Isn't this an outdated concept?
|by Anonymous||reply 28||02/23/2013|
Ooooh, ooooh...what you know
It's the Carmilita Ooooh-Ooooh show
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/23/2013|
Not entirely. Not so long as people leverage money in relationships, where the great bulk of a household's financial burden is willingly offered by one party and accepted by another, or where a long established pattern of the same exists.
People still buy love and are happy to pay for it (until they change their mind and "baby, I'll take care of you" takes a stingy turn.)
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/23/2013|
I agree, but also think the idea of being a "stay at home" anything is outdated. As long as one exists, the other will exist.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/23/2013|
Tell that to those bitches who want to snare a wealthy man, and then get set up for life when the poor (sorry, rich) sap gets tired of how shallow and greedy they are ...
|by Anonymous||reply 4||02/23/2013|
Women only ever marry for money, OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||02/23/2013|
Definitely, for this generation of women. The older generation, I wouldn't cut if off, they didn't have the same options.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/23/2013|
Not if you running to the bank, sweetie!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/23/2013|
OP sounds a lot like Joan Lunden.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||02/23/2013|
There's many reasons so many women (and men) stay home. It's not an outdated concept, just misunderstood by the ignorant. Children need caretakers. Why have a child if you don't wish to be around them. I would rather be the one to cook meals for my children, decide what they eat, cultivate morals and manners, be there for them in general.
Raising children is stressful and time consuming. Their schedules require organizing, transportation, creative meal and homework planning time, etc. finding jobs that allow you to time manage multiple humans while working is a challenge.
Child are is expensive. Most people can't afford it. $600 a week for two children. That's $2400 month.
Stress. Even when couples maintain balance with respect to household chores, cooking, cleaning, working, taking care of the kids, etc. with a sTay at home parent, stress levels are high. Add a second job/career to the mix and the stress for everyone in the household increases exponentially. There's only so much two people can accomplish on a day.
Did you not benefit from and enjoy having your mom and dad around when you were a kid? Did you not love seeing them volunteering at your school and being there when you got off the bus in the afternoon?
Many complain about how horrible kids are these days. If given the gift of attentive parents who can spend real time with their children and mold them into respectable human beings than I think having a parent stay home and not work is a worthwhile choice.
If you could see the schedule of an involved stay at home mom or dad I believe you would change your tune. It's not spa days, endless television, and shopping. It's shopping for food, shopping for clothes, cooking meals, packing lunches, cleaning, cleaning, cleaning, volunteering in the classroom(s) on a weekly basis, volunteering for PTA committees that can practically turn into part time jobs, talking with and being with the kids after school, getting them ready for extracurricular activities, taxiing them to and from said activities, coordinating play dates, taxiing them to play dates, bathing their dirty bodies each night, brushing hair, brushing teeth, wiping butts, changing diapers 20 times a day, doctors appointments, dentist appointments, an hours worth of homework each night for each child, playing with and reading to the children, reprimanding, teaching manners, correcting speech, teaching life skills and executive skills, and on and on. It doesn't stop. Aside from the doctor/dentist appointments, this stuff needs to get done everyday. Days are filled and still parents don't feel like they get to see their kids enough. And all of the above duties, I would much prefer to do myself and not depend on anyone else to do them. Nor would I wish to pay someone to do them.
This post is not about alimony, I realize. I'm just defending the role of a 'nonworking' parent.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||02/23/2013|
And yet you had the time to write this enormous tale. R9!
|by Anonymous||reply 10||02/23/2013|
Plenty of female celebrities have had to pay alimony to their exes, and those men weren't exactly stay-at-home husbands.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/23/2013|
Why else would they be there, r5?
|by Anonymous||reply 12||02/23/2013|
Nice post, r9. I agree and would also add that working outside the home is much easier than staying at home with kids. Love the gays, but knowing how y'all like your lives "just so" you would be ready to hang yourselves if you stayed home all day with rug rats. I couldn't handle full time motherhood and chose part time work.
Once kids are older than 12 they still need supervision but it is time for Mom to find another purpose in life. This is why I think it's important to keep yourself in the game with part time work. I know so many women who are terrified, behind the 8 ball with regard to skill development, and very depressed. In my opinion it becomes a very dull life filled with "Candy Crush" Facebook bullshit - these women are screwed unless they get off of their duffs and make themselves feel more useful.
In closing, I don't believe in alimony but I do believe in child support. Kids cost a fortune.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/23/2013|
[quote]And yet you had the time to write this enormous tale.
...and yet, you had time to read this tale, or rather, op/ed.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/23/2013|
I agree, OP, alimony is a very outdated concept.
Just because a man is married to a woman at one time, it should not mean financial obligation to that woman after divorce.
And particularly should not mean financial obligation for many years.
Every woman should develop and have marketable skills with which she can support herself.
I was divorced back in 1986 after being married for 16 years, and I did not get a penny of alimony nor did I ask for any.
Alimony has just been, in most cases, a way for women to mooch off of a man and a way not to have to work.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/23/2013|
I don't think couples without kids do it anymore. If kids, it's just child support.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||02/23/2013|
Alimony is not necessarily a free lunch for wives who prefer not to work. Prenuptial agreements are effective in determining a fair alimony in the event of divorce. This based on one's career aspirations before the marriage.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/23/2013|
R16, I'm not so sure that alimony does not still exist in a lot of cases.
Particularly when a husband has some money and possessions, women often try to take him for all they can get and often are sucessful in doing so.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/23/2013|
What, R17? What does 'This based on one's career aspirations before marriage' mean?
And, of course, alimony is a free lunch. What are you talking about?
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/23/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 20||02/23/2013|
[quote]Plenty of female celebrities have had to pay alimony to their exes, and those men weren't exactly stay-at-home husbands.
Someone pointed out in another thread recently that some of those couples didn't even have children, which makes it all the more strange. And the ones like Guy Ritchie who had their own careers... why would they need alimony?!
I think the concept of alimony is based on an acknowledgment that the stay-at-home spouse has sacrificed their career and earning power in order to take care of the working partner's children. That makes sense to me, but why would any able-bodied, mentally competent person need alimony if they have their own career, particularly if there are no children?
|by Anonymous||reply 21||02/23/2013|
Of the women I know who have gone through divorces, none received alimony and each of them were "screwed" in the divorce. The men walked away with pretty much everything. Maybe it depends on the lawyer. Maybe what state you're in. These women just wanted out and weren't money grubbing people that many of up you assume everyone is.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||02/23/2013|
That's the great irony of alimony, r22, and people like r9 who are obsessed with protecting the hollowed right of upper-class women to opt-out of the work force upon snagging a man. Such institutions ultimately protect and enrich a small elite of women while the average woman, who works while parenting, walks away from a divorce impoverished--and the public points to the Mommy Nazis in their SUVs and insists that all women are actually enriched by divorce. As long as affluent women insist on the right not be self-supporting, the average woman can be screwed in the divorce courts with little or no public outcry.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||02/23/2013|
"snagging a man"
Funny, I only hear this archaic expression at the Datalounge and on old Loretta Young TV shows.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||02/23/2013|
Alimony is gender-neutral.
Find something else with wish to bash women. I'm sure you'll think of something.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||02/23/2013|
Yeah, and F&F fucktard R23.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||02/23/2013|
I decided to stay home for 6 years after we adopted and guess what? I became unemployable. My knowledge was outdated and I had no recent work experience. My CV went in the garbage in the first round.
That was 12 years ago. I haven't worked since. I'm overqualified for everything except my profession, but my profession doesn't want me because they're churning out new graduates in the tens of thousands every year. Why hire me when they can get an inexperienced 21 year old who will take any job offered and will fearfully bend to the will of TPTB because positions are so scant?
Think before you act.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||02/23/2013|
Let's take gender roles out of this, because alimony is not really a gender-based issue.
Say in a relationship with no children, one partner wants the other to stay home and be a hommaker, and support the breadwinner's needs and career. In these relationships, the breadwinner is using money to control the partner and the relationship, usually deliberately. There are people (usually men but not always) who don't want to bring anything to the relationship but money, and they use it to reward the dependent partner, and threaten them with its withdrawl.
In these relationships, I've seen the dependent partner being threatened with being thrown out of the house, with no job and no money of their own. Alimony, even very temporary alimony, is a protection against a specific kind of abuse.
PS: This is why I'll never be financially dependent on anyone, and warn others against letting a rich bastard "take care of them".
|by Anonymous||reply 28||02/23/2013|