Quote from Feminist_Scum

You should tell that to the feminist who said if her daughter brought me home, she would gun me down on sight.

Feminists and women are often two different things.....as I am finding out!

Quote from Drex

The current status quo is that the courts, i.e. the state, decides what is "justified".. simple as that..

And I supported that how?

Quote from KellyMac

And I supported that how?

"But, in a case such as Annette's, if they were to divorce, I would support alimony for a limited time to give her a chance to re-establish herself in the work world. I would also support the children living with the parent who is best able to provide for their needs.

In the real world, of course, such a thing as alimony is rarely, if ever, justified, as the government steps in to see to every need the divorced mother has. "

Quote from Drex

"But, in a case such as Annette's, if they were to divorce, I would support alimony for a limited time to give her a chance to re-establish herself in the work world. I would also support the children living with the parent who is best able to provide for their needs.

Yes, in an ideal world, with all the other things I stipulated, I would support this. I fail to see how this is supporting the status quo. The status quo does not limit alimony, nor does it put the children with the parent who is best able to provide for their needs. Would it have helped if I had defined "limited"? Is it that I used the word "alimony"? I suppose that does imply that the government would be involved. I guess in the really ideal world, he would just give her the help she needed, without the government being involved at all. Or vice versa, if the roles were reversed.

Working for the government as I do, I get to see first hand how laws are made, and how they seem to make things worse more often than not. Lawmakers seldom think things all the way through. So I do take your point about the government deciding what is "justified". They are about the least qualified to do so, and this is really a matter that should be handled by the parties involved.

In the real world, of course, such a thing as alimony is rarely, if ever, justified, as the government steps in to see to every need the divorced mother has. "

I thought I was pretty clear about which part was ideal world, and which part was real world. But maybe I wasn't.

If you want to call me a feminist, Drex, or anyone else, for that matter, go right ahead. You're entitled to your opinion. I don't want to argue about this anymore.

Quote from KellyMac

Yes, in an ideal world, with all the other things I stipulated, I would support this. I fail to see how this is supporting the status quo. The status quo does not limit alimony, nor does it put the children with the parent who is best able to provide for their needs. Would it have helped if I had defined "limited"? Is it that I used the word "alimony"? I suppose that does imply that the government would be involved. I guess in the really ideal world, he would just give her the help she needed, without the government being involved at all. Or vice versa, if the roles were reversed.

Working for the government as I do, I get to see first hand how laws are made, and how they seem to make things worse more often than not. Lawmakers seldom think things all the way through. So I do take your point about the government deciding what is "justified". They are about the least qualified to do so, and this is really a matter that should be handled by the parties involved.



I thought I was pretty clear about which part was ideal world, and which part was real world. But maybe I wasn't.

If you want to call me a feminist, Drex, or anyone else, for that matter, go right ahead. You're entitled to your opinion. I don't want to argue about this anymore.

I dont concern myself too much with labels such as "feminist" or whatever, because they mean many different things to many different people. I have been described as being an alpah male supremacist in league with the radfems and indeed, i can see that point perhaps looking valid from the point of view of the person who was making it..

Ideal worlds, real worlds, and all seem pretty similar, the difference being we are all in one world and we all see our own view of it and have basic ideas of how we may want to see things move in the future..

If you still subscribe to the outdated beliefs in the poor opressed women treated badly by the patriarchy who cant stand on their own two feet and that men are not responsible enough to do the right thing by them, then, I suggest that that is a very strong feminist tendancy..

My basic view is that folk are natural going to take on responsibilties if we allow them to and that families dont in the main need the state to sort out thier issues to the extent that the state current overwhelmingly does.

Bear in mind that the daddy of the fathers movement, matt O connor, is a self-confessed feminist..

My beef with the mainstream fathers movement is that is it heavily dominated by women and feminists who are asking for "equality" and asking that the state act as "meta parent"..

The feminists will only allow fathers a role when they feminise their attitiudes..

Does not suit all men..

or indeed, the majority of men..

Quote from KellyMac

How am I supporting the status quo, Drex? I said in the ideal world, limited alimony is justified. In the real world, it is not.

You're going to have to explain your statement.

If anything, the opposite is the case. In an ideal world, government intervention would be limitted as possible and people could be trusted to take a responsibility. The only possible justifiable reason for alimony is that women won't be responsible enough to create financial fallbacks for themselves.


State mandated alimony is wrong in principle. Any woman worried about being left penniless should either a) not get married b)not be housewives or c)get a strong prenup.

There is nothing to discuss with people who believe in state mandated alimony or child support.

People also neglect to consider how much a man "suffers" and "sacrifices" when he decides to support a "stay at home", housewife..

The marginal disposible income drops immensely and sir must ensure he is able to deal with this, providing the resources where needed..

In a time when many men are happy to enjoying the dual income benefits of the working woman, it is a not insubstantial "sacrifice" when sir has to give up a vast proportion of his wedge to the support of the wife and kids, in his home..

But, in the "me me" mentality of the typical female, there is no thought whatsoever that a gent may be affected or have to make financial "sacrifices"..

Typical scenario...

Sirs income..

£400 weekly net..

Her ladyships income..

£300 weekly net..

family expenditure...

£350 weekly net..

Even allowing for £100 weekly child care expenses, it can be seen that the family has £250 disposible with a dual income, and only £50 disposible on the "male breadwinner" income..

If one assumes equal expenditure of disposible income, then sir has lost £100 weekly beer money.. he can afford not much more than a few pints daily!

(hardly enough to get drunk enough to engage in non-consential sex..)

Well, Drex, maybe my husband has a very old-fashioned attitude about this, because he feels that it detracts from a guy's masculinity when his wife works outside the home. He feels it makes it look to all the world as if the man cannot make enough to support a family.

My late father felt the same way, but I always chalked that up to his generation. However, I have met men, like my husband, who do feel that way, and they're younger guys. But maybe my husband can afford to hold that view, since his income as an engineer has always been more than enough to support us. I remember that he tried to get me to be a stay at homer even before we had kids, and so I guess the kids were just an excuse.

Quote from Annette1313

Well, Drex, maybe my husband has a very old-fashioned attitude about this, because he feels that it detracts from a guy's masculinity when his wife works outside the home. He feels it makes it look to all the world as if the man cannot make enough to support a family.

My late father felt the same way, but I always chalked that up to his generation. However, I have met men, like my husband, who do feel that way, and they're younger guys. But maybe my husband can afford to hold that view, since his income as an engineer has always been more than enough to support us. I remember that he tried to get me to be a stay at homer even before we had kids, and so I guess the kids were just an excuse.

It is getting increasing difficult for a man to be able to do this though.. I think having women in the work place is a major cause of female adultery.. (so I haev been informed..)

Quote from Drex

It is getting increasing difficult for a man to be able to do this though.. I think having women in the work place is a major cause of female adultery.. (so I haev been informed..)

YES....now we DO agree! In fact, you remember that divorced couple I told you about, from when I lived in NJ? The woman who was the sole breadwinner?

Well, the reason they got divorced was because she had a long-running affair with a guy she *worked with*. Not sure how her stay at home hubby found out, but find out he did.

Historically, women not working outside the home was an anomoly. It is only a realistic option in a highly developed economy and even then only for some members of the middle and upper class.


It's good that not all women want to be housewifes, because then there would be alot of dissapointed women. It is probably only a realistic option for about 15 percent of the female population. I wonder if women who would rather raise their kids resent women who could stay at home but choose to pursue a career instead.

Another quite valid complaint made about the working mother comes from those women who are committed to their work and have to endure the prejudice that they will soon jack it in to breed..

They also resent the fact that working mothers seem to be accomodated by so many different ways of being allegedly working, but in reality getting paid to not work..

Women themselves make their own choices here and indeed it is known that they often resent losing time with their kids, dumping them in childcare, etc..

And when they note that the father seems to be having a nice time dealing with the young ones while they are enslaved..

They often get even more resentful..

Oddly, men who give up their jobs to deal with their families rarely complain about making "sacrifices"..

Its like, "what would I rather do all day, play with the kids and be my own boss in charge of my family, or arselick to the firm while propping up a bunch of bitches who insist on getting the same pay as me while they gossip and skive off.."

The risks of workplace adultery are probably dropping as the workplace becomes the new kitchen sink..

Quote from Otis the Sweaty

Historically, women not working outside the home was an anomoly. It is only a realistic option in a highly developed economy and even then only for some members of the middle and upper class.


It's good that not all women want to be housewifes, because then there would be alot of dissapointed women. It is probably only a realistic option for about 15 percent of the female population. I wonder if women who would rather raise their kids resent women who could stay at home but choose to pursue a career instead.

In my grandmother's day, mostly all immigrant women HAD to work outside the home. My grandmother held three menial jobs, because my grandfather was disabled during World War One (yes, I said "One"!) She scrubbed buses, homes, and worked in a sweatshop, sewing, for LONG hours in terrible conditions (this was from about 1920 on).

Consequently, by the time my parent's gen arrived (2nd gen Americans), they came to see it as a sign of status if a wife did NOT work outside the home. My father had that attitude, and so, it seems, does my husband (probably because his folks also had that attitude.)

Just a little history lesson for you!

BTW many 'working women' do resent women like me, but frankly they can kiss my *ss. I have been dealing with one for the past year who tries to use me as her babysitter when her kids are off school and she has to go to work. (see other thread)

Do they resent you cause you are sacrificing your carreer or because you get to stay home? If its the latter wouldn't they resent you even more if you could stay home and didn't?