The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Question - When women go into the settling down phase of life, do they (consciously or otherwise) find themselves attracted to providers instead of lovers, or do they just 'settle' for a man who'll marry them?
Page:
*Double post*
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Ladybird wrote:
> Stuff
>
> Hi Celestine. How's it hanging?
You and I should talk sometime.
> Ladybird wrote:
> Stuff
>
> Hi Celestine. How's it hanging?
You and I should talk sometime.
Ladybird wrote:
> Stuff
Hi Celestine. How's it hanging?
> Stuff
Hi Celestine. How's it hanging?
Oh these big posts make my brain hurt :'(
biglime wrote:
> But you may be surprised to hear
> the vast majority who seperate from their partner still loves
> their children, and would rather spend time with them in their
> care rather than handing out anonymous payments the child will
> never notice the significance of. The separation may not even
> have been at the will of the father, but if one half demands it
> may result in them out of pocket and only weekends with them.
>
I suppose I would be surprised if that figure of absent father's who maintained their time with their children was anything close to a "vast majority." Perhaps you're only speaking from personal experience, as I am, but it's standard for the judicial system to compensate child support to the party with the most time with the children. The variables range greatly as to how the parenting time is established. If you're an all around involved father who's never been arrested or convicted of domestic violence or any other criminal behavior, I don't see why joint custody can't work out and the parenting time divided equally between the two parents. That way there is no child support awarded to any parent, as both the parents would be equally financially responsible.
Generally, the court can only award parenting time by what you present as your only available time to spend with the kids. I'll always contend that every other weekend is too little time to spend with your kids. I'd fight for overnights during the week too, so you can enjoy changing diapers and sterilizing bottles through the night and experience being totally exhausted having to get your butt up to go to work by 8 am the following morning, too. :)
I can only hope that absent father's continue in an involved relationship with their children, however, the rift between parents tends to alienate one, normally the absent father. Typically, alienated parents prefer just paying the child support and cleaving from the drama for the sake of providing peace in the child's environment and it becomes his only foreseeable obligation. In a sense, it's more admirable than coming around ensuing chaos, although I'll always encourgage parental involvement, even in high conflict cases.
So, it's not so much that the absent parent no longer loves and cares about the child(ren), I'll agree with that..they're just doing what they can with what they've been alloted..
Which is why its cheaper to keep her.
> How does the legal system favour the mother on this? If the
> father has been working full time, the mother can argue her case
> that she has a better emotional connection with the child, and as
> is the case with most separations time is usually split between
> parents. This can favourably put them in the position of caring
> for them while still receiving payment from the father, as
> previously this was all he was doing due to lack of time, time
> that was spent earning the money to make the entire arrangement
> possible in the first place.
>
Sounds like you had a crappy attorney. heh I can't see how any legal system would endeavor to lessen a parent's time with their child based on the fact that the mother has been the primary caretaker. Perhaps physical custody can be argued (the child's primary residence), but the amount of parenting time with your child is what child support is calculated by. I suggest fighting for as much visitation (including overnights) as possible and retaining joint legal custody so that you can continue having equal say in your child's life.
> But you may be surprised to hear
> the vast majority who seperate from their partner still loves
> their children, and would rather spend time with them in their
> care rather than handing out anonymous payments the child will
> never notice the significance of. The separation may not even
> have been at the will of the father, but if one half demands it
> may result in them out of pocket and only weekends with them.
>
I suppose I would be surprised if that figure of absent father's who maintained their time with their children was anything close to a "vast majority." Perhaps you're only speaking from personal experience, as I am, but it's standard for the judicial system to compensate child support to the party with the most time with the children. The variables range greatly as to how the parenting time is established. If you're an all around involved father who's never been arrested or convicted of domestic violence or any other criminal behavior, I don't see why joint custody can't work out and the parenting time divided equally between the two parents. That way there is no child support awarded to any parent, as both the parents would be equally financially responsible.
Generally, the court can only award parenting time by what you present as your only available time to spend with the kids. I'll always contend that every other weekend is too little time to spend with your kids. I'd fight for overnights during the week too, so you can enjoy changing diapers and sterilizing bottles through the night and experience being totally exhausted having to get your butt up to go to work by 8 am the following morning, too. :)
I can only hope that absent father's continue in an involved relationship with their children, however, the rift between parents tends to alienate one, normally the absent father. Typically, alienated parents prefer just paying the child support and cleaving from the drama for the sake of providing peace in the child's environment and it becomes his only foreseeable obligation. In a sense, it's more admirable than coming around ensuing chaos, although I'll always encourgage parental involvement, even in high conflict cases.
So, it's not so much that the absent parent no longer loves and cares about the child(ren), I'll agree with that..they're just doing what they can with what they've been alloted..
Which is why its cheaper to keep her.
> How does the legal system favour the mother on this? If the
> father has been working full time, the mother can argue her case
> that she has a better emotional connection with the child, and as
> is the case with most separations time is usually split between
> parents. This can favourably put them in the position of caring
> for them while still receiving payment from the father, as
> previously this was all he was doing due to lack of time, time
> that was spent earning the money to make the entire arrangement
> possible in the first place.
>
Sounds like you had a crappy attorney. heh I can't see how any legal system would endeavor to lessen a parent's time with their child based on the fact that the mother has been the primary caretaker. Perhaps physical custody can be argued (the child's primary residence), but the amount of parenting time with your child is what child support is calculated by. I suggest fighting for as much visitation (including overnights) as possible and retaining joint legal custody so that you can continue having equal say in your child's life.
Ladybird wrote:
> I guess I'm still not seeing how wrong it could be for a man to
> work, while his wife stays home raising their children,
> especially if he has the fortitude to provide for them in this
> fashion. The children are better off being raised by a primary
> parent than by the day care facility. Wouldn't you agree? Not
> to mention how child care expenses are quite costly these days.
Again I'm not disagreeing with the concept but the unfair balance that has occured in modern society. Being raised by the single parent is more suitable then whisking them off to strangers out of the parent's sight, but it gives women a distinct advantage if something in their relationship goes wrong. Which again, is more likely in recent times. Ideally both parents would work and care for their child in equal measures, as it strikes a equal balance between time spent for wages and time for your children.
>
>
> These days, the judicial system is awarding fathers custody of
> their children a lot more frequently, because the mother is off
> working and the playing field is thus leveled.
Well no, working women is still in the minority and those with children even less so. It's common knowledge career women would leave their jobs before settling down to start a family, so very few men who depend on working women can qualify for this. THe playing field is far from levelled.
> That's an unfair assessment, in my opinion, because then the
> single mother must compensate in her role for the absent father,
> which creates a burden on her, while he's out fancyfootin' and
> freewheelin' neglecting his responsibility to his family.
This is where the legal system again favours the mother. You're referring to fathers who have abandoned their responsibility, of course these should be punished. But you may be surprised to hear the vast majority who seperate from their partner still loves their children, and would rather spend time with them in their care rather than handing out anonymous payments the child will never notice the significance of. The separation may not even have been at the will of the father, but if one half demands it may result in them out of pocket and only weekends with them.
How does the legal system favour the mother on this? If the father has been working full time, the mother can argue her case that she has a better emotional connection with the child, and as is the case with most separations time is usually split between parents. This can favourably put them in the position of caring for them while still receiving payment from the father, as previously this was all he was doing due to lack of time, time that was spent earning the money to make the entire arrangement possible in the first place.
Then you have the other end of the story with a mother finding another provider (you may have seen the high profile case about a woman who earned a substantial payout from a short, childless marriage) while still receiving her ex's payments.
> I guess I'm still not seeing how wrong it could be for a man to
> work, while his wife stays home raising their children,
> especially if he has the fortitude to provide for them in this
> fashion. The children are better off being raised by a primary
> parent than by the day care facility. Wouldn't you agree? Not
> to mention how child care expenses are quite costly these days.
Again I'm not disagreeing with the concept but the unfair balance that has occured in modern society. Being raised by the single parent is more suitable then whisking them off to strangers out of the parent's sight, but it gives women a distinct advantage if something in their relationship goes wrong. Which again, is more likely in recent times. Ideally both parents would work and care for their child in equal measures, as it strikes a equal balance between time spent for wages and time for your children.
>
>
> These days, the judicial system is awarding fathers custody of
> their children a lot more frequently, because the mother is off
> working and the playing field is thus leveled.
Well no, working women is still in the minority and those with children even less so. It's common knowledge career women would leave their jobs before settling down to start a family, so very few men who depend on working women can qualify for this. THe playing field is far from levelled.
> That's an unfair assessment, in my opinion, because then the
> single mother must compensate in her role for the absent father,
> which creates a burden on her, while he's out fancyfootin' and
> freewheelin' neglecting his responsibility to his family.
This is where the legal system again favours the mother. You're referring to fathers who have abandoned their responsibility, of course these should be punished. But you may be surprised to hear the vast majority who seperate from their partner still loves their children, and would rather spend time with them in their care rather than handing out anonymous payments the child will never notice the significance of. The separation may not even have been at the will of the father, but if one half demands it may result in them out of pocket and only weekends with them.
How does the legal system favour the mother on this? If the father has been working full time, the mother can argue her case that she has a better emotional connection with the child, and as is the case with most separations time is usually split between parents. This can favourably put them in the position of caring for them while still receiving payment from the father, as previously this was all he was doing due to lack of time, time that was spent earning the money to make the entire arrangement possible in the first place.
Then you have the other end of the story with a mother finding another provider (you may have seen the high profile case about a woman who earned a substantial payout from a short, childless marriage) while still receiving her ex's payments.
Gone Away wrote:
> Ladybird wrote:
> I can't see how men are less of a turnoff than women when
> desperate, but I suppose that's just my hetero female point of
> view. I can only derive that that being with men is more
> pleasurable for you. You rock. :)
>
> *Ahem* Erm...no. I'm a happily married (and very hetro) man.
> (And before anyone says it, I'm not homophobic, just know what I
> like!) Just so happens, that my previous ex was a lot older than
> me and somewhat desperate for kids/settling down etc. At first
> the desperate clingyness was endearing, then it got annoying,
> then she started desperately trying to change me before finally
> realising that wouldn't work and walking away...it was such an
> unfulfilling and bad relationship for me that I nearly missed
> out on the girl who would eventually become my wife, because as
> far as I was concerned I was better off staying single.
When I read "desperate clingyness," I imagine her hanging onto your beltloops trailing you into the loo. heh :P Was it that she was just overbearing with emotion? Emo..is that your type? But what I really want to know is, why did you stay in the relationship knowing she was out to change you? You know, that in itself is really sounding desperate. Instead of resisting the change, why didn't you walk away? Sorry, I'm sure that relationship must have felt quite unfulfilling.. It's good though, that you rebounded nicely. :)
> Ladybird wrote:
> I can't see how men are less of a turnoff than women when
> desperate, but I suppose that's just my hetero female point of
> view. I can only derive that that being with men is more
> pleasurable for you. You rock. :)
>
> *Ahem* Erm...no. I'm a happily married (and very hetro) man.
> (And before anyone says it, I'm not homophobic, just know what I
> like!) Just so happens, that my previous ex was a lot older than
> me and somewhat desperate for kids/settling down etc. At first
> the desperate clingyness was endearing, then it got annoying,
> then she started desperately trying to change me before finally
> realising that wouldn't work and walking away...it was such an
> unfulfilling and bad relationship for me that I nearly missed
> out on the girl who would eventually become my wife, because as
> far as I was concerned I was better off staying single.
When I read "desperate clingyness," I imagine her hanging onto your beltloops trailing you into the loo. heh :P Was it that she was just overbearing with emotion? Emo..is that your type? But what I really want to know is, why did you stay in the relationship knowing she was out to change you? You know, that in itself is really sounding desperate. Instead of resisting the change, why didn't you walk away? Sorry, I'm sure that relationship must have felt quite unfulfilling.. It's good though, that you rebounded nicely. :)
biglime wrote:
> Ladybird wrote:
>
> I have to ask though, is it so wrong for a woman to aspire to
> being kept? I find it quite admirable for a man to aspire to
> caring for the ones he loves. Even if a woman choses to stay
> home and be a mother/homemaker, she's also working for the
> benefit of the family, so it's not like they're not working as
> a
> team for the family unit..which is the most important to
> consider
> in all of this.
>
>
> Not at all, but I find it's hugely unbalanced between the sexes.
> One needs to be a risktaker, spend most of their time in the 'big
> bad world' and make something of themselves not only for his
> survival but his partners as well. Meanwhile she is relatively
> safe in the confines of the home paid off by her partner's
> salary, doing something she loves by raising up one of her own.
>
I guess I'm still not seeing how wrong it could be for a man to work, while his wife stays home raising their children, especially if he has the fortitude to provide for them in this fashion. The children are better off being raised by a primary parent than by the day care facility. Wouldn't you agree? Not to mention how child care expenses are quite costly these days.
> It also gives women a huge advantage in todays makeup of
> society. Nowadays women expect their partner to not only be
> financially independent, but also a loving caring lover, father
> who pays attention to his children and partner. Only that makes
> it difficult for the father since he is busy earning both his
> and the family's keep.
>
These days, the judicial system is awarding fathers custody of their children a lot more frequently, because the mother is off working and the playing field is thus leveled.
> Along with today's justice system which favours divorced mothers
> with regular payouts from their ex-husband, it places women in a
> very favourable position that affords them the luxury to be
> picky, many times impossibly so.
That's an unfair assessment, in my opinion, because then the single mother must compensate in her role for the absent father, which creates a burden on her, while he's out fancyfootin' and freewheelin' neglecting his responsibility to his family.
Normally, these "regular payouts" can not cover a majority of the needs for the children (if they're even lucky to receive any of it) and the mother is made to go back to work regardless. I can't see how this is a favourable position in the least for anyone involved.
> Ladybird wrote:
>
> I have to ask though, is it so wrong for a woman to aspire to
> being kept? I find it quite admirable for a man to aspire to
> caring for the ones he loves. Even if a woman choses to stay
> home and be a mother/homemaker, she's also working for the
> benefit of the family, so it's not like they're not working as
> a
> team for the family unit..which is the most important to
> consider
> in all of this.
>
>
> Not at all, but I find it's hugely unbalanced between the sexes.
> One needs to be a risktaker, spend most of their time in the 'big
> bad world' and make something of themselves not only for his
> survival but his partners as well. Meanwhile she is relatively
> safe in the confines of the home paid off by her partner's
> salary, doing something she loves by raising up one of her own.
>
I guess I'm still not seeing how wrong it could be for a man to work, while his wife stays home raising their children, especially if he has the fortitude to provide for them in this fashion. The children are better off being raised by a primary parent than by the day care facility. Wouldn't you agree? Not to mention how child care expenses are quite costly these days.
> It also gives women a huge advantage in todays makeup of
> society. Nowadays women expect their partner to not only be
> financially independent, but also a loving caring lover, father
> who pays attention to his children and partner. Only that makes
> it difficult for the father since he is busy earning both his
> and the family's keep.
>
These days, the judicial system is awarding fathers custody of their children a lot more frequently, because the mother is off working and the playing field is thus leveled.
> Along with today's justice system which favours divorced mothers
> with regular payouts from their ex-husband, it places women in a
> very favourable position that affords them the luxury to be
> picky, many times impossibly so.
That's an unfair assessment, in my opinion, because then the single mother must compensate in her role for the absent father, which creates a burden on her, while he's out fancyfootin' and freewheelin' neglecting his responsibility to his family.
Normally, these "regular payouts" can not cover a majority of the needs for the children (if they're even lucky to receive any of it) and the mother is made to go back to work regardless. I can't see how this is a favourable position in the least for anyone involved.
I say we stand up men and fight for proper equality. To the town center and burn your boxers while chanting catchy slogans!!!!!!!!
Ladybird wrote:
> I have to ask though, is it so wrong for a woman to aspire to
> being kept? I find it quite admirable for a man to aspire to
> caring for the ones he loves. Even if a woman choses to stay
> home and be a mother/homemaker, she's also working for the
> benefit of the family, so it's not like they're not working as a
> team for the family unit..which is the most important to consider
> in all of this.
>
Not at all, but I find it's hugely unbalanced between the sexes. One needs to be a risktaker, spend most of their time in the 'big bad world' and make something of themselves not only for his survival but his partners as well. Meanwhile she is relatively safe in the confines of the home paid off by her partner's salary, doing something she loves by raising up one of her own.
It also gives women a huge advantage in todays makeup of society. Nowadays women expect their partner to not only be financially independent, but also a loving caring lover, father who pays attention to his children and partner. Only that makes it difficult for the father since he is busy earning both his and the family's keep.
Along with today's justice system which favours divorced mothers with regular payouts from their ex-husband, it places women in a very favourable position that affords them the luxury to be picky, many times impossibly so.
> I have to ask though, is it so wrong for a woman to aspire to
> being kept? I find it quite admirable for a man to aspire to
> caring for the ones he loves. Even if a woman choses to stay
> home and be a mother/homemaker, she's also working for the
> benefit of the family, so it's not like they're not working as a
> team for the family unit..which is the most important to consider
> in all of this.
>
Not at all, but I find it's hugely unbalanced between the sexes. One needs to be a risktaker, spend most of their time in the 'big bad world' and make something of themselves not only for his survival but his partners as well. Meanwhile she is relatively safe in the confines of the home paid off by her partner's salary, doing something she loves by raising up one of her own.
It also gives women a huge advantage in todays makeup of society. Nowadays women expect their partner to not only be financially independent, but also a loving caring lover, father who pays attention to his children and partner. Only that makes it difficult for the father since he is busy earning both his and the family's keep.
Along with today's justice system which favours divorced mothers with regular payouts from their ex-husband, it places women in a very favourable position that affords them the luxury to be picky, many times impossibly so.
Page: