OT/ ” I Have The Pu–y, I Make The Rules”

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]re; emotional damage; I wasn’t advocating one side or the other. I was just observing that women sometimes withhold child visitation or extract a price for compliance with visitation from men. Men value that visitation at some particular dollar price. I was just thinking out loud that if the shoe were on the other foot, and men had the power to manipulate the system by withholding visitation, that the price men could extract from women in general would be higher, since I think women in general stereotypically would be more “pained” by even one missed weekend. I don’t know what any of this means, and I’m not saying that people or the system shouldn’t be fair, but whenever you set up a system, people and their lawyers look to game it for maximum advantage. and men and women aren’t on an even keel in terms of the price they would pay for very regular visitation. Look, I love my kids, I raised them solo for several years when it became necessary. i see them every day, have diner every night, and on avg spend more time than the avg dad, i think. But i still don’t feel the physical pain, the yearning, when we are apart for a few days. I just think guys are built that way. Women in general seem to get a little batty on even short separations.[/quote]

Very true, scaredy.

It’s a fact that children are biologically more valuable to women than they are to men for the following reasons:

1. Women bear the children, and often risk their looks, health, and even their lives to do so. Men don’t have to do a single thing in order to have kids (except have sex, but that’s not sacrificing anything in order to have kids). A woman knows about every single child she has, while men can have thousands of children and never even know about a single one.

Like it or not, the act of bearing a child creates a very different relationship between a child and a mother. You are forever changed physically, mentally, and emotionally after having biological children. While many good fathers also bond with their children, and love them unconditionally, **in general** women have much stronger bonds (sometimes good, sometimes bad) with their children.

2. A woman has a very limited window during which she can have children, which means that as she grows older (as in mid-life divorce), she can’t have any more. This makes her existing children even more valuable to her.

3. Barring multiples, a woman can generally have approximately one child per 10-12 months. This limits the number of children she can have and this scarcity makes them more valuable as well. We’ve all seen/read about the men who got multiple partners pregnant at one time. Children are more like commodities to many of these men, while women (in general) highly value each child she bears.

There is no question that women and men form different bonds with their children. Women often have to take leave from work because of pregnancy-related complications, and then afterward, if she’s nursing and raising her own babies. IMHO, the mother-child/father-child bonds are complementary, especially when the parents get to raise the children together.

When divorce happens, the complementary nature of the mother/father child-rearing styles is diminished because there is less balance. Also, divorced parents tend to become more focused on their new relationships, jobs (out of necessity), depression, etc., and the children can really suffer because they lose their place in the center of the family. Add to this new marriages and children born to these new unions, and the first children tend to feel like remnants from some failed relationship.

I’ll say it again: divorce sucks **for everybody.**

(edited)

[enron_by_the_sea]

Very lively discussion on this thread (though some provocative headlines …). I wanted to share a very timely news article that ran in the Wall Street Journal this Saturday.

http://tinyurl.com/yjnufgs

Some exerpts:

The New Art of Alimony

Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston’s public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed “to waive any right to past, present or future alimony.”

But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.

“This is insane,” Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. “Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, ‘My life went down the toilet, and you’re doing good—so now I want some of your money’?”

[enron_by_the_sea]

Very lively discussion on this thread (though some provocative headlines …). I wanted to share a very timely news article that ran in the Wall Street Journal this Saturday.

http://tinyurl.com/yjnufgs

Some exerpts:

The New Art of Alimony

Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston’s public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed “to waive any right to past, present or future alimony.”

But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.

“This is insane,” Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. “Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, ‘My life went down the toilet, and you’re doing good—so now I want some of your money’?”

[enron_by_the_sea]

Very lively discussion on this thread (though some provocative headlines …). I wanted to share a very timely news article that ran in the Wall Street Journal this Saturday.

http://tinyurl.com/yjnufgs

Some exerpts:

The New Art of Alimony

Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston’s public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed “to waive any right to past, present or future alimony.”

But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.

“This is insane,” Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. “Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, ‘My life went down the toilet, and you’re doing good—so now I want some of your money’?”

[enron_by_the_sea]

Very lively discussion on this thread (though some provocative headlines …). I wanted to share a very timely news article that ran in the Wall Street Journal this Saturday.

http://tinyurl.com/yjnufgs

Some exerpts:

The New Art of Alimony

Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston’s public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed “to waive any right to past, present or future alimony.”

But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.

“This is insane,” Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. “Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, ‘My life went down the toilet, and you’re doing good—so now I want some of your money’?”

[enron_by_the_sea]

Very lively discussion on this thread (though some provocative headlines …). I wanted to share a very timely news article that ran in the Wall Street Journal this Saturday.

http://tinyurl.com/yjnufgs

Some exerpts:

The New Art of Alimony

Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston’s public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs, on a leafy street called Cranberry Lane. In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed “to waive any right to past, present or future alimony.”

But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.

“This is insane,” Mr. Taylor says, adding that the payments cut his after-tax pension by more than one-third. “Someone can just come back 25 years later and say, ‘My life went down the toilet, and you’re doing good—so now I want some of your money’?”

[JustLurking]

CA Renter –

I have two children – a biological child and an adopted child. I can say unequivocally that there is NO difference in my feelings for my children. To say that women have a special bond with children BECAUSE they gave birth is incredibly insulting to women who adopt children. The maternal feelings are identical.

I find many of your posts on this topic to be extremely judgemental. Anyone who has chosen a different life path than you is wrong, or at least less right than you are. As a working mother, I find flip remarks like “stay home to raise your own children” offensive. I do raise my own children. And I work. Despite what you say, the two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Perhaps for you they are, but do not assume that everyone is like you. I do not judge you for your choices. Do not judge me.

[JustLurking]

CA Renter –

I have two children – a biological child and an adopted child. I can say unequivocally that there is NO difference in my feelings for my children. To say that women have a special bond with children BECAUSE they gave birth is incredibly insulting to women who adopt children. The maternal feelings are identical.

I find many of your posts on this topic to be extremely judgemental. Anyone who has chosen a different life path than you is wrong, or at least less right than you are. As a working mother, I find flip remarks like “stay home to raise your own children” offensive. I do raise my own children. And I work. Despite what you say, the two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Perhaps for you they are, but do not assume that everyone is like you. I do not judge you for your choices. Do not judge me.

[JustLurking]

CA Renter –

I have two children – a biological child and an adopted child. I can say unequivocally that there is NO difference in my feelings for my children. To say that women have a special bond with children BECAUSE they gave birth is incredibly insulting to women who adopt children. The maternal feelings are identical.

I find many of your posts on this topic to be extremely judgemental. Anyone who has chosen a different life path than you is wrong, or at least less right than you are. As a working mother, I find flip remarks like “stay home to raise your own children” offensive. I do raise my own children. And I work. Despite what you say, the two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Perhaps for you they are, but do not assume that everyone is like you. I do not judge you for your choices. Do not judge me.

[JustLurking]

CA Renter –

I have two children – a biological child and an adopted child. I can say unequivocally that there is NO difference in my feelings for my children. To say that women have a special bond with children BECAUSE they gave birth is incredibly insulting to women who adopt children. The maternal feelings are identical.

I find many of your posts on this topic to be extremely judgemental. Anyone who has chosen a different life path than you is wrong, or at least less right than you are. As a working mother, I find flip remarks like “stay home to raise your own children” offensive. I do raise my own children. And I work. Despite what you say, the two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Perhaps for you they are, but do not assume that everyone is like you. I do not judge you for your choices. Do not judge me.

[JustLurking]

CA Renter –

I have two children – a biological child and an adopted child. I can say unequivocally that there is NO difference in my feelings for my children. To say that women have a special bond with children BECAUSE they gave birth is incredibly insulting to women who adopt children. The maternal feelings are identical.

I find many of your posts on this topic to be extremely judgemental. Anyone who has chosen a different life path than you is wrong, or at least less right than you are. As a working mother, I find flip remarks like “stay home to raise your own children” offensive. I do raise my own children. And I work. Despite what you say, the two things are NOT mutually exclusive. Perhaps for you they are, but do not assume that everyone is like you. I do not judge you for your choices. Do not judge me.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]I guess I see more options that just “stay married and miserable” or divorce.

I firmly believe we are taught to give up too soon, especially when kids are involved.[/quote]

CAR: I absolutely agree with you on this one. While I would also point out that people live longer than even a few generations ago (and thus relationships last longer), it appears to me that a lot of folks are simply conditioned to call it quits, without putting up much of a fight.

I’m sure there are situations that are so toxic that divorce is probably the only and best option, but I would imagine those are the minority.

I’ve heard stories about people divorcing over differences that seemed minor to me. Yeah, there was probably more to it than I was privy to, but still. The last few generations, especially the Boomers, are coddled, spoiled and with far too little impulse control. There is an expectation that everyone should be happy all the time (hence Prozac, Xanax, etc) and a marked lack of sacrifice. I also believe that there is an unrealistic expectation that all marriages are somehow going to be fairy tales filled with happiness, contentment and financial reward. For many, when things don’t go in that direction, they pull the pin and immediately start looking for the next opportunity.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]I guess I see more options that just “stay married and miserable” or divorce.

I firmly believe we are taught to give up too soon, especially when kids are involved.[/quote]

CAR: I absolutely agree with you on this one. While I would also point out that people live longer than even a few generations ago (and thus relationships last longer), it appears to me that a lot of folks are simply conditioned to call it quits, without putting up much of a fight.

I’m sure there are situations that are so toxic that divorce is probably the only and best option, but I would imagine those are the minority.

I’ve heard stories about people divorcing over differences that seemed minor to me. Yeah, there was probably more to it than I was privy to, but still. The last few generations, especially the Boomers, are coddled, spoiled and with far too little impulse control. There is an expectation that everyone should be happy all the time (hence Prozac, Xanax, etc) and a marked lack of sacrifice. I also believe that there is an unrealistic expectation that all marriages are somehow going to be fairy tales filled with happiness, contentment and financial reward. For many, when things don’t go in that direction, they pull the pin and immediately start looking for the next opportunity.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]I guess I see more options that just “stay married and miserable” or divorce.

I firmly believe we are taught to give up too soon, especially when kids are involved.[/quote]

CAR: I absolutely agree with you on this one. While I would also point out that people live longer than even a few generations ago (and thus relationships last longer), it appears to me that a lot of folks are simply conditioned to call it quits, without putting up much of a fight.

I’m sure there are situations that are so toxic that divorce is probably the only and best option, but I would imagine those are the minority.

I’ve heard stories about people divorcing over differences that seemed minor to me. Yeah, there was probably more to it than I was privy to, but still. The last few generations, especially the Boomers, are coddled, spoiled and with far too little impulse control. There is an expectation that everyone should be happy all the time (hence Prozac, Xanax, etc) and a marked lack of sacrifice. I also believe that there is an unrealistic expectation that all marriages are somehow going to be fairy tales filled with happiness, contentment and financial reward. For many, when things don’t go in that direction, they pull the pin and immediately start looking for the next opportunity.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]I guess I see more options that just “stay married and miserable” or divorce.

I firmly believe we are taught to give up too soon, especially when kids are involved.[/quote]

CAR: I absolutely agree with you on this one. While I would also point out that people live longer than even a few generations ago (and thus relationships last longer), it appears to me that a lot of folks are simply conditioned to call it quits, without putting up much of a fight.

I’m sure there are situations that are so toxic that divorce is probably the only and best option, but I would imagine those are the minority.

I’ve heard stories about people divorcing over differences that seemed minor to me. Yeah, there was probably more to it than I was privy to, but still. The last few generations, especially the Boomers, are coddled, spoiled and with far too little impulse control. There is an expectation that everyone should be happy all the time (hence Prozac, Xanax, etc) and a marked lack of sacrifice. I also believe that there is an unrealistic expectation that all marriages are somehow going to be fairy tales filled with happiness, contentment and financial reward. For many, when things don’t go in that direction, they pull the pin and immediately start looking for the next opportunity.

[Author]

Posts