This is an opinion that was sent to me about patriarchy.

Post Reply New Topic

I've lived in more than three countries but that's not relevant. This thread was started by an Italian woman. To the best of my knowledge neither you nor I have lived in Italy.





Marriage is a financial contract. If people can't be bothered to read the fine print, that's their problem. I've done my part to advise members about the risks and responsibilities of relationships and reproduction since joining this forum in 2017.





My point was that persons awarded alimony by court order are eligible because of the contribution they've made to their partner's earning potential.





These "unreasonable odds" aren't based on their gender. If there is a discrepancy, it's because men are more likely to have worked full-time while their partners stayed home, or worked part-time, raising children. That's usually because women have breasts for feeding their children, and because fathers aren't always interested in the demands of fulltime parenting, especially for babies and toddlers.




I'm not giving a single, anecdotal case. I've discussed how family law works for families and for the rights of children. I have nearly 30 years experience with case law in a variety of contexts. My particular experience was not unique or extraordinary. I've known hundreds of men and women who have divorced or separated during my career, as friends, relatives, or associates, and as a middle-aged woman. I've also known hundreds of children affected by divorce and separation because I work in the field of international domestic violence advocacy.

Having direct experience is not a prerequisite, but it's prudent to respect and learn from those who do.





Again, family responsibility is not related to this topic. If men don't want to risk paying alimony or child support, perhaps they should stunt their education, quit jobs, stop dating, refuse to marry especially if they want their children raised at home, and keep their peckers in their pants.

I know that sounds harsh and it's unrealistic, but with choice comes responsibility. Most people know this very well if they've experienced raising children with or without the help of a partner.






What then do you propose for family law reform, and to best support children and their caregivers?






I'm illustrating reasons why family law recognises single parenting, or stay-at-home parenting during marriage, to be an extremely demanding and challenging pursuit. This is why financial support and shared custody are encouraged, where possible.









I did not put forth that notion. Nor did I offer an opinion about patriarchies, or respond to the OP directly.




And?





It was large given my age and the times, but I certainly wasn't a millionaire. It was less than a year of my salary when I left on disability. It paid for a downpayment on my modest house, and I still had a mortgage. This doesn't make me exceptional, especially given the $500,000K in legal abuse I was subjected to by my exhusband. I'm not alone with that, either. I know many women, and a few men, who were driven into the poorhouse by relentless and litigious exes. Mine cost me about $10K arguing over who would keep the china plates we'd been given as wedding gifts, even when I told him to take the damned things because I didn't want them. It wasn't just about child support. Some people, particularly narcissists, seem to love the power rush associated with attacking others in court. It's shameful that this often includes their own children.




I've heard men spout this crap, but I've yet to see it occur in real life. The women I've known aren't interested in men's wealth insofar as they aren't couch potatoes who will sue them for alimony, just like men avoid the same from women. The women I know are looking for men who respect them, not men who buy them with trinkets and toys.





Who spends more on electronics, gaming systems, cars, recreational vehicles, boats, and other man crap? How does that work? Could it be these men earn money while their partners raise the kids, or could it be these men go into debt for mantoys they can't afford?





I don't have any money at all. Nor do I want my partner's money. When did I say otherwise?





Don't forget, this was in the 1990s. I can't imagine what it would cost now. Should I have quit my job and forfeited my future earning potential as well as medical benefits, disability insurance and pension, as well as custody of my kids, to avoid three years of extreme financial hardship?

People told me at the time it would be "short term pain for longterm gain". I retire at the end of January to a fairly decent pension and none of this would be possible without those years of daycare expense.

Re: Government

Why should it be a government cost, rather than the parents' cost? Do you support tax hikes to pay for other people's children to have daycare?

If you had children would you want your spouse to stay home and raise them, or would you be willing to pay daycare fees?

If you stayed home to raise them yourself and your partner paid the bills, how would you handle a divorce while still caring for those kids? How would you support yourself and your children, without requiring daycare?

That is a very well spoken point Isabella. Thank you for sticking up for the female war vets on WP.

I didn't realise you shared a bed with your parents in your one-bedroom flat.
That must have been really cosy when you were a teenager!

How much schooling do you have, and how did you pay for it?

What do you mean?

It's a common misconception that family courts are biased against men, either in the UK or the US. There's no real evidence that is the case in the 21st century. Statistically in the UK it's very close to 50-50 who gets primary custody when a case goes to court. The reason more women end up with custody is because men are less likely to seek custody to begin with.

Where in any post I have made, have I said that I have shared a bed with my parents in a one-bedroom flat?

What on Earth are you talking about?

You seem to be projecting your own ideas onto my posts and then seem to assume I have made an assertion of some kind.

For the record, I have neither lived in a one bedroom flat during childhood, nor shared a bed.

I went to a a government funded primary school, a government funded high school, a government funded 6th form, and then took out government funded student loans to complete a bachelor's degree and a postgraduate certificate.

My parents didn't spend a penny on educating me, and mostly I motivated myself with regards to education (as well as friends and teachers), with maybe a few words from my Mum, but received nothing in the way of tangible help with any of the work assigned, of any kind.

You made a post where you discussed different costs associated with family and on the topic of family and it is difficult to understand that without some context of where you are referring to. Obviously you were referring to dollars and I deal with pounds so it is difficult to follow without some context.





Whilst it is true technically, what you say - that marriage is a contract, I think many people marry based on emotions and do it for symbolic social reasons. It is understandable then if people are motivated by that, that they might neglect the more technical aspects of marriage.



Okay





I clearly said unfavourable, not unreasonable.

I'm not sure why you mention women having breasts for feeding children. Is that a point about women being biologically more inclined to look after children? I agree that women tend to be more inclined to caregiving and parenting for their children.





You work in the field of international domestic violence advocacy? I thought you said somewhere else that you were on disability? Did you mean worked in the past tense?









It's not harsh, there is some truth to what you said there.






My initial posts were pointing out some of the flaws in the concept of patriarchy, and this included mentioning alimony which snowballed into a deeper discussion about family court that I didn't expect, nor have a particular interest in.

I don't propose anything.







I see.





No, you didn't put forth that notion, nor do I think that you did. I was simply giving you an insight into my thoughts there and what was motivating my opinions.





This relates to the point about danger money in places like the military and as to why men often get paid more for various job roles.





I have wisely managed not go get involved with courts of any kind. The situation you describe doesn't sound very pleasant.





Hmm, I respectfully disagree.





There will inevitably be irresponsible men on an individual level. I don't disagree with that idea.





You didn't say otherwise. My comment above was in response to you saying you don't have any money and I simply agreed by saying I am not surprised with your financial circumstances.





Well, that is even more costly then and reinforces my point that it isn't a good deal for an individual to bear the burden of such a cost.



Okay.



Yes, I support tax hikes to pay for other people's children to have daycare. Children are inevitable and make up society and society is nothing without them. They are valuable as part of the economy (a majority of the time, by numbers), so they should be treated well and not be at the mercy of capitalism.



In the UK, there is I think 30 hours of free childcare for kids of parents with low or no income and the rest can be taken care of by parents or extended family. So money isn't a necessarily a preventative barrier to maintaining children.

I don't wish to have children however, so the point is moot.



I understand that there are challenges with this kind of situation.

Last edited by blitzkrieg on 28 Nov 2023, 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

I've heard that before. It ignores the fact that men do have to seek it out, men don't get automatic recognition as parent in the US, not sure about the UK, and there are plenty of men that do ask for it and don't get it anyways.

I don't know that there's bias when the father does request parenting rights, but the fact that men are the ones that have to ask, is definitely a major source of bias that needs to be fixed. You see the same thing with pregnancy where mothers get a tremendous amount of control over being a mother both before and after birth. Before birth there isn't really a good way of not giving the woman being pregnant all that power, but there's no good reason to allow women to have the right to place babies up for adoption without either paternal permission or a valid police report indicating some form of safety concern.

I'm talking about your cavalier attitude toward parenting, and specifically your attitude here:






I suppose your parents did not provide you with round-the-clock care, a baby cot, nappies or toys when you were very young, or that you were just an insignificant, incidental finding in their lives. You seem to underestimate the lifestyle changes adults make to accommodate babies and children, in general. My point is that your parents could have lived in a one-bedroom flat if you hadn't been born. They may not have needed that car, or the computers you used for your video games.

You were afforded your own bedroom and the resulting privacy it ensures. That increases rent, taxes, and other household expenses. If I didn't have children with my exh I would have sold the house and moved into my mother's house. Personally, I don't need more than a small room and bath. Instead I own a home which provides my kids with their own bedrooms, a family room, a space for them to hang out with friends, a yard for their pets, etc., and I pay the land taxes and mortgage for this space, accordingly. My electric and utility bills are significantly higher than if they hadn't been born.

You were being sarcastic toward TwilightPrincess about how challenging parenting can be, and how much sacrifice is involved, so I assumed it was fair game to turn the tables with my post.

Where I live doesn't matter. I use words like "dollar" to be generic. Maybe it's pounds. Maybe it's yen. Likewise, my work as an advocate is an unpaid advisory position. I have always been active in volunteerism and non-profit work to aid victims of violence although no, that was not my paid career from which I will retire soon.

Hear hear! *sounds of affirmative noise in the background*





Agreed!

I was not a planned pregnancy, so it could be perceived that I was incidental. Both my parents learned to drive and owned a car before I was born, and both of them planned to (and have) used cars for purposes other than child rearing. I am grateful for one of my parents who raised me, however, the other one didn't do much at all. Quite literally. Despite that, I don't believe it is the hardest job out of all jobs. It just isn't, in my opinion.

I did say in reply to TP, further back in the thread, and also in previous posts that parenting does require time & effort. I said that twice. So I don't agree that I have a cavalier attitude toward parenting, I simply don't oversell or overestimate it.



You are making assumptions yet again. I shared a bedroom at least part way through my childhood.

Also, I did mention in a previous post that I acknowledge that parenting costs time and effort and that time and effort costs money.



Hmm, I think you have maybe taken my post too personally, perhaps? I mean, I know you two are friends and all.



Good for you.

Last edited by blitzkrieg on 28 Nov 2023, 10:04 am, edited 2 times in total.

My husband walked out on us when our son was three. Our daughter was six months and I was still a nursing mum on maternity leave. I was told by many people that "no court in the land" would give him custody because of the children's young ages, and maternal bias. Furthermore there was a documented history of him abusing our son mentally and physically. Still, I was forced to give him joint physical and legal custody, because of laws supporting fathers' rights.

I fully appreciate the importance of (good) fathers in children's lives but this arrangement was not satisfactory to my kids. I won't even elaborate how difficult it was for two autistic babies who craved routine and consistency to be shuttled between two homes and two parenting styles, in addition to spending 50 hours per week in daycare centres. When I objected to this Order I was forced to pay for a $25,000 comprehensive custody assessment. He did not have to pay because he hadn't requested the study. The children were given their own lawyers and psychologists. There were home visits, daycare visits, and even grandparent visits, as well as psychological studies on both of us as parents. My ex was deemed to be a danger to the children and it was recommended that he have no more than a few hours per week of social-work-supervised access to the kids. He was also ordered to attend ongoing psychiatric care and ongoing parenting classes lest he lose all parenting rights. The only recommendation for me, was that I should be encouraged to improve my communication skills in times where I required self-advocacy. My ex-h refused to follow the resulting court Order regarding psychiatric care, and he did not return my children from his 50-50 scheduled access. Nor did he pay the court-ordered support which I'd required to keep their stable home.

Just ranting, I guess ... but I thought it was topical to share. This shows there is not a bias toward mothers, even when they are still nursing, when the kids are very young, or when the mother is proven to be the better parent by court-appointed evaluation.





What do you mean, they have to ask? If the parents can't determine custody amicably out of court or through family mediation / arbitration, both parents need to "ask" for legal assistance.

They need to pay for it, too.

Police don't need to report safety concerns for a mother to determine the child's best interest, or her own limitations for parenting.

In response I'd say there's no good reason to allow any parent to walk out on their children, abuse their children, default on their financial responsibilities, and / or violate of court orders regarding custody and costs. I know you didn't say this was acceptable, but it happens nonetheless.

This is why I asked for input on family law reform. I've yet to hear any constructive solutions for improving and ensuring the rights of children worldwide.

Perhaps this thread will serve as a wakeup call.

Here's some info regarding parental responsibility in England.

https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-resp ... onsibility


For the record I was not defending Twilight because you consider her to be my friend. I was showing respect to all mothers and fathers for the tremendous effort it takes to raise a child well. That includes single fathers, like my exb who raised three boys on his own, or my brother who fostered and then adopted a little boy and raised him on his own for the past 27 years.

Your attitude that parenting is relatively "easy" comes from a place of privilege, considering you haven't been gifted a newborn to raise on your own through its adulthood. It's quite disrespectful toward the men you aim to support in your posts.

Um, you have quoted a quote from MatchboxVagabond and put my name to his quote.

Can you amend that please?

I didn't say that.