they were broke and weren't worth shyt....otherwise they'd be paying..My guess it wasn't out of some enlightened sense of paternal duty on their part...but ill just say its a hunch..

 

So, as a result, they have to watch the kids...

 

Just a guess here,,,

 

TFY

 

No, they both really want to be a part of their children's lives... And they were during the marriage too. Believe it or not. Some men actually want to be dads.

 

Not the 'fun time' dad who is just around every other weekend or so, or shows up once in awhile for junior's school play. I have no respect for those men. Regardless of their earning power.