Well as usual I went back to find the old post about the study I mentioned earlier and found another interesting post and discussion with some of the principals involved, so here it is...
I realize after finding this post that my blog is FIVE YEARS OLD this month...
I think of it as quite an accomplishment, all things considered.
I'll continue looking for that other study but keep in mind I have five years worth of posts to dig through...
But never fear I will find it...
BTW, hope everyone (including everyone I disagree with) has a lovely Thanksgiving.
Enjoy!!!
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2004
AND They Wonder Why Women Do NOT want to Have Children Anymore...
This sort of ruling (which by the way goes on continuously) is clearly discriminatory against women...
I've been reading a lot lately about how women are having so few children that western societies are facing many serious problems in the future due to our current low reproductive ratio...WELL here's another good example of why women DO NOT wish to take the 'leap of faith' involved in having children...
First of all this father should NEVER have been given physical custody to begin with as it's clear that an active duty member of the military can be deployed AT ANY TIME...ANYTIME...and countless women in the military, countless, LOSE custody for this very reason CONSTANTLY... with Judges claiming that the military lifestyle is too unstable to support single parenting.
Actually threats of losing custody appears to NOW be commonly used as a weapon against women in the military as a way to drive single mothers out of the services...
Perhaps single mothers SHOULD NOT be in the service, but that's a different issue and should be openly discussed and addressed w/o dragging these bias issues into it...
However this nonsense of a DOUBLE standard for men who deploy should be addressed and STOPPED immediately as when men deploy, children should be sent immediately to go live with their non-custodial mothers and NOT be dumped off on grandparents and certainly NOT a female step-person EVER...JUST THE SAME AS COURT RULE WHEN CUSTODIAL MOTHERS IN THE MILITARY ARE DEPLOYED...THE SAME WAY...
Clearly this is NOTHING but an attempt by men in the military to avoid paying child support while they are deployed and certainly NOT in childrens' best interest...
It's simply outrageous that these Judges should be helping them get away with this, simply outrageous...
I couldn't fit the entire decision here but just enough to show the sheer outrageousness of the ruling; and another reason WHY women must begin to get involved in politics, particularly the election and/or appointments of Judges to Federal courts...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 4-468 / 03-2100
Filed November 15, 2004
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF MICHAEL GRANTHAM and TAMMARA SUE GRANTHAM
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for ButlerCounty, Paul W. Riffel, Judge.
Michael Grantham appeals the judgment of the district court modifying the decree dissolving his marriage to Tammara Sue Grantham.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel, Zimmer, Hecht, and Eisenhauer,
JJ.VOGEL, J.In this appeal, we consider the implication of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (SSCRA), 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 501-591, when a parent, enjoying physical care of his minor children under a decree of dissolution, is called to active military duty. We conclude the district court erred in not granting a stay of the modification proceedings pursuant to this Act and further erred in entering a temporary change of physical care on a petition to modify.
Additionally, upon our de novo review, we find no permanent and substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of physical care.
Therefore, we reverse and remand.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Michael Grantham’s and Tammara Sue Grantham’s marriage was dissolved on July 11, 2000. The stipulated decree provided for joint custody of their two minor children, then ages ten and six,
...with physical care to Michael...
In mid-August 2002, Tammara was informed by one of the children that Michael,
a National Guard member for over eighteen years,
had been called to active duty and that the children would be residing
with Michael’s mother, Irmgard Grantham. Michael was officially called to active duty on August 21, 2002, and reported to his unit’s armory on August 24. He returned home on a short leave on August 27. While home on leave, Michael reviewed his existing “Family Care Plan” with his lawyer and mother and executed the documents necessary to allow Irmgard, who had been a frequent care giver of the children, to care for the children in his absence[1].
A Family Care Plan is prepared as a part of a soldier’s regular duties and is meant to provide for the care of a soldier’s family.[2] A Family Care Plan is required by military regulation and reviewed when a soldier is called up for active duty.[3] An existing Family Care Plan may be changed; it is not set in stone.[4] A soldier is not deployable until a Family Care Plan is validated and approved, and only the soldier’s commander may approve a Family Care Plan.[5]
Also on August 27, 2002, Michael and his attorney met with Tammara and her attorney at her attorney’s office in Waverly, Iowa. Discussed at this meeting was the possibility of Tammara caring for the children in Michael’s absence instead of Irmgard. Tammara’s lawyer subsequently drafted a proposed stipulated agreement providing for this arrangement, which was provided to Michael later that day.
The following day, Michael returned to National Guard duty at Camp Dodge in Des Moines. After reviewing the proposed agreement with his JAG (Judge Advocate General’s Corps) officer, Michael decided not to enter into the agreement. On August 29, Michael was counseled by his commander on his responsibilities to the military and to his family and Michael filled out a new DA Form 5305-R (Family Care Plan) which provided that Irmgard would care for the children in his absence. Later that same day, Michael’s commander reviewed and approved the Plan.
On September 4, Tammara filed a petition seeking physical care of the children, temporary and permanent support, and suspension of her child support obligations. On the same day, Tammara obtained an ex parte order from the district court setting a hearing on her requests for temporary relief for September 20. Michael was served with the Petition on September 5 while at his unit’s armory in Estherville, Iowa. On September 7, Michael left with his unit for Fort Knox, Kentucky. On September 10, Michael filed a motion requesting a stay of the proceedings pursuant to the SSCRA. No hearing was set on Michael’s motion. On September 20, in his absence, a hearing on temporary placement and child support was held. Although not scheduled, the Court also took up the issue of Michael’s request for a stay at this hearing. Michael’s counsel made a professional statement indicating that Michael was not able to attend the hearing due to his military duties and offered to call his commander to verify this statement.
In a ruling filed October 3, the district court denied Michael’s request for a stay and set a scheduling conference for October 10. The district court based its decision on its finding that [t]he record herein fails to reflect that [Michael] made any showing for a stay other than to state in his unverified filing on September 10, 2002 that he had been placed on active duty and could not appear in court. The record does not reflect by affidavit or otherwise that the Petitioner made any effort to obtain a leave of absence to enable him to be present at the hearing or made any effort to participate telephonically in the scheduled hearing.
Additionally, the record reflects that the Petitioner
acted in bad faith in attempting to exercise his rights under the act by deceiving the Respondent into believing that he was making a good faith effort to reach an agreement when in fact he had no intention of doing so and was merely delaying matter until he had to report for active duty.
The October 10 scheduling conference was held without Michael present and reset the hearing on temporary matters for October 29. Michael, although he was represented by counsel, was unable to participate in the October 29 hearing because of his continuing military duties. At that hearing, Michael’s attorney again sought a stay under the SSCRA and in support thereof filed an affidavit and a letter from Michael’s commander stating that Michael could not attend the proceedings. Michael also moved to continue to a time when he could participate in the hearing. He further moved to dismiss on the grounds that there is no temporary custody remedy available in Iowa Code chapter 598 (2001) for modification proceedings.
On October 30, the district court entered an order denying these motions, temporarily placing the children with Tammara, terminating her support obligation, and requiring Michael to pay child support.
In so doing, the district court did not rule on the merits of Michael’s reapplication for a stay, instead stating that it would not “take issue with [the October 3] ruling” on this matter.Michael sought discretionary review from the Iowa Supreme Court and requested a temporary stay. A stay was granted on November 1. However, on November 8, the court denied discretionary review and vacated the stay. Although Michael was technically on active duty until September 2, 2003, he had returned home early in August 2003 and trial on the merits of the petition for modification was held shortly thereafter, on August 27.
In its subsequent ruling, filed on November 19, the district court granted the relief requested in Tammara’s petition changing physical care of the children to her and entering related orders of visitation and child support.
Michael appeals this ruling and each and every other order therein, contending: First, the district court erred in not staying the proceedings leading up to the November 19, 2003, judgment as required by the SSCRA. Second, the district court erred in entering a temporary change of physical care order on Tammara’s petition for modification. Third, no permanent change in circumstances existed justifying the district court’s change of physical care of the children to Tammara.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by NYMOM | Friday, November 19, 2004
28 Comments:
Anonymous said...
I think there had to be a reason to have the children placed with the father in the first place and also I think that the mother used the activation of the father to her advantage to gain the children. While having the father at a disadvantage it was the best time for her to get what she wanted. If she would have done this any other time she would not have has any grounds to get the children in her placement.
She has stated in the court records that the father was a good father to the children and never denied her any of her visitations. Maybe this is all about her and not the children.
11:15 PM
NYMOM said...
"the mother used the activation of the father to gain the children..."
AND...
What's wrong with that?
I mean are you a mother? Would you want your children with you???
I mean you are saying this she wanted to 'gain' her children like there is something wrong with her wanting her children to be with her...whereas it's perfectly NORMAL for mothers to want their children with them...and the day they STOP wanting that, is when we need to worry because then we just go extinct...
Okay...
So quit talking such nonsense.
9:43 AM
Anonymous said...
Your are right and that is what the problem is.
She never wanted both of the childred in the first place and now she does. The courts thru out the letter that stated that The Children are better off with Mike and not with her. She wanted to be single again and play around and the children would be in her way. So the father had to take care of the children at there younger stage of their lives and now that they are old enough to take care of themselves in when she wants them. To me that is not a good mother and she still don't take them to places they need to go. She has others take the kids every where or hands them off to people because they will be in the way of what she wants to do
10:36 AM
NYMOM said...
Well if you know the people personally then I'll defer to your opinion in this case...HOWEVER, it doesn't change my mind about the basic premise here which is that when a custodial parent is deployed, unless there is a darn good reason, the children should THEN be sent to live with the non-custodial parent...
This decision ruled that being deployed, even for years, did NOT constitute a change in circumstancs which is ridiculous as it means that children could be dumped all over the place as the custodial parent deploys, but refuses to send the children back to live with the non-custodial parents...
Probably trying to avoid paying child support during deployment... and THIS is wrong and should NOT be encouraged by the courts...
This was a BAD ruling...
10:44 AM
JB Opheim said...
Apparently you know nothing about the Military or the soldiers and sailors releif act. I have been deployed with many soldiers who have their wages garnished so that that the child support is paid. I am one of those soldiers. getting deployed is not going to stop your child support and the ssra has nothing to do with protecting the soldier from paying his child support. The Military frowns on deadbeat parents and totally supports the rights of the children.Its not the point that there is something wrong with her wanting her children , but using his deployment as a crutch to get them back after they were obviously given to him for good reason is wrong. I pay my child support every month in good faith and spend plenty of time with them. It sounds to me that you feel Mothers are far more important in a childs life than the Father it that kind of thinking that is destoying our youth
5:01 PM
NYMOM said...
Well yes, I do happen to think that mothers are more significant vis-a-vis children and should be as they invest more in just giving them life...
Why should a father who invests NOTHING in bringing children forth be given the exact same standing as mother...it's just male jealousy and selfishness that is leading to this...
If it continues women won't be wanting to have children anymore and then what...Western civilization is already heading into extinction due to male selfishness...and you're a perfect example of it...
5:08 PM
NYMOM said...
BTW, this selfish man was dumping his children off on his mother anyway which the court papers stated he did very frequently...So why should a mother be w/o her children so he could dump them off with his mother again...
Why, to avoid paying child support obviously...it's simply disgraceful that you men in uniform are allowed to play these games with childrens' lives anyway...simply disgraceful...
5:10 PM
Anonymous said...
I think that you are getting this all twisted. It is the mother that dumps the kids off to who ever will watch them not the father. When the father has the kids he does not dump them off to anyone. If the father has things to do he does it with the kids.
and also the fathers in todays world are just as important in the kids life as the mother.
5:59 PM
NYMOM said...
No...you are getting it all twisted...
1. This is a site for mothers ONLY...get it...not for fathers deployed or otherwise...
Okay...
2. The court papers clearly stated that the father left the children with his mother ALL THE TIME...that was the basis for them saying deployment did NOT constitute a change in circumstances...a twisted interpretation if I ever heard one...
3. Did you even read the actual decision? Since I posted JUST a part of it here...so you need to go back and read the whole thing so you know what you are talking about...
4. NO...I do NOT agree that fathers are as important as mothers thus the creation of this blog...if you don't like it, start your own...
Okay...
Thanks.
6:09 PM
Anonymous said...
I do know what I am talking about and that is right you only have a small portion of the story and I have about 8,000 sheets of paper to that I have read. So I have the whole story.
and If this is for woman only then I would suggest taking this story off your web site
because this story is all about me and I want it off here is you are going to use that tone.
6:16 PM
NYMOM said...
No...
I'm not taking it off this website...
That ruling was public record and I'm leaving it right here so mothers can see exactly what goes on with fathers like this pulling all kinds of stunts to get out of paying child support probably...even the Judge who originally awarded the mother custody said the father acted in bad faith, pretending he was going to review her request for the children to be with her while he was deployed and then disappearing until he actually was deployed so he could then say no change in custody was allowed under that Soldiers and Sailors act you just quoted...
It was an extremely devious act of trickery which lucky the first Judge saw right through...
Unfortunately for this poor mother and her children however the higher court reversed the decision and allowed the deceitfulness of a father to be rewarded...
Again, simply disgracefull....
NOW GET OFF MY BLOG...
7:19 PM
Anonymous said...
so you are telling me that I did not pay? I suppose that is why she owes me money yet from the time I had the kids with me. Now that is not paying Child support.
and by the way if my name is public then your sight is too and I can be on here all I want
12:36 AM
NYMOM said...
Sorry, yes you can stay to discuss this further if you wish...
You just caught me on a bad day and this post was so old I wasn't ever expecting any responses to it after all this time, so you caught me by surprise.
Anyway, I'm sorry that I was so harsh...
Look, I really know neither one of you obviously but my central POINT was that the ruling by the Judge was NOT a good one for other parents in your situation... that was my point...whether or not she paid or you paid was not really an issue, so I shouldn't have brought it up...
You won your appeal so I assume the children are with your mother and your ex has visitation or did the first Judge find another reason during the remand to award the mother custody anyway????
Are you still deployed btw?
You see my basic problem with the ruling (over and above the fact that I consider myself to be an advocate for mothers and considered the ruling very anti-mother) is that it would make it virtually impossible for any non-custodial parent to have custody of their own kids if the custodial parent is deployed...even if the deployment lasted for years.
I mean the appeals court claimed that because you left the children frequently with your mother that no substantial change of circumstances would occur if you decided to let them live with your mother while you were being deployed...thus, what's to stop ANY court from using that logic for any deployment situation...and I can see where kids could be left with girlfriends, boyfriends, friendly neighbors, steppersons, etc., for very long periods of time under that ruling...and it would clearly be an erosion of parental rights by the states to allow that to happen...
The non-custodial parent in ANY deployment situation should AUTOMATICALLY be the default custodial parent unless extraordinary circumstances exist and that should be a burden that the deployed custodial parent should be forced to prove...not the other way around...
People need to think about these things when they take these cases to court and how a ruling like yours could impact future situations involving children and deployed parents. Why didn't you just offer your ex Joint Custody with your mother? That might have satisfed her and saved everyone a lot of trouble which this new ruling, if not overturned by a higher court and I assumed it wasn't, could cause people...
2:50 AM
Mike said...
Thanks for being more understanding,
I have had Joint Custody with her and before my deployment I had placement. After being Deployed the courts gave her placement and I have not had anything since and now I will not have placement again. Unless my kids elect to live with me. That is what my boy is talking about now.
The only reason I was willing to have my mother take the kids during my deployment was to make it easy on them and everyone. I had a gut feeling what she would do if I left the kids with the ex. After the court gave her the kid it all came true. I had a very hard time talking with the kids and seeing them on my time off. The kids had a calling card and when It ran out she wanted me to buy them new ones and everything else was at my expence and she was getting about $800 a month support for the kids and did not spend it on them. and I still have problems with her.
The thing that bugs me is that people like her can ly in court and get away with it and don't feel bad about it. I could not live with my self if I did that.
Now that the supreme court ruled like this, it just opened it up to other to do the same whether it is male or female.
I hope that it don't happen to others.
6:18 PM
NYMOM said...
"Now that the supreme court ruled like this, it just opened it up to other to do the same whether it is male or female.
I hope that it don't happen to others."
I don't understand however the ruling I posted overturned the first Judge's change of custody to her and placed the kids back with you...it claimed that you putting the kids with your mother while you deployed was NOT a significant change of circumstances that warranted a change in custody...
So did she appeal it and to what court...as wasn't your appeal the final state appeal allowed????
12:23 AM
Anonymous said...
She had the Iowa Supreme Court Review the Iowa Court of Appeals outcome and the Iowa Supreme Court reversed it and gave her the kids
4:55 PM
NYMOM said...
Okay now I understand...
I do feel that this was the correct decision and I think if you stop for a moment and think about it, you'd agree...however, I don't understand why you pay such high child support to her; $800 monthly on a soldier's wages is a LOT...
Can't you get that modified downward until you are back?
Also isn't this temporary custody ONLY...since as I understood the intial ruling was temporary custody with her until you got home and then it was open for review at that time...
Which is fair...
I mean even if you don't get primary placement back, doesn't your state have the designation of Joint Legal and Physical Custody where BOTH parents have the children for equal parenting time...
Frankly I don't know why you didn't go for this sort of compromise to begin with, where her and your mother SHARED Joint Physical...At that time she probably would have accepted that and then you could have just sent your mother money for the parenting times the children were with her and your ex would have paid the childrens' expenses during her parenting times...
So neither one of you would have been paying child support to the other...just supporting your kids via the parenting agreement when they were in the different households...
I think this could still be a possibility when you get back as few courts would punish a veteran for being deployed; by making him totally uncustodial once he was back home...
Think about it anyway...sometimes people are more reasonable then you think and everything does NOT have to go through the courts...sometimes you can negotiate...
Just because your ex was irresponsible when the children were young, doesn't mean that NO redemption is possible for her NOW...People change as they age and she might be a loving mother, and more responsible person NOW then she was at the time of your divorce...thus there remains the possibility that BOTH of you can work together when you get home to raise your children...
After all you want your children to see an example of adults working things out, not having to enter court to settle things ALL the time...remember 50% of first marriages end in divorce today so when your children get married (and hopefully they will) you'll want to have set an example for them that no matter what happens, adults can always discuss these issues and come to logical decisions...everything does NOT have to be court ordered for people to do the right thing does it?
Anyway, last point...although I disagreed with the President's decision to go to war in Iraq I support all military persons involved in this 100% and just want to personally thank you for taking on the burdens imposed by this war upon you...
I will continue to hope that you return safely home and that you are able to convince your ex that custody should be shared between you and her...as it would be unfair for you to be relegated to being a visitor in your child's life just because you were called to serve your country.
Anyway, good luck...stay safe...
9:33 PM
mike said...
I have been home since sept 2003 and that is when the courts gave her full physical custody and Nov.15 2004 the Iowa Appeals Court reverted and remended which was good for me and other soldiers like me, but the Iowa Supreme court sided with the District Courts which was not good for me.
My mother only was going to take care of the kids when I was gone for that year. I gave my mother full legal rights to all my income, so she could support the kids when I was gone and nothing change for the ex. I was like my mother was me for a year. The ex had all her rights for the kids just like I was home. She had every Wed. and every other weekend and 4 weeks when ever it worked out for her. Nothing would change but the house and who was in the house. It was supposed to be a disruptive as posible. Well as you can tell that did not work for her and that is when it all started. She went to court for this.
7:11 AM
NYMOM said...
Well I hate to say it but yes, I can see it...
Women don't have children to see them EOW weekend and on Wednesday and once women realize this is what could happen, they'll stop having children...it's that simple...Just as women have abortions rather then carry a child to term to give up for adoption...
It's the same principle...
We CANNOT continue doing this to women as few will have kids and then what happens?
Then we're heading into extinction.
Sorry, it's just the way it is...
9:14 AM
Anonymous said...
"Women don't have children to see them EOW weekend and on Wednesday and once women realize this is what could happen, they'll stop having children...it's that simple..."
Yes, it's that simple. And it's the same reason by which men will stop having children.
"Just as women have abortions rather then carry a child to term to give up for adoption..."
"Mine or nobody else's". Great justification for a murder.
9:03 PM
NYMOM said...
"Yes, it's that simple. And it's the same reason by which men will stop having children."
Men don't have children...or must I conduct a simple biology class for you too now...
11:44 PM
Anonymous said...
"Men don't have children...or must I conduct a simple biology class for you too now..."
Ok, then leave men alone and go and have children all by yourself.
9:14 AM
Anonymous said...
I am in the military presently and after reading this ruling of Mike losing sole conservatorship over his children after being activated to service his country, I am making plans to get out. I am sole conservator of my two boys and there is no way in hell I will leave custody to their father. I have been divorsed for 5 years and he has not paid a single cent of child support for his children. he doesnot even offer any help. He is always unemployeed. I feel that Mike had all rights to give his mother TEMP CUSTODY. I personally now his ex and she would either leave the kids with who ever. These kids at a very young age were seen several time running around town unsupervised. This was when she had them for the weekend. Then she would go out whoring around. Plus she hardly ever paid her portion (little) support she was suppose to pay. Now that she is living with a man that is abusive to the boy she wants custody and Mike to pay support. I think this is all wrong. It is suppose to be in the well being of the children. She disrupted the kids living environment, pulling them out of school where they have gone to for a long time and moved them to a schoool where they do not like. t is all wrong.
7:48 PM
mike said...
This is interesting for another to say stuff like that. Now the boy wants to live with me but the ex will not allow him to and all she does it drags this out so he can't play sports or live with me.
I would really like for you to contact my lawyer and tell him what you see. Maybe things will work out
1:22 PM
NYMOM said...
Well this is a totally different story as neglect or abuse should ALWAYS be grounds for losing custody.
Unfortunately that wasn't the original issue that this post was about and the father in this case, 'Mike' as you call him NEVER mentioned abuse. This was strictly a case about deployment and whether or not it constituted a change in circumstance which warranted a switch in custody to the other parent. I still say it does and so does the court.
AND no, I do not agree with you that the custodial parent has the right to decide that they can just hand their kids off to someone other then the other parent when they deploy. Sorry but that should NOT be allowed.
So in your case, if you do NOT wish to be deployed and have to hand your kids over to what you paint as an uncaring father, then yes, you should leave the military. Actually I'm surprised this did NOT occur to you before now; as why would you risk your children winding up in a situation where they would have to live with an uncaring person??? You should have taken EXTRA care with your occupation knowing their father didn't care about them to ensure they would never face the situation Mike's children are currently in.
What were you thinking???
I have to be honest I consider it somewhat irresponsible for PARENTS to be in the military; as you can be deployed at ANY time and these are the sorts of situations that your children face when this deployment business happens.
Actually you might not even be able to get out of the military right away now because we are at war. So you have placed your children at risk. Same with Mike. According to you his son is running unsupervised all over the place now because he didn't properly plan his life and factor in what COULD happen to his children in the event of deployment.
When you are responsible for children there are MANY things you can no longer do. Dangerous professions, jobs that require a lot of travel or staying out late and probably the military because of the threat of deployment at ANYTIME...ANYTIME...
This is why traditionally the best parent was probably the most boring parent, who was at home with no life or interests of their own, just hanging around the house, cooking, cleaning and planning their lives around their kids' schedule.
Sorry, but I find that people who have fantastically interesting and busy lives generally don't make very good mothers and that's what children ultimately NEED. That boring person, with nothing very interesting going on in her own life so she fixiates on her childrens' lives and makes their life better at the cost of her own.
Our children suffer when we get away from this model.
All I can say to you two now is good luck with straightening out your situations. Hopefully your children won't suffer too much until that happens. Sorry.
12:02 PM
Anonymous said...
You seem to forget that we are divorced and do not have the option to stay home and be a boring parent. Do not tell me that i am not a good parent because I am out in the real world by myself with 2 kids to support. I make good decision in the best interest of my children. You are completely out of line. You must have been that boring parent that stays home and sits infront of the TV while your kids are out running the neighborhood unsupervised. My life revolves around my children. If you asked them they will tell you that I attend every school event, feed them, cloth them, bath them, entertain them. And for me to do all this I do have to sacrafice a lot of time with them to have 3 jobs to support them. Once again I am doing this all on my own w/o support and family help. Yes the military is my decision but I made that decision before kids. It is a job just like any other, but we are fighting for YOUR freedom.
8:08 AM
Anonymous said...
First off let me say that I am a single father and parent to a 15 year old boy.
I have been in and out of Court for the last 12 years for various custody arrangements. Mother and I disagree on parenting styles.
As I read both Mothers rights and Fathers rights oriented material frequently and I find it curious that throughout history the legalities of custody are always pitting Mothers and Fathers. There are periods in history where Mothers get custody 9 out of 10 times and there are times when the opposite is true.
We as parents need to ask ourselves why the Courts cannot or will not allow both parents to have equal rights to their children as the standard.
Perhaps if Mothers and Fathers could agree instead of fighting over custody we would need less Courtrooms.
12:39 PM
NYMOM said...
EVERY period of history has given all mothers defacto custody of any and all young. How could it be otherwise???? We would have died out long ago as a people if this were not the case as men would probably have eaten any young produced by women like bears do...
Recently men have given themselves legal custody of children to control their estates and property but that's relatively recent in human history.
Anyway, we are not making the same contribution, taking the same risk, making the same investment in children, so why in the world would men think they should have the same rights as mothers do?
This is what I don't understand????
You've given yourself these rights through these phony legal concepts men have created to benefit themselves, but they have no basis in natural law.
You've rigged the jury in other words and only get away with this because women don't have the power to stop you. But if you were doing this to each other, there would have been war over it already as men kill each other every day over far less infringement on their rights, far less. You kill each other over who can plant an olive tree on a piece of land yet think it's okay to lay claim to some mother's baby??? You're lucky women have no power, just lucky...
As the system you have rigged is by no means, natural or fair.
8:21 PM
Post a Comment
52 comments:
Rather long thread and I'll read it in more detail later (I have pre-thanksgiving festivities) but want to remind NYMOM of the irony of her accusing men of seeking custody only to avoid CS when Genia Shockhome in "well, this is no surprise" quit her lucrative job simply to avoid paying CS to a man and it backfired on her.
I don't understand something here. How is the father motivated to retain custody to "avoid paying child support" and "disgraceful" when the mother did the EXACT SAME THING?
"On September 4, Tammara filed a petition seeking physical care of the children, temporary and permanent support, and suspension of her child support obligations."
NYMOM claims: "countless women in the military, countless, LOSE custody for this very reason CONSTANTLY..."
This is a specious claim. "Countless" literally means you haven't counted. It could be any number between 1 and infinity. I have countless women who think I'm more handsome than Brad Pitt, for example.
It's an interesting topic for you to claim that men don't deserve access to women's children. In the case of men, we are all obligated to register for selective service while women choosing to have babies do so for personal reason. Comparing servicemen who put their lives on the line for their country to women who often put children in harms' way and then use them as hostages to get welfare and "child" support is amazing, to put it mildly.
You don't have to ask me to take things back to the way they were before: You gals get to keep the starvin' babies. We keep EVERYTHING else. Richard isn't cool with that, but I am. And wait just a little while and the immigrants to the USA and Western Europe will push in that direction...
Which brings us to your top claim that birthrates in the west are declining. Indeed, this is mostly due to responsible families simply wanting to better dedicate resources to fewer children but also, in addition, to feminism both raising women's standards in what they want out of a traditional breadwinner while burning the candle at both ends and reducing the number of such breadwinners available.
There is nothing stopping such women from either marrying a SAH husband to cook and clean and provide "free" childcare OR footing all the bills themselves and giving up their fun, liberated lifestyle. Society is so "greedy" when others don't pay for our choices, isn't it?
PK...did you even read the decision. He had no reason whatsoever to want custody as the kids were staying with his mother anyway even when he wasn't deployed...that's why the Judges ruled that it wasn't a change in circumstances...
The bigger questions is what was his reason for not allowing their mother to have her children all the time while he was deployed????
Answer me that.
Here is what I found in the quoted decision above: "[the mother] had been a frequent care giver of the children, to care for the children in his absence"
"Frequent care giver" implies something similar to daycare and babysitting, services that many career and unwed mothers use frequently. This is a frequent argument you use to discredit single father custody implying that they have someone else do their work for them and I have addressed. Regardless, this is not the issue here.
Looking closely at the case, I'm willing to concede that from what I see so far, he was being unreasonable. He and his lawyer had negotiated an original settlement with his ex that would have required her to surrender temporary custody when he returned. If he had stuck to that, in theory, this whole thing never would have happened.
In addition, there are charges of parental alienation against Michael. See!?!? PAS is real! :-)
So in this particular case, from what I have seen so far, it appears he is being unreasonable but like the blind lady holding the scales, I don't have everything before me. I would have liked to see the original divorce decree to understand why she lost custody in the first place and if that may have been a reasonable ground for concern for Michael that wasn't introduced in the later decision.
During my search, I found an update to the case.
http://iowaindependent.com/2012/senate-passes-bill-to-protect-soldiers-custodial-rights
"Senate Passes Bill to Protect Soldier’s Custodial Rights"
Which used this case as an example. However, it does acknowledge the case is flawed:
"“Grantham’s case had some idiosyncrasies that I’m not sure about. Apparently he didn’t abide by his family-care plan and didn’t do all the things required on his end,” Warnstadt said. “The bill is not a carte blanche for service members."
NYMOM, here's my take on this case:
Tammara Grantham is not daycare or a babysitter. She is a non-custodial parent who has the right to visitation with her kids. Michael Grantham was in the National Guard. That's a 1 weekend a month/ 2 weeks a year commitment. He would've been with his unit around the clock during these times. Michael and Tammara probably came up with a visitation schedule to give her the kids when he was on duty. That's probably what is meant by "the mother] had been a frequent care giver of the children, to care for the children in his absence". If this is the case, he didn't have any reason to deprive the mother of temporary custody while he was deployed long-term. He just didn't want to pay her child support. He tried to pull one over on his ex, and it bit him in the ass. That said, it's amazing how this case is seen as proving the existence of parental alienation syndrome (PAS), but focus is still put on the mother. Why did she lose custody? A better question is-why did the father have custody? He lied to his ex about giving her temporary custody probably so he wouldn't have to pay her child support. For all we know, he lied to the courts about her being an unfit mother just so he could get out of paying child support to begin with. Yet, she had those kids over a year while the father was on deployment. There wasn't any evidence that she was unfit during this time. Maybe because she wasn't unfit to begin with. What we do know is that the father lied to the mother about having temporary custody, and he admitted in court that he treated the mother like crap in front of the kids since the divorce. He even said he was going to continue doing it. It's possible that it's a form of this:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/12884426/Maternal-Alienation-Fact-Sheet-What-is-maternal-alienation-
Er, V, you really need to read carefully. The "mother" referred to was _Michael_'s mother, not Tammara! (Reminds me of flying clocks! :-)
The rest of your self-righteous, specious, double standard rant is all gravy: As usual, the men are motivated by nothing but money but say nothing about the women's motivation to seek monetary support. You claim that there was no "evidence" that the mother had been unfit, but in the court documents on the web, she claimed in court to _now_ be stable implying past instability.
Your accusation that he tried to pull over something on his ex and it bit him in the butt is a perfect example of similar things happening with mothers pulling the same stunt and the existance of this blog. Women think they can waltz into court and get child-support and custody and lie about the father being an abuser and then they often lose and NYMOM rails that this is so unfair because the men are greedy. In regards to this case, the appeals court claims that Michael had no advantage misleading the mother in their settlement discussion since he could have simply not met with her and just gone to his commanding officer. It's possible that this was one option he was negotiating as a plan B in case his CO didn't approve.
I find it amusing to hear you, V, bash Michael as "treating the mother like crap." Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. The court claims:
"In ordering a change of the children’s primary care, the district court found that, beginning almost immediately following the dissolution decree, Michael has maintained a persistent pattern of conduct that has served to diminish the children’s relationship with their mother. He has refused to acknowledge her presence when he and the children are in her company. He has refused to allow the children to acknowledge her presence in public settings. He has inappropriately involved the children in communicating to their mother matters concerning the children’s well-being that should have been discussed privately between their parents. Indeed, Michael has consistently refused to have any direct communication with Tammara throughout the period following the dissolution decree and openly avowed at trial that this behavior would continue. In In re Marriage of Bolin, 336 N.W.2d 441 (Iowa 1983), we observed:
Even though the parents are not required to be friends, they owe it to the child to maintain an attitude of civility, act decently toward one another, and communicate openly with each other. One might well question the suitability as custodian of any parent unable to meet these minimum requirements."
Can you really say before and while you were divorced that you always treated your husband with respect in front the children and never discussed matters concerning the children in front of them with or without the husband present?
I love the court's pontificating about questioning the suitability of ANY parent based upon that criteria! Sheesh, if parents could discuss things openly and decently most wouldn't divorce in the first place!
Virago might have gotten some of the language confused but I think she had a very good grasp of what was going on in this situation, as would any other unbiased reader of the facts EXCEPT YOU...
NYMOM, I prefer to allow "unbiased readers" to "grasp" what's going on on their own.
On the contrary, the very purpose of this blog is to celebrate, and call for a return to, a biased view of women as innocent, noble madonnas selflessly caring for their children but with the caveat that they be allowed to do whatever the hell they please.
"Virago might have gotten some of the language confused but I think she had a very good grasp of what was going on in this situation, as would any other unbiased reader of the facts EXCEPT YOU..."
NYMOM, here's a clue as to why Tammara didn't have custody:
"He had raised Brianna and Jeremy since his 2000 divorce, when ex-wife Tammara turned physical custody over to him."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-05-parentswar_N.htm
It seems Michael Grantham got custody the same way most women get custody-by default. Like most non-custodial moms, Tammara may have given Grantham custody because she wasn't FINANCIALLY STABLE at the time of the divorce, but she was at the time of Grantham's deployment. OTOH, even if Tammara wasn't "stable" due to other problems, she ought to be commended for recognizing this and giving the father custody. After all, there are a lot of unstable abusive men dragging their wives and kids through court and getting custody by falsely claiming PAS. At least Tammara didn't do that to her kids. She may have cleaned her act up by the time of the father's deployment, and she had the right to temporary custody. However, sometimes a woman appears to give her husband custody by "default", but in reality, she was forced to "give" her husband custody because she is bankrupt from being dragged into court all the time and cannot afford to continue. This can happen when a husband makes false allegations of PAS. I wouldn't doubt it after reading Grantham's behavior toward his ex after the divorce. He got custody, and he still was trying to maternally alienate his kids. They usually do.
Do you have any cites for Tammara losing custody due to financial instability? I find your claim hard to believe since the point of alimony and child-support is to provide funds to a financially insecure parent!
Your claim that there "are a lot of unstable abusive men dragging their wives and kids through court and getting custody by falsely claiming PAS". Really. Name one verified case (allegations don't count!) For example, a mother losing custody due to allegations of PAS and the child later being found abused.
Once again, you're misreading the materials. Grantham is accused of PAS style behavior but this doesn't indicate that Tammara lost custody due to HIM making allegations of PAS nor even Tammara giving up because of a legal custody battle. Simply cleaning up one's act doesn't entitle someone to temporary custody rights. Just ask your husband! :-) Technically, if he's moved in with you and helping out then you should give him some slack on support and custody but you don't. Another double standard.
Finally, I'm amused at you generalizing from a court case summary of a single case where a man had custody that this is how fathers "usually" act. PAS is a relatively new term so men are hardly "usually" making allegations of it. And it's another double standard that when men make the accusation, it's false, but when women make it it's usually true.
V, you play this helpless victim of the patriarchy game while also yanking at the strings and bragging about how you can blow a whistle and have Patriarchs make your husband do your bidding. Hey, good for you you can live in that little delusion. But it stops with me. I don't buy it and neither do a lot of other men.
Actually a new study of 4,000 divorcing people over in the UK indicates that 20% of divorcing persons admit to having a "primary objective" of making the other parent's contact with the kids as unpleasant as possible.
Of course that makes things unpleasant for the kids too but hey, we already know that's of small importance or the family wouldn't be in divorce court in the first place.
Since most custodial parents there are mothers, just like here, and NC fathers are more likely to lose contact post-divorce than NC mothers, well, nuff said about who's doing most of this alienating.
It's very inconvenient for those who want to deny the existence of parental alienation when those darn moms go around admitting to alienation.
They'll never keep the myth of female moral superiority alive that way.
The study should have asked NOW or some other woman-firster-approved mouthpiece instead.
Richard
Mrs. Doubtfire
Richard, do you remember the creepy film: "Mrs. Doubtfire?" Here's the premise of the film that's a comedy of crazy leftist thinking in, and of, itself:
An idealistic voiceover artist and SAH dad loses his job as a cartoonist because he won't voiceover a wolf pushing cigarette smoking to young children. He throws a rediculous birthday party for the children that enrages his wife and she throws him out.
The judge not only doesn't award him any support but also insists he get a job before he's even allowed to see his children again.
The mother, the 'primary caregiver', is too busy as a career woman to look after her children so she hires an obvious female impersonator and doesn't recognize that he's her ex-husband.
When the scheme unravels, the judge once again comes down upon him like a load of bricks for his irresponsibility and deception.
Now imagine this film: A woman whose a SAH housewife to a CEO can't hold down a job simply because she doesn't feel like working. She orders her maids around but is too busy partying to notice what's going on. The husband gets disgusted with her irresponsible behvior and divorces her.
Can you imagine a judge kicking her out on the street without support AND denying her visitation rights to her children or even full custody and alimony and the house?!?!
NYMOM, I have to agree with you that Richard and Polish Knight twist things around. Consider this quote from Polish Knight:
"Here is what I found in the quoted decision above: "[the mother] had been a frequent care giver of the children, to care for the children in his absence"
Polish Knight reminded me that this meant "grandma" and not the the children's mother. Fine. I can agree that I misread it. Michael Grantham was implying that he used grandma as a frequent caregiver during his absences-HIS MILITARY ABSENCES. In other words, Grantham was using grandma while HE WAS ON THE JOB-not at the local pub with the boys. Yet, Polish Knight flatulates:
""Frequent care giver" implies something similar to daycare and babysitting, services that many career and unwed mothers use frequently. This is a frequent argument you use to discredit single father custody implying that they have someone else do their work for them and I have addressed. Regardless, this is not the issue here."
I have REPEATEDLY SAID OVER AND OVER that custodial dads have a habit of dumping most of their childcare on others (grandma, girlfriends, step-mom) during NON-WORKING HOURS. They do this on a regular basis, and they do it far more than custodial mothers. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS DAYCARE OR A BABYSITTER DURING WORKING HOURS. There's a huge difference, and I made it CRYSTAL CLEAR what I meant when I "discredit single father custody implying that they have someone else do their work for them". However, Polish Knight deliberately misunderstands so that he can make it look like I'm beating up on custodial dads who use other caregivers because they have to work. It's not surprising because Richard tried to pull this same stunt on another post:
"Oh please, V, give it a rest. This howling about dad's girlfriends is hypocrisy at its best while single mothers everywhere are screaming for free daycare and making shameless use of grandma for childcare. Not that they have a choice. It's the nature of work and family today but family break-up makes it all far worse."
Right after Richard made this dumb comment, I replied:
"And really Richard, you can dance around the subject all you want, but you can't refute the fact that mothers don't dump their kids on significant others/grandma nearly as much as dads DURING NON-WORKING HOURS. You keep skipping around this, or pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, but you know it's true. Either that, or your a big idiot which despite our disagreement I don't think you are."
And Richard didn't bother to dispute this on that same post because HE KNOWS THAT IT'S TRUE. Now Polish Knight is trying the same stupid shit. As for Michael Grantham, I don't know what he did with his kids during NON-WORKING HOURS, but that wasn't what this was about. However, I'm sure that many of his 1 weekend a month/2 weeks a year fell during Tammara's visitation schedule. She probably had those kids many times during Grantham's military absences if she had the standard every other weekend visitation, etc. There wasn't any reason she couldn't have her kids while he was on long-term military deployments.
"custody by default"
Well Polish Knight I hate to disillusion you but custody by default often means the other party never showed up for hearing since the notice was deliberately sent to wrong address, so they were never properly informed until it was too late or numerous other reasons they might not have shown up...Most people don't realize that missing a court hearing (even one) can result in 'custody by default'to the opposing party...However, the main point is NOT how or even why he got custody. The main point is that he tried to work the system by hiding out until his deployment date and then trying to use that Soldiers and Sailors Act to avoid the Judge making a ruling.
That's the point.
I'm just glad that the Judge saw through this little charade.
You appear to be missing the real point as usual.
AND once again, Virago is correct when she states that even after men get custody they continue alienating the children from their mothers.
Your own guy, Richard Gartner (PAS expert) noted back in the 80s that custodial fathers alienated their children as much as mother. Half of his practice consisted of non-custodial mothers trying to overcome this alienation and this was in a period where few men bothered fighting for custody...
So my assessment is that fathers are MORE LIKELY to alienate children. BTW, I've NEVER heard, met or spoke to a custodial father who EVER said anything good about the childrens' mother, NEVER.
But I have heard many custodial mothers speaking well of the childrens fathers...so you figure it out.
V screeches: "I have REPEATEDLY SAID OVER AND OVER that custodial dads have a habit of dumping most of their childcare on others (grandma, girlfriends, step-mom) during NON-WORKING HOURS. They do this on a regular basis, and they do it far more than custodial mothers."
"There's a huge difference, and I made it CRYSTAL CLEAR what I meant when I "discredit single father custody implying that they have someone else do their work for them"."
Sounds like the classic routine in A Few Good Men: "Are we CLEAR?" "Crystal."
V, you're trying to dance around saying that it's okey dokey for women to dump kids in daycare when it suits them to make money but when daddy does the same thing to go bowling, then it's damaging the kids. (In addition, you imply that men do this "regularly" but women don't regularly use babysitters when they go shopping, out to get their hair done, etc.) You didn't make the reasoning for this "crystal clear", you simply declared it. Men using daycare to go out bowling more than women is "baaad" but women dumping their kids to pursue a glamourous 12 hour a day career is a-ok. I'm sure latchkey kids who have to open their own cans of ravoioli are reassured by your self-serving definition...
In additon, you are still totally conjecturing the intent of what Michael meant when he referred to the mother as a part-time caregiver. He could have referred to all of her her work including babysitting and that the children were familiar with her. In any case, as I said, it's irrelevent to this topic and a red-herring. But you need one not to even win this debate but just to argue for the sake of arguing at this point.
Finally, we don't know what the reasons were for her losing custody in the first place. Until you get the exact decision or something more specific, your claims that there was "no reason" is pure wishful thinking.
NYMOM, if that was the real point then you shouldn't have gone down a different path by talking about hypothetical "defaults" in the first place.
Of course, the point is that judges "see through charades" when women win decisions and it's "miscarriages of justice" and "male greed" when women lose decisions and don't get child-support anymore...
From each according to them being you, and to each according to them being me...
Logic 101: When two people are declared to be equally doing something, then this is proof that one group is worse than the other.
OK...
Regarding your personal anecdotal claims regarding custodial fathers. It's called an argument of ignorance. I've seen a pretty house in Nebraska so that means none exist. Oh, I've never been to Nebraska.
Based upon this forum, neither you or NYMOM have had anything nice to say about your exes. At best, V is saying that her ex husband is behaving because he's on a short leash. Maybe women have nicer things to say about their exes because THEIR exes tend to pay "child" support more routinely than NCP mothers in a similar situation? Maybe custodial fathers had to fight more hard for custody with abusive mothers that even biased courts couldn't ignore?
V said: "I have REPEATEDLY SAID OVER AND OVER that custodial dads have a habit of dumping most of their childcare on others (grandma, girlfriends, step-mom) during NON-WORKING HOURS. They do this on a regular basis"
Kind of like how custodial fathers "usually maternally alienate," V?
The creative juices are really flowing today. We're just manufacturing factoids faster than you can say Woman-Firster Spin.
And no I don't "know that it's true" and I'm not skipping around anything and I'd appreciate it if you'd not attempt to tell me what I think or know, V. I know being a mere man I'm in no position to understand the male psyche like you do but you obviously haven't mastered mind-reading quite yet.
NY said: "BTW, I've NEVER heard, met or spoke to a custodial father who EVER said anything good about the childrens' mother, NEVER.
But I have heard many custodial mothers speaking well of the childrens fathers...so you figure it out."
Duh, NY, this is quite obviously because even today a father custody situation is far more likely to involve an unfit or at least substandard mother than is a mother custody situation to involve an unfit or substandard father.
And as far as men doing more alienating goes, no need for me to weigh in. I'll just take this opportunity to use the declaration that V pulled out of her ass a while back and you of course never called BS on: that "90% of the time" :-) the kid doesn't want to be around the mom because of the mom's OWN actions.
Oh dear, it just doesn't sound nearly as crystal clear in this context, does it?
LMAO!
Richard
PK said: "From each according to them being you, and to each according to them being me..."
That's the funniest thing anyone's said around here since way back when we learned that men don't understand the male psyche. Thanks PK!
BTW, I remember "Mrs. Doubtfire." A feminist/woman-firster wet-dream. The power of the state lined up behind the woman and the man's rights wholly contingent on the woman's good will. Blah!
When that same power turns around and bites the woman's ass instead then it becomes a monster. Not before.
R.
Polish Knight you continue to misunderstand the point of that post and I do believe it's deliberate just more of the little word games that you enjoy employing.
I don't care WHY the father had custody.
Okay.
I don't care. It's irrelevant to this post.
Now what the decision plainly states, and I attached the link to read the entire decision if you wish, is that there was no substantial change in circumstances from the custodial father being deployed since his mother had the kids very frequently (my read: they lived with their grandmother 99.9% of the time). Furthermore, she probably helped him get custody originally by allowing this...
Anyway going back you can see from the decision that the Judge who eventually awarded custody to the childrens' mother (even AFTER he won that appeal, btw) noted that the custodial father was clearly attempted to work the system by meeting with the mother and her attorney. He pretended to seriously consider the children living with her while he was deployed. Then he disappeared until the date he actually deployed after filing another plan with his CO stating he was leaving them with his mother...
So as I said before and Virago noted as well, he attempted to work the system, got caught by a savvy Judge and lost custody completely. Whereas if he had played it straight with their mother he might have had a better chance of at least Joint Custody when he returned.
Lastly, you and Richard don't get to define what my blog is about...I do.
This situation is a good example of why I started this blog. So young women can get an idea of what they are up against today with the courts and many Judges (thank god not this one) being politically correct and awarding custody of children to fathers no matter the circumstances...
I mean he left them with his mother, he could have dumped them off with some woman he hardly knew like that Crystal whatever...
Richard wrote: "BTW, I remember "Mrs. Doubtfire." A feminist/woman-firster wet-dream. The power of the state lined up behind the woman and the man's rights wholly contingent on the woman's good will. Blah!"
(FYI, I think you meant FEMALE psyche!)
Another hilarious film, for the wrong reasons, was The First Wives' Club. It starts out with stereotypical women victims: A first wife who struggled to make her hubby rich and then he dumps her for a pretty young woman (Sarah Jessica Parker. Bleah! That's a PUNISHMENT! :-), a nice career woman whose husband cheats on her, etc.
In the end of the film, when the horrified women wreak vengeance on their first husbands for, gasp, leaving them (most men just write country western songs...), they throw a big party where they have big celebrities attend to supposedly help "first wives" who commit suicide (pity they spent on the money on the big party) and it's ALL white people. Oh, except one token black couple for NYC white guilt.
Yep, the plight of the wealthy white American women is underdocumented in society. They marry guys for money and then wind up having to do housechores (well, their underpaid illegal immigrant women have to do them. But it's still not fair!)
NY said: "This situation is a good example of why I started this blog. So young women can get an idea of what they are up against today"
It's an even better thing for young men who might happen by, so they can get a reality check on what some women really think of them when they're not trying to get into their pockets.
For that I thank you.
Richard
Once again you two have twisted the subject around to marriage...this is not a blog about the state of marriage...but obviously you two (although both of you claiming to be happily married) appear to have many issues with it...
Why don't you create your own blogs dedicated to that issue????
Woman wins lottery, complains that the system is out to get her
Very well, NYMOM, let's go back to the case itself.
You say, and I quote: "I don't care WHY the father had custody.
Okay. I don't care. It's irrelevant to this post."
Message received.
Then you say regarding the case a few sentences later: "Furthermore, [the grandmother] probably helped [the father] get custody originally by allowing this..."
If it's so irrelevent, why do you keep mentioning it?
Here's what you say the blog is about in full:
"This situation is a good example of why I started this blog. So young women can get an idea of what they are up against today with the courts and many Judges (thank god not this one) being politically correct and awarding custody of children to fathers no matter the circumstances..."
But this isn't an example custody of children going to fathers no matter the circumstances. You had said the mother "defaulted" on custody and this isn't a case of the father getting custody despite him being an abuser, etc. This isn't an example of a grave miscarriage of justice and, actually, an example of the system working in the woman's favor.
So even when women win a case, you use it as an example of how the system is always failing them.
You're trying to sound the alarm that the system is so unfair towards women and this is totally counter to the common sense and the facts. (You might want to get a job as a global warming scientist. :-) You're blowing the Damsel-in-Distress whistle because you've relied upon western men running to your aid your whole life as has V. You're just angry that you don't have everything perfect that, gasp, there are men out there who might not serve you on a silver platter while apologizing for oppressing you.
Well, I'm the messenger here to tell you that not only are the barbarians at the gates, but they're already in the city walls.
Woman wins lottery, complains that the system is out to get her
Very well, NYMOM, let's go back to the case itself.
You say, and I quote: "I don't care WHY the father had custody.
Okay. I don't care. It's irrelevant to this post."
Message received.
Then you say regarding the case a few sentences later: "Furthermore, [the grandmother] probably helped [the father] get custody originally by allowing this..."
If it's so irrelevent, why do you keep mentioning it?
Here's what you say the blog is about in full:
"This situation is a good example of why I started this blog. So young women can get an idea of what they are up against today with the courts and many Judges (thank god not this one) being politically correct and awarding custody of children to fathers no matter the circumstances..."
But this isn't an example custody of children going to fathers no matter the circumstances. You had said the mother "defaulted" on custody and this isn't a case of the father getting custody despite him being an abuser, etc. This isn't an example of a grave miscarriage of justice and, actually, an example of the system working in the woman's favor.
So even when women win a case, you use it as an example of how the system is always failing them.
You're trying to sound the alarm that the system is so unfair towards women and this is totally counter to the common sense and the facts. (You might want to get a job as a global warming scientist. :-) You're blowing the Damsel-in-Distress whistle because you've relied upon western men running to your aid your whole life as has V. You're just angry that you don't have everything perfect that, gasp, there are men out there who might not serve you on a silver platter while apologizing for oppressing you.
Well, I'm the messenger here to tell you that not only are the barbarians at the gates, but they're already in the city walls.
I posted that in response to you and Virago's argument about how this father got custody. My point was that in this situation it didn't matter and you are using it to avoid addressing the fact that this guy tried to work the system and was stopped...address that issue ONLY.
Very well, NYMOM. When women work the system, and are not stopped, you view that as something to celebrate. I honestly find it puzzling that you view this case as a justification for the system working against women.
If anything, you've only helped to show that PAS syndrome is real and that women are quick to refer to it for their purposes. Thanks bunches.
"...this is not a blog about the state of marriage..."
In your view I'm sure it isn't.
And yet every one of the problems you claim it IS about is directly rooted in laws and policies that encouraged the breakdown of the married nuclear family and the spectacularly failed attempt to replace it with half-assed substitute arrangements, frequently at public expense and always inviting public intrusion into the family arena which was once sacred and off-limits to outsiders.
But if you want to fuss over the leaves instead of the roots right now, fine, I'll step back a bit and let you and PK have at it.
Richard
Richard, I believe in keeping things interesting (but sincere) and would instead like to have at you.
Pontificating about the state allowing marriage to breakdown while supporting women's workplace equality even as both of us know that women are not willing to accept male responsibilities makes you, IMO of course, part of the problem.
Note that I never suggested you marry off your daughter as an illiterate child-bride as a sacrificial lamb for society. I merely suggested that you reconsider the necessity or productivity of spending tens of thousands of dollars on college for your daughter to get a high income job as backup when she could still earn a decent living by going to a trade school and maybe teaching her to not treat finding a mate as a priority during her prime biological years as is the SOP of many women here and then panicking when they hit their 30's.
As much as you, rightly, criticize NYMOM and V for their "world owes me a living" attitudes, you aren't helping matters by not wanting to be the bad guy and admitting that your daughter can't have things both ways either. It's kind of like liberal hypocrisy where they bash other people for driving SUV's and using more than 2 sheets of TP but don't want to tell their kids to take the bus or stop using an energy hungry PC...
You can have at me all you want, PK, I don't easily take offense as you know. But a lot of this ground we've already covered.
NY says she wants to address the problems she listed at the top of her blog. So OK, we have the matter of women "losing custody" of their children. Which is not even remotely the crisis that she paints it to be, but we can still address it.
For married women, that could easily be remedied by presumed shared parenting. No one has to lose anything, which makes marriage a better bet for both sexes. And by thus eliminating much of the incentive for divorce you could eliminate the custody question altogether which is best of all for kids, on the off chance that someone here might be interested in a little detail like that.
For unmarried mothers, simply eliminate the incentives for unwed birth in the first place. No welfare and no child support = smarter reproductive choices which will cut much of this nonsense off at the source.
Women's workplace equality has virtually nothing to do with all this.
Re my daughter... you're suggesting that we raise her to do things the OPPOSITE of the way her mother and I did, which worked brilliantly for us and for most of our circle, to become something that we haven't observed the advantages of and that most smart guys (not our generation, but the one following us) aren't even looking for anymore.
BOTH our son and daughter would understandably consider us either out of our minds or assholes of the highest order if we did that.
Thanks but in all conscience we can't do it.
Get back to me on this when you have a bright and promising daughter that you'd lay down your life for.
Richard
Sorry, I meant you could OFTEN eliminate the custody question altogether. Of course there'll always be screw-ups but we don't have to facilitate them.
R.
Your claim that women's workplace equality has nothing to do with the social family crisis, with respect, is like denying the nose on your face. As the supply of breadwinning men dries up due to workplace competition as women flooded the workplace and career women's sexist demands increased due to higher standards for marrying up, there will be more unwed single mothers and childless career women along with the welfare state needing to pick up the slack when poorer women and their children fall through the cracks.
In other words, women's workplace equality combined with women's biological sexism is a social disaster for everyone including their children.
Trying to remove the incentives via eliminating welfare requires a rather strong stomach since women-as-mothers commonly hold their children hostage whether they intend to do so or not. Trying to reform welfare to recognize women and their children who genuinely fall on hard times is difficult since such programs are massively corrupted by special interest groups.
Another "with respect" moment is you saying your son and daughter would consider you "assholes" if you stated my position to them. Sheesh, doesn't that sound rather gutless? Sure, some parents smoked pot and acted irresponsibly when they were young and it's hard for them to tell their kids not to do it, but that doesn't mean that makes it ok. (I'm not equating that behavior to you, of course). Regarding what young men are looking for: The guys I know in that age range are now a whole different breed and many of them are unchivalrious assholes themselves. They know that there are plenty of young women to pick from and if they have the goods, there's no need for them to settle down and they know it. They're basically little Tiger Woods and some of them are total self centered jerks.
Your claims that things worked out for you comes across as shallow. On a STATISTICAL level, all you can say is that the dismal marriage rates of professional womn is just slightly better than working class women having kids out of wedlock 50% of the time. Well whoop dee doo. I personally didn't want to risk my, and my future childrens', lives on a coin flip. And that brings us to the next point:
What seperates us, men at least, from the animals is our ability to make decisions based upon reason and logic rather than emotion and thinking after the fact. We don't need to jump into the river with the crocs and THEN reconsider our decision based upon an emotional response. I shouldn't need, nor is it wise, to make decisions after I have a daughter. I saw the hazards my friends entered into, and many are now divorce, in advance.
Hey, ok, I'm a jerk. People want to believe in Santa Claus and I'm telling them that he doesn't exist. Your kids wouldn't like me because I'm not... coool! (This brings back memories of the Fonz. Ehhhh!) "Cool" people are often uncool and insecure as heck. I'm just looking at cold, hard realities.
Unless my daughter has a potential career as a nobel prize winning brain surgeon, and I mean really high IQ, then her career is just like a man's: A JOB! Nothing necessarily wrong with that. That is LIFE! Life for you and I is to work and earn money because that's what our "equal" wives require of us. Your daugher's career, unless she's truly exceptional, is just mad money. Nordie cash.
On the other hand, your son's job is more than just a job. It's the difference between him winding up living in a cardboard box and having a spouse and children he sees on a regular basis. For you to treat both of your children's job potentials the same is robbing both of them of the urgencies of life.
Finally, the notion of laying down one's life is so chivalrous, don't you think? My grandparent's generation didn't go for that. They would work hard to take care of their kids, but they didn't buy into the notion of being some fairy godfather to make their kids' dreams come true. They expected their kids to help out, to be realistic, and even suck up some hardships.
Richard, I think it's useful to clarify what you and I mean by the kind of women guys are looking for.
I think what you may be saying by that is that most young men don't want women who have no job skills and are dependent upon them totally. I can respect that and for the most part, this is a paradgim that didn't exist even back a century ago. Most young women were expected to earn a living working on the farm or textiles, etc. and the concept of a housewife is a relatively recent luxury.
It's ironic that modern feminism sprang out of the entitlement thinking of such women who viewed work as a option but not a necessity and claimed to be oppressed. It's like Marie Antoinette taking up cooking and viewing the poor as "privileged" for doing it every day (not to disparage M.A. since this was mostly revolutionist propoganda.)
On the contrary, most career women that young men wind up with have the attitude that their money is THEIR money and if they comingle funds it's when he earns at least as much as they do and if they're lucky, of course, it means mo' vacations and bigger homes than a single income (by today's standards) BUT from what I saw, it still came at a cost: Such women often had the attitude that they could still go it alone (they viewed it as backup) so they made greater sexist demands. (If he isn't a gentleman, I'll become a single mom! So there!)
Sadly, this attitude spread amazingly enough to women who COULDN'T afford it. It's not uncommon in our society for women working as waitresses to act as if men should be grateful to support them. I was amazed. Then after I dumped them they would call me back and cry: "Why didn't you beg to support me?" In other words, just as you daughter has a limited amount of time to find the breadwinning man that she is willing to "respect", so also do young men today have a limited number of women without entitlement attitudes to choose from.
PK said: "Trying to remove the incentives via eliminating welfare requires a rather strong stomach since women-as-mothers commonly hold their children hostage whether they intend to do so or not."
It WOULD take a strong stomach, and I personally don't think it's going to happen as long as western democracy holds out.
But if we really wanted to take care of the poor children and still discourage unwed breeding we could bring back an item from the NYMOM's good old "the way it used to be and everyone was just fine with it" days: the orphanage.
"They know that there are plenty of young women to pick from and if they have the goods, there's no need for them to settle down and they know it. They're basically little Tiger Woods and some of them are total self centered jerks."
That's not a result of women being educated and working. It's a result women giving up the goods to anybody who wants a piece, even moving in and being a phony wife for years at a time in hopes he'll decide to sign on someday.
And if a pregnancy happens, he's on the hook anyway because of all our laws that gave the privileges of marriage to random breeders, so what's the damn point?
"Such women often had the attitude that they could still go it alone (they viewed it as backup) so they made greater sexist demands. (If he isn't a gentleman, I'll become a single mom! So there!)"
Sorry to disagree but I haven't observed that. In my experience women of this category are NOT fine with being single moms. To them it's a plague to be avoided if at all possible.
The attitude you're describing didn't "spread to" lower-class women. It's been characteristic of them ever since welfare took hold. Of course they're fine with being single moms. It's damn near all they see around them and they lose almost nothing financially by choosing it.
"Richard, I think it's useful to clarify what you and I mean by the kind of women guys are looking for."
I think I posted this before, but I'll post it again. According to the Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (May 2001):
71% of high-achieving men said a woman's career or educational success makes her more desirable as a wife.
92% of men who describe themselves as successful say they're more attracted to women who are successful in their careers.
89% of high achieving men report that they'd like to marry or already have married a woman as intelligent, accomplished, and educated as they are, or more.
And we've already seen that most of them are even willing to be SAHDs given the opportunity.
That's why I always call BS every time some woman starts in about how we men are afraid of successful women. I was never afraid of any such damn thing and neither was any other guy I ever knew.
"We don't need to jump into the river with the crocs and THEN reconsider our decision based upon an emotional response."
Man O Man! Spoken exactly like someone who's never had a child.
There ain't nothing "rational" about your feelings for your kids, pal.
Like my mom used to say, if God didn't put it in us to love our kids so much we'd probably kill them before the job was half-finished.
Like I said, get back to me on this...
Richard
"I posted that in response to you and Virago's argument about how this father got custody. My point was that in this situation it didn't matter and you are using it to avoid addressing the fact that this guy tried to work the system and was stopped...address that issue ONLY."
NYMOM, your probably right that it doesn't matter why the father got custody. However, there was some speculation as to why the mother "lost" custody from PK. I showed evidence that she never lost custody-she gave it to the father. That's custody by default-the same way most women get custody. However, your right that it shouldn't matter. However, if the situation were reversed in this case, none of your other commentators would even bother to consider why the father lost custody. Especially PK-he's always happy as a pig in shit when it's some mother who loses custody-no matter what the reason.
Richard, it's amusing that you are driven by conscience about your children's future but at the same time are nonchalant about western civilization decaying away simply for the benefit of women to have faux equality at the expense of lowered wages and standards of living for both genders.
It's a religious belief. Like Marxism.
I never suggested women were sleeping around with anyone but rather as the supply of breadwinning men to satisfy women's sexist urges dried up and became less available, relatively, the women were forced to become more desperate.
You have a point about role reversal with men needing to be more careful about sex kind of like how the main problem we have today is obesity rather than starvation of a hundred years ago. RISUG, wiki it up, will help with that immensely.
I agree with you that middle and upper class women are less amiable to going it alone but not avoided like the plague but rather I think they just don't want to disturb their comfort level. There is no social stigma attached to them doing so anyway, however. On the contrary, that's why it's funny with feminists preaching to them how they can wait until their 40's to have kids, blah blah blah, and they wind up not doing so because they don't want to give up their luxury vacations.
Don't confuse what people say to pollsters with reality. How many people answer pollsters honestly when saying how good a driver they are compared to how good they think others are, for example? You have said you have a worry about being viewed as a jerk for being unPC, can you imagine what most men say?
And I didn't say education and career itself were bad in women but rather unnecessary, like washing a rental car. Sure, if it's free why not but ask most men if they'd rather have a pretty girl who treats them well and with respect to a frumpy career woman and see what they think. By the same token, plenty of women say they want a man to help cook and clean but they still want him to earn money. It's a matter of priorities. Sadly, our culture has produced such high demands in women and low expectations that many men say they "want" educated career women because that's what's available. I like McD's too when that's all there is to eat!
Regarding your skepticism about me not becoming goo-goo about a daughter. You can talk to my wife. I love her dearly, but I'm still tough as nails when it comes to being honest with her. I've always had this ability to be fair, and tough, with women and not go ga-ga with them. I don't indulge them like most normal, hormone driven men.
PK said: "I agree with you that middle and upper class women are less amiable to going it alone but not avoided like the plague but rather I think they just don't want to disturb their comfort level. There is no social stigma attached to them doing so anyway, however"
I can't agree here. There's no reason for this "desperation" for marriage that you describe among career women (which I didn't see nearly as much of as you seem to have seen) if single motherhood were an acceptable option for them.
My single sister would have liked to have had a kid or two but she wouldn't dream of going it alone. Hell, she's seen how we work at it, and how my other sister and her husband work at it. She knows, and most career women DO know, that done properly it's a job for two people. It's not a simple matter of feeding and bathing a child and dressing it in a nice outfit and then bleating about what a "good mother" you are, like underclass women think.
And don't underestimate the social stigma that DOES remain. A single career mom does face a certain stigma among her peers, not so much for being immoral but for being an idiot.
"How many people answer pollsters honestly when saying how good a driver they are compared to how good they think others are, for example?"
Well, if you go too far down that road you reach the place where you're willing to dismiss whatever evidence you don't like just because it doesn't suit your case. I believe you just said something to V about that.
"ask most men if they'd rather have a pretty girl who treats them well and with respect to a frumpy career woman and see what they think."
They'll say they want a pretty career woman who also treats them well.
I don't know who you dated but I don't recall career women being "frumpy" on average. They work at their looks like gangbusters. The fat and frumpies mostly come from the lower end.
"Sadly, our culture has produced such high demands in women and low expectations that many men say they "want" educated career women because that's what's available. I like McD's too when that's all there is to eat!"
Lord have mercy, man, where have you been? Lemme know where the hell you see a shortage of uneducated women? The whole damn world's broken out with them! Go down to Family Court or Social Services some time and watch the parade.
Richard
Richard, I'm worried we're waaaaay off topic and NYMOM may shut this down. She does have a point: Maybe we should take this somewhere else and start up our own blog AND invite her and V to join! Please email me at marek1965@comcast.net and tell me what you think.
OK, that said, regarding your claim I might dismiss any evidence. I was just saying that to you regarding your claim that I don't have children and blowing my observations off. I was merely putting what people tell pollsters about their preferences into context. (Hmmmm, reminds me of Family Feud. "The survey says!" BZZZT!)
Ask women for example what they want and most will say a sense of humor, blah blah blah and it has nothing to do with whom they eventually pick. People often don't want to be honest about their romantic ideals although men seem to have a better grasp on them if only because they have to deal with rejection more and this requires them to be more pragmatic. Does that make sense?
"They'll say they want a pretty career woman who also treats them well."
That isn't the answer to the poll question. It's women who will usually say that they want a good looking guy who pays the bills and washes the dishes. As I said, men generally are more pragmatic but not absolutely so.
It's funny: I know successful men who have fallen in love with girls who work at Starbucks. Note that despite these women not having a "career", they are still WORKING. They understand the value of a dollar.
And as I'll remind you, I have said that career women have dated me which showed they were pretty desperate. V doesn't believe me, but I invoke the man-code. I am not making this up. And yes, plenty of them were pretty too. But their main problem was they were passive and lazy about relationships. Of course, that was in my generation and somewhat younger. The young women today have so many piercings and tweeter PDA's that they can't go near a microwave oven! :-) So I can't say how they behave.
I didn't say that there was a shortage of educated women. I said that there was a shortage of women with reasonable expectations. Indeed, as I told V, there's no shortage of needy women in the states but they continue to have high demands and attitudes. And yes, there are plenty of well educated women available provided the man has some money and says the right things.
A blog would be nice but you'd have to take the lead with the actual posting. I'm always ready to join in a good discussion but when looking at a blank page I go similarly blank.
I'll email, though. Look for me at Glenn's too. I go by Tex over there (too many Richards already).
"Don't confuse what people say to pollsters with reality. How many people answer pollsters honestly when saying how good a driver they are compared to how good they think others are, for example? You have said you have a worry about being viewed as a jerk for being unPC, can you imagine what most men say?"
Richard, I have to agree with what Polish Knight said here. Most PEOPLE will say what they think others want to hear. No man is going to admit that they are just looking for a good looking woman with big boobs as a wife...it makes them look shallow. Just like no voter will ever admit they won't vote for a candidate because they are black. This is why pollsters have been consistently wrong when a black candidate is running for office since polling always shows them winning by a much higher margin then they actually do...
The theory is the same with this situation...
"A blog would be nice but you'd have to take the lead with the actual posting. I'm always ready to join in a good discussion but when looking at a blank page I go similarly blank.
I'll email, though. Look for me at Glenn's too. I go by Tex over there (too many Richards already)."
When did my blog become a 'meet and greet' for Glenn Sacks crew????
"I don't know who you dated but I don't recall career women being "frumpy" on average. They work at their looks like gangbusters."
That's in certain fields Richard, not all. I mean take a look around academia and that will show you that you're wrong for BOTH groups by the way: men and women. It's very rare that you run into a sharp-looking professor or administrator in that field...
It all depends upon the field the career person is in: finance, banking, law everyone in these places from the security guards to the CEO have to look sharp. Actually I know someone who worked in security for some of the buildings these firms are located in and they told me you have to even have a certain 'look' for the security firm to even place you in one of these locations.
Again, Polish Knight has a point. As usual he's shot all men in the collective foot making that point but when he's right, he's right...
"My single sister would have liked to have had a kid or two but she wouldn't dream of going it alone."
Haven't you often told me and Virago not to do this: extrapolate from ONE EVENT OR PERSON and apply it to the world around you...
Physician heal thyself.
"And don't underestimate the social stigma that DOES remain. A single career mom does face a certain stigma among her peers, not so much for being immoral but for being an idiot."
This is true and in certain companies it can impact promotions depending upon the circumstances that made you a single mom: adopting an international orphan, good...having a kid out of wedlock from a casual relationship, bad...
"Richard, I'm worried we're waaaaay off topic and NYMOM may shut this down."
You and Richard are usually off-topic and I don't shut you down...but you do have a point. I wouldn't mind going to another blog sometimes and commenting...
"It's funny: I know successful men who have fallen in love with girls who work at Starbucks. Note that despite these women not having a "career", they are still WORKING."
Well what makes you think this is such a shock Polish Knight. Men have been dumping their wives and marrying their secretaries, nannies, maids and yes, girls who work at Starbucks since the world began...
Nothing very unusual or noteworthy in that...what would be noteworthy is if women started doing the same thing...since we do tend to be a little fussier then men (for the most part).
NYMOM, I merely said that people's concerns about their perceptions create a bias but that isn't the same as "no man is going to admit that they are just looking for a good looking woman with big boobs as a wife." Check out The Man Show sometime. Men are often quite blunt about their desires.
Regarding no voter not admitting they won't vote for a candidate because they're black. You have a point there but it's also worth considering that many voters say they'll vote for a candidate BECAUSE they're black. Non-whites are open about their racist preferences in our culture.
NYMOM, women as just as shallow as men are about looks. I'm 5'7", I know this personally.
I found it funny how such women often would say that short guys not only didn't deserve the time of day (literally) but even treated us with contempt and then would turn around and bemoan how "shallow" about looks men are.
Regarding the impact of a woman becoming a single unwed mother on her job considerations. Ironically, much of this is due to anti-discrimination legislation. If she has personal problems and brings them into work, they'll have a hard time firing her. They can satisfy quotas by hiring either a married woman or a single spinster instead.
"I wouldn't mind going to another blog sometimes and commenting..."
NYMOM, if you're joining in then I take that as a sign that you're enjoying it too.
"Nothing very unusual or noteworthy in that...what would be noteworthy is if women started doing the same thing...since we do tend to be a little fussier then men (for the most part)."
NYMOM, what doesn't "grok" about that claim is that since feminism and women's liberation, women's problems with DV and "deadbeat dads" have skyrocketed. One would imagine that someone getting more "rights" and resources would mean they would have the capacity to make better choices.
I think this is what goes on: many women get "fussy" and then think they can demand a perfect mate. Then they reach their 30's, get baby rabies, and panic.
I ought to know, I dated a lot of them (not just a single experience, but several.) I mean, if they were desperate enough to consider ME, then they weren't being fussy. :-)
(Note: When I self-deprecate like that, I am not bragging about being a stud. Just the opposite actually).
_I_ became "fussy" as I grew older. I didn't want to settle for a woman who would tolerate me if I had enough cash and said the right things because she wanted a baby ASAP. I think that's responsible because a person in that state of mind isn't in a good position to make a firm commitment.
NY said: "Just like no voter will ever admit they won't vote for a candidate because they are black...The theory is the same with this situation..."
Except that the guys who say they like career women actually put their money where their mouth is. For the most part people do marry equals. In fact, a goodly number of "trophy wives" that do exist are educational and professional equals as well. The simpleton with the boobs is a likelier candidate for a hit-and-run fling with a high-achieving male than a spouse.
What I don't understand here is what's making you both so fidgety about the idea of men liking (pleasant) women with careers?
We've already seen that the flooding of the job market with women means it now takes two people to earn the affluent life-style that one high-achieving male could once support. So why shouldn't a man be interested a spouse's financial prospects?
Women themselves have no real respect for the SAH role. Who can blame men for having no respect for it? Modern women's behavior has killed chivalry for all time. The up and coming generation has virtually no concept of it. So what possible reason could a successful young man have for wanting to maintain a wife in lifelong non-contributing domestic fluffiness?
I was part of the last generation raised with some vestige of chivalry and I still liked the idea of finding a high-earning woman and therefore having more security, more stuff, more retirement savings, and so on.
"I mean take a look around academia and that will show you that you're wrong for BOTH groups by the way: men and women. It's very rare that you run into a sharp-looking professor or administrator in that field..."
I can take a look at academia by tipping a glance to my left in bed. My wife is in academia and she's beautiful and well-kept. Of course, she's a conservative in academia. Funnily enough that does seem to make a difference. She still recalls her "hottest" professor in school being an avowed conservative, too.
"Haven't you often told me and Virago not to do this: extrapolate from ONE EVENT OR PERSON and apply it to the world around you..."
I'm not extrapolating. We already know that the overwhelming majority of educated women shun single motherhood. I'm only giving an example from my own personal experience that might shed some light on WHY.
"When did my blog become a 'meet and greet' for Glenn Sacks crew????"
I dunno. I was invited. The addition of PK doesn't exactly make us a crew.
As time goes on I kind of imagine the four of us sitting around a corner table at Starbucks (large mocha extra hot please) and getting a little too loud at times. You and me and PK and V (set that to the tune of Me and You and a Dog Named Boo)...
Richard
The Settlers!
Richard, don't concern yourself about my discomfort. I have a cream for that.
Regarding men liking pleasant women with careers. I've said that you confuse equality with social class. For example, many well educated women don't make a lot of money and still have functional MRS degrees such as women's studies, English Lit, etc. but men want them because they share their personal background, follow the same college alumni sports team, etc.
Regarding women _having_ to work to maintain the suburban keeping-up-with-the-joneses lifestyle: Much of that is driven by professional women themselves who want McMansions, to send their children to private school, etc. My wife doesn't earn a lot but we wind up saving as much or more money than dual income professionals because we don't buy a new Lexus every other year, jump into real estate at the top of the market, and vacation at 5 star hotels in Hawaii.
I love your caveat of men liking (pleasant) women with careers. Now THERE'S a mouthful! It's like women wanting the guys on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, but not homosexuals. Sadly, many working class "simpleton with the boobs" now are as demanding and lousy at housekeeping as career women which is why many men may decide to just go with the career woman anyway. Or not. After all, career women's abysmal marriage rates is only slightly better than the jerry springer set. Your argument seems to be that things are going great because we're got that hole digging solution down pat! (But enough about Obama's economic plan!)
I agree with you about many young men not wanting to maintain SAH wives especially if these men are surrounded by women all day at work who demand to be treated as "equals". I felt the same way. I have pointed out several times that in the past, and today, most non-career women worked part-time and even full time when the kids left the nest or went to school. The spoiled, pampered SAH Martha Stewart housewive is a product of middle and upper class white society that engaged in self-hatred (marxism and feminism).
Ok, back to men wanting high earning women and security. As I have observed, such women do not provide men with security since the men are generally expected to be on an "equal" footing with them. If he loses his job for more than a year or so, the marriage may dissolve (remember my URL?) I think the men are just SETTLING just as the career women often wound up SETTLING for guys like me.
If you think about it, nothing has changed really. In the past, many women wound up settling for less than optimal careers and less than perfect men rather than having an ideal life of being a nobel prize winning president olympic athlete as they were told in elementary school they could all become. Today, it's really the same way but you, and V really, act like you've accomplished something. Wow, you all have done what my GREAT-GRANDPARENTS did after getting off a boat! Congrats.
Seriously, Richard, you know that most men don't really need or want all that "stuff". Do you care if your wife doesn't have a new set of diamonds each year? Or a bigger house to impress her friends? Or private school? Or a new Lexus?
Most men just want a big screen TV, a good couch, maybe some good DVD's, and some beer. It's why we conquered the world: We do a lot with very little!
Regarding the overwhelming majority of educated women shunning single motherhood. I think a lot of them don't necessarily shun it so much as they think that they're all great catches (heck, even you think so) and wind up hitting their 30's before they know what happens and either infertile OR they realize they don't want to mess up their lives as a single mother. But that's less a matter of "shunning" and more like forgetting to pick up one's old dry cleaning.
Men as Fathers
This would be a great article to open up our blog with, Richard.
NYMOM's blog is "women as mothers" but I think it's worth comparing this to "men as fathers." Men don't have a real role as "fathers" since we need to still function fully in our other roles in society: As personal breadwinners, as defenders called to military service when required, and as mediators and matchmakers.
For example, NYMOM often argues that women wind up becoming single mothers because they couldn't "find" a good man but in reality they never really looked. They waited like in the 1950's for Mr. Right to show up and he didn't.
If someone was merely a father or mother, and just had children and cashed checks and looked after them, life would be pretty easy. But in The Real World, people need to work outside of the home and do stuff that isn't fun and personally fulfilling in it's own right. It's called Work for a reason.
As women have demanded "equality" thinking it's one big playtime, they wound up realizing that it detracted from their role as mother and weakened men's roles in providing for them above. Working women use daycare and hire cutrate maids to schlep the cleaning. This is nothing new. The working classes, including long hour middle class working women, have always had a reputation for being slovenly housekeepers and mothers going back hundreds of years. Only when a woman has a husband supporting her to spend more time at home or is in the upper classes could the notion that women are great housekeepers take hold in our society. Our projections of women's and men's roles is a product of somewhat modern western chivalrous patriarchal society. There's a whole big world out there where things are different. Or hell, just click on the discovery channel sometime guys.
Post a Comment