Anti-feminist becomes feminist after husband dumps her on 40th wedding...

[murdoch]

During the era of ERA in the US and feminism in the industrialized countries, this woman wrote an anti-feminist book in 1980, talking about the importance of marriage over career, old-fashioned values and whatnot. On the year of their 40th wedding anniversary, her husband left her for a younger woman. Now she is trying to figure out how to make ends meet at 67 with few job skills. She has written a new book saying her first book was wrong.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,16937,1681744,00.html

[stop the bleeding]

1. interesting and sad. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

2. Sometimes one needs to be hit over the head with a sledgehammer

in order to get a clue. Oftentimes even that doesn't work, but I'm glad to see that it did in this case. I'm hoping that she can stick it to her bastard of an ex-husband, and that her new book will make some money for her. I'm also hoping that some people will actually learn something from the lessons that she's learned the hard way.

[pitohui]

6. she already lost in court, no sticking it to the husband

the piece says clearly that the judge told her to get job-training, while husband vacations w. new and younger bride in mexico

and be honest w. yourself

if you were the judge and you saw a woman standing before you who had not bothered to work for decades now wanting to put a claim for alimony against her husband who did work all those decades, wouldn't you be tempted to tell her the same?

the rest of us have to work, hell with her

she got her retirement when she was young, her husband is getting his retirement while he's old, who is to say she didn't get the better deal after all?

[riderinthestorm]

8. She raised 5 children. That wasn't a "retirement" situation

I'm glad she's woken up finally. And I'm glad she's telling her story. It's a worthy one and timely. But she didn't have any kind of "retirement" raising 5 children.

[pitohui]

12. other women w. children work

sorry, no pity here

birth control existed back then, as did abortion

raising children is not a job or we'd pay people for it, it's a personal hobby

[Conservativesux]

19. Alimony is one reason so many men wont get married these days.

This womans story is sad but it happens the other way around much more often.

[pitohui]

25. why would ending the practice of alimony stop men from marrying?

seems the reverse would be the case

most judges haven't awarded alimony for a long, long time, you know judges get divorced too!

[Conservativesux]

32. Nonsense, I know plenty of men that are paying alimony.

Marriage IS a contract and thats why all men and women should have pre-nups when the marriage goes south, so its all spelled oot in black and white.

50 percent of all marriages do end in DV.

[pitohui]

43. i bet they are paying CHILD SUPPORT

not the same thing and it ends when the child reaches a certain age

men who don't marry the mothers of their children can be court-ordered to pay child support also, so i guess my suggestion is to get a vasectomy or wear a rubber

this woman is 67, her kids are grown

[Conservativesux]

61. No, I said Alimony. Its still mandated under law in many states.

I know well the difference between alimony and CS.

[Karenina]

132. Anyone else hear the sound

of an ax being grinded? Get me an mp3 sample! :nopity:

[Nikki Stone 1]

140. See post #119 for the situation in California

From my attorney

[liberalhistorian]

115. Yes, marriage is a contract and

in this case, she fulfilled her end of the bargain and he didn't, he breached the contract big-time.

And as the poster below says, the men you know are likely paying child support, not alimony, and there's a huge difference. As a paralegal, I know of very, very few people who are paying alimony. And women pay child support as well. And for the people who bitch about child support, they'd be paying a helluva lot more for the child(ren) if they weren't divorced and if they were living with them, and it's their financial obligation to help support the child's needs.

My son's father gets away with paying only $210 a month, which is NOTHING compared to what my son costs monthly; his school lunch fees alone are $50-60 a month. Yet he bitches constantly about even that meager amount. He was paying $260 a month, but it was dropped recently because he has another biological child (at least this time he didn't throw the mother out of the house when she was pregnant, like he did with me) and under Ohio's ridiculous law, for each natural child you have besides those you're paying support for, they drop your income, for purposes of determining support, $3,000 dollars.

I know some men who are paying almost nothing because they have two or three other children. I think that's pure bullshit, and OH is one of the few states who still has that stupid law, so now he's getting away with paying even less. I pay far more than that monthly for my son and I don't make any more money than he does. And his girlfriend helps a lot with their household and their son's expenses, so it's not like he's solely responsible.

Fortunately, I moved to South Dakota this past summer and my son will join me once this school year has ended. I say fortunately, because SD does not have such a ridiculous law as OH and he won't be able to get away with claiming he should pay less for one son just because he has another. There will be absolutely nothing he can do about that.

They will also be far more aggressive in collecting the $3,000 he still owes in back support dating from the two years that he refused to report employment and comply with child support; he'd take a job just long enough for child support to catch up with him, then quit and get another. His girlfriend taught him to do that, since she's told me flat out she doesn't think he should have to pay any support at all since they have their own son. And I know many, many, many other similar stories; please spare me the "poor men" bullshit routine.

[alittlelark]

259. My sis has 2 kids by 2 fathers (both married to her)

neither has paid a penny in support. She is in NM and will have to give up rights for $$$. Our family is taking up the slack.


DEPLORABLE Dads are a HUGE problem.

PS - one of them gave $1000 to Bush according to his brother.

[Nikki Stone 1]

261. A deadbeat dad Bush supporter. Imagine that!

Neither one wants to take any responsibility.

[alittlelark]

262. Why should they?

None of the rest of us seem to get too riled up.

VERY, VERY sad.

[Arugula Latte]

349. Love those Republican family values!

:eyes:

[liberalhistorian]

293. Wow, I sure feel bad for her

then. I won't be giving up any rights for child support, in fact, I'll be gaining some since SD has more enlightened domestic relations and child support laws than OH, if you can imagine that. Also, even if they do grant him the same reduction as OH, or even any reduction, he will have to pay off his substantial arrearage entirely before the reduction will even go into effect. In OH, they don't separate reductions and arrearages, which, again, is ridiculous.

This is why he doesn't want me to move here permanently and bring my son here, because there will be absolutely nothing he can do about it, unlike in OH where they seem to favor the child support payor, even deadbeat ones.

I also just got my child support caseworker removed from my case because she was very rude and unhelpful to me, and biased in his favor, something my county agency in OH simply will not tolerate. She had just been assigned this summer, right after I moved to Rapid City, SD. I had advised the agency and my other caseworker of my move and that I'd given my mom my consent to cash the child support checks and use them for Chris's expenses, since he would continue to live with them; they told me I didn't need to do anything else at the time since I'd called and told them.

Well, this little bitch gets ahold of the file and things change. My son's father knows this and decided to "report" me to the agency, that I was not living with Chris and had moved out of state for a job, obviously not realizing that I had already advised them months before. It was both his way of getting back at me for appealing his child support reduction (an appeal I subsequently had dropped at HIS request), and he apparently also was dumb enough to think that he wouldn't have to pay support if Chris wasn't living with me (yes, he and his fiance really are that damned dumb, and she's always resented his having another son besides theirs, let alone his having to pay support).

So, the caseworker sends me a letter demanding an explanation, who my son was living with, where I was living, who was cashing the checks and if the money was being used for Chris's benefit. No, my mom and stepdad decided to go out and party and attend orgies every night with the money. She then has a hearing to determine administration of the support checks scheduled, completely ignoring my protests that not onlyw as no need for such a hearing, but that it would be impossible for me to attend such a hearing, being out of state. She was incredibly rude and nasty when I attempted to speak with her about it. I had a lawyer attend the hearing for me, and my mom testified as well as to the disposition of the checks.

Guess who didn't show up for the hearing or even send any representative? Yeah, you got it. So, the caseworker said, upon learning this, "He's not here? But he's the one who wanted the hearing and he promised me he'd be here!" She was also overheard expressing concern that he still had to pay support even though he was laid off and that she didn't want to have to garnish his unemployment check, as per state procedure.

This was incredible and unbelievable to me, especially considering that he had never turned in his paperwork for his first two requests for an administrative review to reduce his child support, and despite the fact that he had a substantial arrearage because, for two years, he'd refused to comply with child support and report his employment; he'd get a job and stay just long enough for child support to catch up with it, then quit and get another job. For TWO YEARS I got NOTHING AT ALL, due to his deliberate defiance; his girlfriend, the mother of his second son, taught him how to "game the system" because she didn't want him paying anything at all. And THIS fucking bitch of a caseworker was rude, nasty, unhelpful, and unprofessional to me, and more concerned with helping him than doing her job and ensuring that he lived up to his legal financial obligation.

And this goes on far more than people would even think, believe you me; as a paralegal, I've seen it firsthand. Fortunately, I complained about her in specific detail and she was not only removed from my case pronto but disciplined and given a good talking to. And he won't be able to get away with any of his shit with SD, no siree, they won't put up with that and they have far more enlightened domestic relations and child support laws that he won't be able to do anything about.

So, I sure do feel bad for your sister, she got a raw deal there. I frankly think it's bullshit that states have different laws in this regard, child support laws should be federalized into one uniform national code, especially in this day and age when there's so much mobility. This is the kind of shit women have to put with all the time, and I'm damned sick of it.

[alittlelark]

296. Sis and I would agree w/ you fully

1 'father' is a dentist - he just recently got his license back (drug use, dealing is why he lost it). The other has been a heroin addict for MANY years and now runs the local 'thrifty nickle'.

They are both beyond sucky. I'm going to post about the elder of her kids joining the Navy behind everyones backs... but it is still too raw. I am still in shock. I want to live in the fantasy world that makes his enlistment a fantasy.

[zbdent]

360. The 1K donation can be verified

opensecrets.org . . .

[liberalhistorian]

86. Most women don't get alimony anymore because

most have their own jobs and incomes and did during their marriage, so there's a lot less need for it. In fact, I know of some cases where women have had to pay alimony to their ex-husbands because they made more money than their exes did. The women who usually get alimony are older ones who had more traditional marriages, and even then it's only for a specified amount of time until they finish job training or are able to get completely on their feet.

[Tsiyu]

166. Stats to back this claim of yours up??

Oops. Most studies I've seen show women's standard of living in the majority of cases goes down after divorce, while men's standard of living goes up.

A significant portion of homeless single women and children are homeless due to divorce.

[LostinVA]

214. Absolutely correct

[raccoon]

354. That hasn't been my observation, among the people I know,

who've been divorced, my sisters, cousins, friends, etc.

I know only ONE divorced woman who got alimony. Others got child support, when there were minor kids, but no alimony.

[riderinthestorm]

20. I'm not taking her side

I just take exception to your perception that raising children somehow implies that person is "retired".

They aren't. Raising children is a job.

Some of us raise children and work another job.

She was a fool to allow herself to be so vulnerable AND glorify that. Surely her kharmic fate has played it's hand within this lifetime for her earlier stupidity.

And it sounds like she's trying to make amends by publishing another book warning other women from doing what she did.

Just saying that raising kids is not anything like a retirement situation.

[pitohui]

26. well raising children is not a job

we have to agree to disagree

[riderinthestorm]

35. It IS a job

Agreed. We will have to agree to disagree.

Just curious. How many children do you have? And who is the primary caregiver?

[anitar1]

185. You cannot tell if this poster is a male or female,

as he/she has no profile showing. Wonder what the reason for that is? No such person exists, so ignore her/his post, imo.I wonder why so many on DU no longer exist?

[Name removed]

215. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cats Against Frist]

340. No shit -- I thought a child would be a breeze, until I had one

and I only have ONE, and I'm surveying the wreck that is my living room. Every single waking moment that that child is not in school, he's messing something up, needing something, or wants to do something with me. I love it, and can totally handle it, but if I had five kids, I might be popping Xanax, like candy.

[liberalhistorian]

347. Believe me, I know what you mean!

I love my son dearly and more than anything else in the world and I wouldn't trade him for anything, but I'm glad I had just one! He was enough of a handful and I'm not even raising him by myself, my parents are raising him with me. My hat is really off to parents who have more than one, they need to be far more appreciated than they are. Anyone who doesn't consider that to be vitally important or a "job" has never had kids, I can guarantee it.

BTW, I just LOVE your username!

[omega minimo]

39. Does "raising kids isn't a job, it's a personal hobby" agree w/Dem values?

Don't think so. Hard to believe you would even post that at DU.

[pitohui]

49. saying "raising kids is a job" sure isn't anybody's value

if you don't like kids, if it's a damn job, you shouldn't have them

hobby is the wrong word but i couldn't think of the right word

it is something people do for personal fulfillment or for personal immortality

it should never, ever be a job, and if you think it is a job, hey, guess what, your kids KNOW they're resented

[omega minimo]

55. Bait and switch is not a discussion

[roguevalley]

207. until the worth of housewifing and raising kids is actuated in a money

owed if contract breached situation, I doubt that it will be considered a career in the way others are. We pay lip service to a lot of things but seldom put money where our mouth is.

[omega minimo]

230. Understood. What's "hardly worth it" is

trying to discuss with someone who is obviously just making trouble playing games.

:hi:


Regarding your point, aren't the courts now more inclined to recognize the mutual contributions of spouses to a marriage? (the posters pretense at total cluelessness wasn't worth spit) Or has the clock been turned backwards on that, too?

[Left Is Write]

57. Admitting that child-rearing is hard and can be tough is NOT the same

as saying you don't like kids or resent your own.

I love kids, and particularly my own. That doesn't mean that bringing them up is a breeze. That applies whether you have employment or stay home with your children.

[omega minimo]

65. Hardly worth it

The way the attitude was presented initially:

"and be honest w. yourself
if you were the judge and you saw a woman standing before you who had not bothered to work for decades now wanting to put a claim for alimony against her husband who did work all those decades, wouldn't you be tempted to tell her the same?
the rest of us have to work, hell with her
she got her retirement when she was young, her husband is getting his retirement while he's old, who is to say she didn't get the better deal after all?"


Who thinks like this?

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Not anyone who has ever stayed home with their kids

"retirement", my ass.

[riderinthestorm]

Can I just "ditto" all of your posts?? LOL nt

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

122. Yep. Ever the antagonist.

;) Happy New Year.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

172. omg "eta" lol

HNY :toast:

[Kber]

346. Reminds me of when my son was about 15 months

and cutting some teeth - which made him miserable (in every sense of the word).

Anyway, I was working full time leading a team of MBA graduates (big 4 consulting) on a tricky implementation for a really unreasonable client. So one of my team members asks, in all innocence, how things were with the baby and, fueled by a combination of no sleep, donuts and cafine, launch into a rant about how it isthe hardest thing I have EVER been through and how I am so thankful I have a job to go to to RELAX or I'd just go crazy.

You should have seen that poor girl's face! Combination of shock (I'm almost never emotional at work), outrage (how dare I call her job easier than being a mom) and dismay. Pretty sure I set her boilogical clock back a few years at least!

[LostinVA]

218. This poster

And my Freeper relatives.

[tavalon]

232. Conservative, fundamentalist right wingers

and the occasional neanderthal throwback.

[pitohui]

75. climbing mountains is tough, too, so?

i don't get your argument, okay? many things we do for personal fulfillment are far more difficult and challenging than any job, but that doesn't make them a job

your kids are for personal fulfillment

they are not work, they are not a job

if they were, you'd get paid for it

to be a job, you gotta be paid, that is what it means to live in a capitalist society

you don't have to like it, but you are just being silly you know, it's like calling an apple an orange because you just think it sounds better if you call it an orange instead of an apple

raising your children still ain't a job, you can stand there and say it is until you're blue in the face, but the facts remain the same

if in your soul you thought raising children to be as good and important as paid work, you wouldn't be so insistent on claiming that raising children was a job, or so it seems from here

[Left Is Write]

81. Did you actually read anything I wrote?

YOU are the one who claimed that if one admits that raising children is work (and it is, unpaid or no), that translates to "if you don't like children you shouldn't have had them" and "your children know they are resented."

I'm refuting YOUR statements. You, on the other hand, are attributing a whole lot of stuff to me that I did not say. Who is being silly?

(Incidentally, why do you think raising children ISN'T as important as paid work? Is something only important if you are paid to do it?)

[mopinko]

251. if it isn't work, why do you have to pay someone to do it?

guess what, the women who DON"T stay home have to pay someone to do it for them. so, then is it a job? some nannies even make good money.

[Left Is Write]

283. Are you asking me?

'Cause if you are, you're preaching to the choir. ;)

[mopinko]

286. i was jumping in on your side, but

i admit my heart was not in it. i hate this kind of train wreck thread, where i don't really want to fight, but i can't look away!
really, why do people think it isn't a job?

[malaise]

321. So the lesson for women is

if you choose to stay home and take care of children, demand pay for it since there are no guarantees that hubby is going to keep his side of the bargain, and common sense should tell you that hubby could die. Financial independence is a basic survival mechanism. There are many of us who love our husbands but refuse to be totally dependent on his income.

Edit - gr.

[mopinko]

328. i can tell you for a fact, you are better off widowed than divorced

bump them suckers off, if they turn out like this guy, i guess. sad that the world has come to this.

[mopinko]

329. i can tell you for a fact, you are better off widowed than divorced

bump them suckers off, if they turn out like this guy, i guess. sad that the world has come to this.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. If this were a purely capitalist society, we wouldnt have laws against

child labor or a 40 hour work week.

Society can and SHOULD accomodate people's lives while still exisiting by regulated free market principles- captialism, alone, does NOT solve all problems, unless you're an Ayn Rand freak or Grover Norquist. That's why a SPHC system is, in my mind, desirable- because the insurance industry is doing such a piss-poor job with health care, and we still have 45 million people w/no health insurance at all.

Many countries in Europe have a far more rational approach towards childbearing and childrearing, and in particular accomodating women who want to take time to be with their kids for the first few years, and generally supporting families and parents of both genders. I think that is a worthwhile place to take this discussion, because I really believe it is the responsibility of society AND the capitalist businesses that need successive generations of workers and consumers (that sounds depressing, doesn't it?) to accomodate working parents via flexible hours, day care, etc. etc. as well as parents who NEED (not want) to leave the workforce for several years to spend time with their kids. And that's also why we need a solid social safety net.

That's my opinion, I guess I'm one of those damn liberals.

[omega minimo]

113. and climbing big piles of bs is a REAL pain in the ass

[Extend a Hand]

164. personal vs. family fufillment

when one partner in a marriage does not work outside the home BOTH partners benefit-- even if no children are involved. Think about all the work that you do just to live and to make the community you live in a better place, going to the grocery, preparing meals, running to the post office, carrying for elderly family members, volunteer work for the community.

Usually in a marriage, the decision for one partner to stay home is a mutual decision.
It would more often be made for the benefit of the entire family rather than the personal fufillment of one partner.

In many situations the job of one spouse requires frequent moves that make it almost impossible for the other to maintain a career.

Raising children, helping a spouse in a demanding career, or benefiting the community by engaging in volunteer work should, in my opinion, entitle a stay at home partner to compensation in the event of a divorce.

[SW FL Dem]

180. Thank you

I am a stay at home mom by choice. It was a family decision. I started working when I was fourteen and have done many different jobs. I've waited tables in a truck stop, worked the graveyard shift at Denny's, been a secretary, a paralegal and practiced law with a huge law firm. Being a parent is every bit as much a job as one that pays money. Many of my "jobs" would earn income if they were performed by other people, I cook, I clean, I act as a chauffeur and I tutor. My staying home allowed my hubby to develop a new practice in a new state, something, he couldn't have done if I worked.

I realize that this is a personal choice that works for my family. I would NEVER criticize another woman who chose not to have kids or who chose to work full-time and to hire someone to take care of her kids. I resent the implication that my "job" doesn't count because I don't get paid directly. My whole family benefits and my hubby recognizes that. He agrees that his salary is the result of both of our efforts. Since I have been home, his salary has tripled in part due to his efforts and in part due to the fact that he is free to focus on his work and to relax when he gets home.

[Left Is Write]

231. I agree with you, and we are in a similar situation.

I have been staying home with the children since 1998. I was a single mother for the first ten years of my oldest daughter's life, and I was in the workforce for 14 years before becoming a stay-home mother.

My staying home benefits us all, and my husband would be the first to agree on that front. He makes about 50% more now than our combined incomes when we both worked. He is also pursuing a degree right now, something he may not be able to do if we were both working out of the house and juggling our schedules with children's schedules and running the household.

[Karenina]

236. HALLO Du!

Tell it like it IS! :hug:

[Extend a Hand]

313. life is harder for us now...

I had to go back to work two years ago due to financial difficulties after working half-time for eight years. My family has really had to pitch in and help with things that I used to get done. We don't have every Saturday off to go to kids sports, rest, or just have fun now. We clean up the house, do laundry, shop, etc. We all three (our son is a teen now) take turns preparing meals after work-- and we're really lucky this didn't happen before he was big enough to be a big help.

It's much harder for the entire family when both spouses work full-time. I feel really fortunate that I was able to work part-time when my son was little. I really feel sorry for single parents who have to do everything.

I'm glad you have a good hubby-- I do too, my husband always recognized my contributions at home. :loveya:

A few other things I wish some of these posters would think about:

People re-entering the workforce later don't generally get the "plum" jobs and assignments.

Since raises through out a career are generally based on a percentage of salary leaving the work force or reducing hours has a big effect on life-time earning potential.

I was really lucky to get a decent paying software job. My husband and I are both crossing fingers that our (software) jobs don't get out-sourced for at least another couple of years. *sigh*

Sexism is still pretty rampant in tech jobs (and probably other fields as well). Men still way out number women.

Our small city saved over a half a million dollars last year thanks to VOLUNTEERS. These are predominately older women, many of whom probably never worked at "real" (paying) job. Communities suffer when no one is available to volunteer.

[StoryTeller]

344. Another SAHM by choice

I'm also a writer/editor and am starting to do some speaking, too, so I'm building a business I can do mostly from home. But for several years, I've been a stay-at-home mom and not made any money. It was a choice I made--my husband was supportive but would never try to pressure me one direction or another. I think I made a good choice, and I do have skills to support myself if something should happen to my husband.

I thought the OP's story was very sad, and though if she decides to write in her book that staying home is bad and no one should do it, I will have to disagree, I do agree that women should have skills and be able to support themselves and their family if the need arises. My husband's sister was a stay-at-home mom with 4 kids, and recently left her husband because he was abusive to her and the children. Fortunately, she had a college degree and is now a teacher and can (barely) support her family on her own. I'm very proud of her.

But even if the marriage doesn't end, the fact is that it's getting more and more difficult to support a family on only one income. And with more jobs going overseas and more unemployment here, it's just not wise for anybody to expect that their spouse will always be able to provide an adequate income. While I'm building my career, my husband and I are struggling to make ends meet on his income. We'll get through somehow, but I just can't imagine how many of our friends are making it on one income.

[Flying Dream Blues]

292. Marriage is a contract, the way I see it. If she was staying

home with their children while he worked, it was a joint decision that she shouldn't later be punished for. Just because she didn't get "paid" doesn't mean it's not a job. If she wasn't doing it they would be paying someone else to do it, and it would be their "job."

[Warren DeMontague]

60. A Job isn't necessarily something you resent.

It is what it is - hard work. And raising kids -whether you stay home with 'em or not, but particularly if you do- is HARD WORK (and not in the George Bush sense, either).

But to imply that anyone who stays home with their kids is stupid and/or lazy is unfair and offensive. People should do what is best for them and their families. If that means both partners work, so be it. If it means the woman, or the man, stays home, so be it. Modern life is complicated enough without people running around hectoring other people about their choices. It sounds like that was sort of what this woman did in her first book- telling women to stay home- and that aint right.

But telling women (parents, really, because I know plenty of stay at home dads) to work, and denigrating those who do stay home- that aint right, either.

[omega minimo]

74. Well said. & if pub'd in '80, this was part of the RR anti-woman backlash

"It sounds like that was sort of what this woman did in her first book- telling women to stay home- and that aint right."

[Warren DeMontague]

77. I think it may have been the late 70s. Probably around the same time

that Phylis Schlafly hit the scene, the menacing ERA was threatening to force everyone to use unisex bathrooms :o, and Anita Bryant started making all kinds of silly noise about gay people.

[Tsiyu]

168. Ah, those wonder days

and too bad that some folks here seem to think children only have mothers. I guess the fathers of these offspring have them for a "hobby" as well? And even though they have free help to raise them, they contributed their part nine months or thereabouts before each was born? And don't need to compensate a spouse who gave up career, school, etc to raise HIS kids?


Some men are now stay-at-home parents. Should they be compensated if the wife dumps them after forty years?

[Warren DeMontague]

209. Yes.

Whichever parent does the job of raising the kids should have that taken into account in a divorce.

[LostinVA]

220. Or even something you get a paycheck to do

[liberalhistorian]

118. It may not be a "job" under

the traditional sense of the word, or under your own personal definition, but it sure as hell is VERY hard work that is never-ending and to recognize that does NOT in ANY way mean you don't love your children or that you resent them.

[meow2u3]

287. Full-time homemaking ought to be regarded legally as a job

I heard that in some European countries, homemaking is considered job experience for those entering the workforce after raising a family or becoming a displaced homemaker.

Take note of the tasks necessary for running a home: housekeeper, cook, babysitter, accountant, social coordinator, appointment setter, receptionist, etc. This is not an exhaustive list.

For the United States not to consider homemaking job experience or even a freakin' job is appalling and scandalous.

[alittlelark]

257. sigh.... you need to educate yourself in order to erradicate your

SIMPLISTIC THINKING.

[architect359]

343. You got it wrong my friend

Raising children is a full time effort but that doesn't mean that you have to automatically resent them and have them pick up on that and hate you back. Raising a kid has great responsibilities - let alone 5 of them. Come on!

[lumberjack_jeff]

270. As a stay at home dad, I see it not as a job but a privilege

I worked for 20 years and am now staying home with my youngest while my wife works. I consider myself as very fortunate, not exploited.

A family should work toward increasing the family's net worth, the proceeds from which serve as a safety net for husband and wife should anything happen.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

116. Whoa, "raising children is not a job"?

Every young parent I know is exhausted. It may not be a paying job, but it IS a job, and a very important one, too.

The woman in question was caught in a time warp, but probably within a culture that gave her lots of positive strokes for doing as she did.

And her husband was a bastard for dumping her and trading her in for a newer model and allowing the mother of his children to live in poverty.

[hopeisaplace]

301. I completely agree with you

and everything you said.

Lets see, I've been self-employed, employed, and a stay at home mom (currently),
..I have 4 children. You bet your ass it's a job. It's the hardest "job" I've ever
done..cause it never ends. For example, I have two out of 3 with the chicken pox
right now (omg, the chicken pox are awful - my 13 is covered, poor baby, I'm stressed
for him..wish I could make it go away..11 year old covered too, but at least not on
his face..my 5 year old got them Christmas Day! and is still recovering from them
..and with any luck my 19 year old won't get them - I thought they all had a mild case of the pox when they were younger?)...anyway, sorry of track there...but this is just one example
of 24-7 care of other human beings. As a parent I take it seriously, as I would any "job"...
more than a "job"....like any job, some days are better than others, but unlike any job, this
job tears at my heart and will tear at my heart til I leave planet "WTF".

When I had an office to go and my day was over, gears were switched,
and precious time spent with family. Being at home now full time for
5 years, it's never-ever-ending. Which is why my "me-time" usually
consists of my posting on this site late at night..rarely during the day.

[alittlelark]

174. It's not a job? Are you serious?

[Sparkman]

334. Some take their jobs seriously, some don't . You don't take that job of

raising children seriously. AND our courts and prisons are full of other like thinking parents' children. Let the cops and society and the schools do all the hearvy lifing?! Chauvinisim personified by your comments, seems obvious.

[aquart]

357. Sure, it is.

Ever heard of nannies? Governesses? Nursery nurses?

All income-producing jobs.

What a bizarre mindset. Raising kids is an unpaid job, like housework is usually an unpaid job. Women have regularly been regarded as slaves. They work for room and board.

Even the First Lady is expected to fulfill a full schedule for no compensation whatsoever. And, when Hillary needed a lawyer, she wasn't allowed to use the White House lawyer because she wasn't an employee.

I love hearing that women's work is a personal hobby. Love it.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. "raising kids is a hobby"

Who the hell are you to second guess anyone else's life choices? She should have used birth control or got an abortion because YOU think she should have had a job? What the fuck is pro-choice about that kind of argument?

The reality with this situation is, if true, it sounds like she had a very shitty lawyer. If she was married for 40 years, in most states, she should be entitled to 50% of the marital assets.

[pitohui]

53. in theory yes 50 percent of the marital assets

i have to presume that she was caught cheating

the whole story sounds fishy, doesn't it to you?

she is exaggerating the sorriness of her sorry tale to flog a book

and, yes, if someone is writing two books about her life story and talking it about on the teevee and to the guardian, she has given me the right to second guess her life, hell, that's what she wants me to do

[Warren DeMontague]

63. You may be right

the whole thing does sound kind of suspect, and it has certainly drawn publicity towards her publishing efforts.

[liberalhistorian]

101. Excuse me, but she worked as hard,

if not harder, than her husband, running the house and raising the children. I did that during my son's early years, and it is no picnic at all, believe me. And you don't get evenings and weekends off like those who work in "regular" jobs do. Running a house and raising children are as far from retirement as intelligence is far from Bush.

Yes, her husband worked, but she made it possible for his life and work to run smoothly. After she gave up forty years of her life for him, he's being a real bastard who doesn't deserve any kind of happiness at all. She deserves at least half of his social security and pension, that's for sure, and under domestic relations law, she should have been awarded that.

The judge has his head screwed on loose, not only does he have no idea of the work involved in running a household and raising children, he should realize that it's almost impossible to undergo job training and start a new career when you're PAST retirement age, ESPECIALLY for women. As the article says, employers don't want to hire older workers, especially those past retirement age and ESPECIALLY women, and women who've never worked outside the home, in particular. And, as mentioned by the article, this is a growing problem older women are facing and it's only going to get worse.

[annabanana]

144. "raising children is a HOBBY"?

well aren't you a ray of enlightened sunshine..

[SheilaT]

177. Raising children IS a job

and people do get paid to do it.

What do you call day care? Nannies? Before and after school care?

If you think it's so easy, you stay home with five children for six months or more. One or two days or even a week isn't enough. It's surprisingly hard work, you'll find.

[Cha]

178. I don't your philosophy.

The woman was raising their family while her husband worked..how much would he have had to pay a housekeeper all those years?

[LostinVA]

212. You really don't have a clue redux

Or, you do this on purpose. I'm still deciding.

[ScreamingMeemie]

245. Wha---?

"raising children is not a job....it's a personal hobby" :eyes:

It IS a job. One I happen to LOVE doing, but a job nonetheless. It is a chore staying up with sick children...and fun playing games with them. but, it is a job. For you to say otherwise is plain stupid.

[Nikki Stone 1]

248. You can walk away from a hobby when you get bored

If you do that with your kids, you're a deadbeat.

[ScreamingMeemie]

253. Well said...I sure hope this poster has no children.

:hi:

[Nikki Stone 1]

256. Me too. Imagine the precarious position of being your parent's hobby.

"Darling, I love you until I find a more interesting way to spend my time."

:dunce:

[Jade Fox]

268. Unbelievable. Raising children is not a job?

Have you ever done it for more than a few hours? It isn't paid because it's viewed as women's obligation, not as the job it is.

You don't have to have any pity for this women, but your ignorance (sorry, I can't think of a nicer word) is alarming.

[architect359]

Nonetheless some empathy tho

OK, they made a decision to have kids (irregardless to whether there was birth control). Plus, it's 5 kids; five. I mean, come on give her a break already. She's been terribly dis-illusioned by all this. No, I don't have kids but like most people, I've seen families with lots of children and it really seems to be a full time job.

[Dora]

362. I understand your point, but your argument is wrong.

Raising children is a job, and we do pay people to watch (raise) our children, and a significant number of American workers spend their entire CAREER in the childcare field. Many parents who work do so only because they have to in order to keep the house and the car.

Your post is offensive. Despite the truth that people treat it as such, having children is not, never has been, and never will be a hobby.

[blossomstar]

189. you are so right. staying at home is hard work

and it makes it very easy for the other spouse to devote all their energy to their jobs... no crying babies, worrying about laundry, cleaning the house, preparing the meals, taking the kids to the doctor, school, ballgames, etc., keeping the yard up, paying the bills. If the one that stays at home does what is needed, they are the ones overworked! You just have to do it to really understand. It's like poverty... someone who has never been poor or done without anything can't understand it. The car is broken... so why don't they just fix it? Hello, it takes money that's not in the budget! Sorry to rant, this stinks.

[Ilsa]

9. I disagree with your premise that she "didn't have to work" all

those years. I work at home pretty constantly throughout the day, especially with a disabled child, and my spouse knows it. The good news for me is that if he were to leave us, I have the skills, degrees, and license to take care of myself.

[pitohui]

15. it's a capitalist society

i think it's admirable that you stay home to care for a disabled child but the reality is that our society does not value unpaid labor and it is not considered work by those in power

the problem, you see, is that plenty of women both have to work for pay AND take care of their children or sometimes even a disabled spouse

so, you know, it just doesn't look the same

work expands to fill the time alotted

if you had a job, dinner would still be cooked, you just wouldn't spend as much time cooking it really

i know, i know, we're all supposed to pretend we don't know this

[tavalon]

269. Then you are putting the cart before the horse

You should be complaining that this very important and very difficult work be paid, not that the woman or any woman or man who stays home with the children is/are lazy. That's what you're getting jumped all over for here, and frankly, rightly so.

How much does a combination nanny, chef, chauffeur, doctor, nurse, teacher deserve to be paid, eh?

[Caoimhe]

353. A question

I can understand your points, as well as all the others. We know that childcare is paid work if a stranger does it, but not if the parent does it. I agree that having children is a choice, and that often I hear people complain about the inconveniences of raising children and the fact that they don't get any free time. I'm sorry, I don't have a huge amount of empathy, as having children IS a choice. I don't go so far as to call it a hobby, but people who really enjoy their free time and having extra $$$ should really think about it beforehand.

So I am not sure who this question is for but I will ask it anyway. If being a SAHM is a full time job with the same value as being in the workforce, if your child (god forbid) dies or even moves out, should you get unemployment? Just a ponderable.

I think women should read what this woman has to say if it encourages them to become more independent. There is no safety in letting someone else determine your future. While things are young and fresh and rosy, it always seems that it will last forever. I've heard young newlyweds say, naively "WE don't BELIEVE in divorce" as if it were a unicorn or ogre. Those same newlyweds may or may not end up divorced, at 50% divorce rate, its probably not wise to NEVER SAY NEVER.

Raising your children right is #1, but in order to help yourself AND your children, you must be able to stand on your own. Being destitute in your twilight years is certainly not the goal for you, nor your children who will then be trying to make their own life as adults.




"The turning point in the process of growing up is when you discover the core of strength within you that survives all hurt." ~Max Lerner, The Unfinished Country, 1950

[Nikki Stone 1]

17. So do I. A childcare worker would at least have retirement

A stay at home mother should at least get that.

[pitohui]

24. she's got retirement

if she's 67 years old and she was married 40 years, she collects social security based on the husband's income even if he divorces her, that is the law, has been a LONG time

she told young women lies, she believed her own lies, and boo hoo she fell in the gutter and now apparently has another contract and round of teevee tours for the new book, of course she has to exaggerate her own sad story to make it tear at the heart, but she DOES have retirement, she's just a damn liar

so no pity here

the women she hurt, who won't have the teevee show, who will just be in a cardboard box because they listened to her crap and social security isn't quite enough, that's who i care about

[Conservativesux]

28. I agree. Feminism has cuased many women to live alone.

Its sad what happened, but I feel no pity for her.

[riderinthestorm]

38. I don't understand your position here

Can you explain why you think "feminism has caused many women to live alone?"

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nikki Stone 1]

64. And men should have equal responsibility for childcare in that system

you describe. But so often, marriages end up with a division of labor and the woman ends up with most of the childcare. To ask her to shoulder most or all of the childcare and also have your responsibilities as a male, is just unfair.

[Conservativesux]

80. Men work so many hours to pay for the children, the house, the car...

and all the other things, like food, and still you want him to come home to more work?

No wonder men die earlier then women do!

You call that fair?

[Nikki Stone 1]

97. No buddy. I was working from your own statement. Read your post

You said that duties should be exactly equal for both genders. These days, women are working full time (like men), as many or more hours at work. They are paying 1/2 the rent, mortgage, car, childcare, etc.

To expect these women to come home and then take on 90% of the childcare at home after a full day at work means that the man is not doing his part of the job. So often, fathers still feel that childcare is the mother's job, even if she works full time like he does.

SO here's the deal: if you're for equality, and I am, then you should expect equality across the board. That means giving up bitching rights when it's your turn to take care of your own kids.

[Conservativesux]

104. This woman didnt work away from home, now did she ?

You paint with a broad brush, dont you ?

[riderinthestorm]

111. But she did work

Raising the children and keeping the homefront.

And she deserves more than what she got regardless of your attempts to denigrate her JOB.

[Nikki Stone 1]

141. Conservative, your statements were general, not related just to this case

Don't move the goalposts because the other team has scored, dude. :)

[LostinVA]

223. She worked a 24-hour, 7-day a week, 356-day a year job

Her husband worked what? 40 hours? 50? MAYBE 60? That's it.

Yup. No clue at all -- and probably someone who likes it that way.

[Conservativesux]

297. I work more then 80 hours per week like lots of men. And your point was?

[liberalhistorian]

314. When I was home with my son

during his first five years, I worked a helluva lot more than 80 hours a week, and it was never-ending, 24/7, no evenings and weekends off. And that was only one child. Running a house, including all the cooking, cleaning, laundry, shopping, organizing, etc., etc., and caring for even one child is far more work than 80 hours a week.

And I don't really know too many men or women who work that much per week unless they're doctors or fancy-pants lawyers.

[tavalon]

272. Pot, meet kettle n/t

[liberalhistorian]

131. Just what in the fuck do you think women

who also work along with their husbands have to do? Too many times, they come home and then have to work a second shift of housework, child care, cooking dinner, etc., all while having worked all day, while the husband sits in his chair and reads the paper or watches TV. You call THAT fair, buddy? Good God, sometimes I'm really glad I've never been married! I sure as hell have no intention of dealing with the above situation.

And for the women who stay home-I believe they work a lot harder than their husbands. It's a 24/7 job and they don't get evenings and weekends and holidays off or vacations, and their husbands usually do very little around the house. Even when they're on "vacation" the husband and kids have most of the fun while the wife/mother still does most of the work and has little time to relax. You call THAT fair, buddy? Maybe you think Faux News is also "fair and balanced?"

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Conservativesux]

299. "Maybe you think Faux News is also "fair and balanced?" comment below:

That was really hitting below the belt, dear

[riderinthestorm]

68. You need to actually read some feminist works then

You have some very wierd ideas of what true feminist ideals are if you think feminism tells women that they don't need men. Most of the real icons in the feminist movement are married with children.

"BTW, I have no problems with women having equals rights at all, but they should have equal resposibilites, they same ones that men have always had." This is already one of the classic tenets of feminist ideology.

If a marriage broke up over "feminism", then I would posit that their marriage wasn't a healthy partnership in the first place. Cause a healthy partnership is a shorthand definition of feminism.

[Conservativesux]

76. So when will women be registering for the Selective Service (The Draft)?

Like all men have to do on thier 18th birthday.

[riderinthestorm]

83. Bring. It. On

I am more than ready for women to register for SS. I believe that will be the first step towards a real pacifist society when women must register. At that point, real alternatives to war will be sought asap.

Beyond that, women are as capable as men in the military. Israel is my case in point. All women serve there. As it should be here.

[Conservativesux]

95. Then why hasnt' it happened since 1973 and the end of Vietnam?

A: Because most women dont want to be drafted, thats why.

[riderinthestorm]

107. Bullshit

It's because feminism has been derailed. And if you knew anything about the ERA movement you would know it was derailed by MEN in Congress precisely because of the draft issue.

This conversation is bizarre. You need to go back and re-read some history here. Women in the military, even to the small and limited degree that they are at the moment, has been a hard fight as it is.

Women have been fighting to get into the military.

[liberalhistorian]

139. Exactly,

MEN in the government have mostly been the ones who have stalled such a law, most refuse to even consider it. Women in the military have been fighting for decades to have greater roles and greater responsibilities and most other women have no problem with that.

[Conservativesux]

"Most other women have no problem with that." Really? Well until

you put our (men's) shoes on, you dont really know that, do you?

You have no idea what it means to have your name in a freaking damn hat, to be called up to serve in an unpopular war like RVN, or like Iraq II, if B* reinstates the draft, so he can get more people killed, do you?

A: Nope!

[liberalhistorian]

316. And you have no idea what it is

like to be a woman whose son is in a war and who could be killed at any moment, or a mother who HAS suffered the loss of her son, or a woman whose husband has been killed in a war, leaving her with young children to raise alone and shattered emotions and dreams, or a young woman who's lost her fiance in a war and who will never know what she thought would be the great joy of sharing her life with the love of her life, or a daughter who's lost her father in the war and who will never be able to have him walk her down the aisle at her wedding, or hold her children, etc., etc., etc.

My uncle was a Marine in Vietnam who'd be the first to agree that women also suffer terribly in wartime. But no, to you, we all just sit around all day on easy street, eating ice cream and bon bons and plotting how we can further destroy men.

[Name removed]

319. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Conservativesux]

302. self delete

[WindRavenX]

157. ooo the smell of misogyny in the morning

"Most women don't want to be drafted"

Wow. Just wow :eyes: You really don't know how reality functions, do you? There are tons of women who want to enlist but who are being denied because of their sex. Double-standard much?

[alittlelark]

244. Wow.... don't you have all the INTERESTING answers......

[liberalhistorian]

137. As a woman, I agree

wholeheartedly with that, as do most feminists and a lot of other women. It's not women who are keeping the Selective Service registration only for men, it's the government, and particularly conservatives. I would have no problem at all with women also having to register with the Selective Service. As you say, with equal rights come equal responsiblities, as it should be.

[Name removed]

307. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

315. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

320. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

322. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

323. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Batgirl]

338. so you don't "suffer fools"

That means a lot, coming from the person who declared that for every abused woman who seeks aid at a shelter, "there are 50 men it has happened to, with nowhere to go."

[liberalhistorian]

341. We don't suffer fools, either, which

means we don't have to suffer with you, DEARIE.

[Nikki Stone 1]

89. The new draft bill (written in 2003) will require it. And if you look

at the horrific war which we all hate, there are lots of women over there and in combat. There are mothers who have left their children behind to serve. They impress the hell out of me, no matter what I think of this war and the idiot who sent them there.

[xmas74]

186. Most younger women would be more than happy to.

When I turned 18 (a number of years back) I actually thought it sucked that I couldn't register.
So when will we be registering for Selective Service? Ask your congressman. They would know if it will women will be allowed better than I would.

BTW-I'm proud to be a feminist. And I don't hate men. Feminism has allowed me to be a better, more well-rounded woman that I ever could have been before.
Feminism allows women to be so much more than they could be even 30 years ago. We can be mothers, wives, professionals or anything else that we chose. Before feminism, we were doomed for an early marriage or a life of depending on others.
There is a saying that goes "I believe that early marriage is a sign of defective goods." Most modern men can see the wisdom in this w/o explaining it.

[Conservativesux]

300. BTW-I'm proud to be a feminist. And I don't hate men".......

"Feminism has allowed me to be a better more well-rounded woman that I ever could have been before."


I never once said, or implyed, that feminists "hate men" or that feminism was a useless concept.

I have mearly pointed out that it hasn't for, the most part, lived up to its basic core concepts, concerning eqaulity and resposibilty amognst the two genders.

Just so we get that straight here, OK?

[Batgirl]

330. is that so? Here are some of your earlier pearls of wisdom

concerning feminism:

"Feminism tells women that they dont need men"

"I have seen feminism tear marriages apart"

"Feminism has cuased many women to live alone"

But my favorite of all your gems of wisdom:
"BTW, I have no problems with women having equals rights at all"

Thanks for the laugh.

[tavalon]

274. Should have started happening around 1974

Around the time the equal rights amendment was trounced because people were led to believe that it would mean unisex bathrooms! I guess the sheeple have always been the same, eh?

[Conservativesux]

303. Exactly my thoughts as well, but what can you say after 32 years?

A: Nothing!

[Hello_Kitty]

309. Dude, don't blame feminists for that.

Anti-feminists, particulary fundies, are the ones who fiercely resist integrating women into the armed forces. Military service has functioned to maintain male privelege and keep women from access to power. When women serve successfully in the armed forces, it removes one of the prime arguments to keep us in our place, the idea that we need "protection".

Feminists tend to object to war as a whole and don't want to see men in it any more than women.

[redwitch]

199. about as many marriages broke up because of feminism as will

because of gay marriage. It is 2006. People's work should be valued. And a marriage of forty years that ends for whatever reason should take into consideration the years of work ( paid and unpaid) of BOTH partners.

[liberalhistorian]

125. Oh, give me a fucking break.

You men just don't like feminism because it took some of your power and control away from you and allowed women to have their own lives in addition to being a slave to yours. Heaven forbid women should ever have thoughts or talents or desires or career or life aspirations of their own instead of being a slave to a man and her children all her life.

And I hate to break it to you, but not all women want or need to be married, especially since they still spend most of the time in a marriage fulfilling the needs of her husband and children and not paying enough attention to her own needs, which causes deep resentment and anger over time. And not all men want or need to be married, either, your premise that "we need each other" isn't true for everyone. Not everyone is cut out to be married, and they shouldn't feel they have to do so just to bow to cultural and social pressure. Don't get me wrong, marriage is a wonderful thing IF you're with the right person, and I don't like divorce anymore than most people do, but it's not fair to push marriage on people who don't want it and wouldn't be comfortable with it.

And feminism was NOT about demanding that women hate men and families, I'm so sick of that bullshit fundie lie and I'm amazed that someone here would fall for that RW talking point. It was simply about allowing women to have the freedom to make her own choices in life, whether or not to marry and/or have children and/or stay home with them or work, or what have you, the same freedoms men have enjoyed forever, and have equal rights with men.

Feminism has not "caused many women to live alone." Most who are alone have freely chosen that, and there's nothing at all wrong with being single and choosing not to marry.

[WindRavenX]

153. feminism does NOT tell women that they "need" men

I have no idea how you could be so misinformed. Feminism is about having women being equal individuals in society and law; it encourages independence and not dependence on other individuals. Relationships become a union of two individuals who do not merely "depend" on each other.

Reading this shit on DU really pisses me off sometimes--it's like listening to Rush's anti-feminist garbage.

[Name removed]

306. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WindRavenX]

311. Yeah, because it's not like feminists are working to correct those...

flaws in the legal system. That's a flaw in the legal system that should be corrected--any feminist will tell you that.

Until then, have a nice big cup of shut the fuck up for the "let us Democrat men know" when we want to be equal comment-- I don't take kindly to being told from a man who to correct issues regarding my gender.

I'll be on my way back to the kitchen with the other women and let the men folk run things. :eyes:

[arikara]

242. Excuse my French but...

holy crap! I can't believe what I'm seeing on this forum.

Feminism tearing marriages apart?

Some other nice person thinks that a woman who stayed at home to raise 5 kids was in retirement and should go find a job at 67 while her ex husband frolicks in Mexico with a younger paramour?

Sigh... this is no longer the same DU that it used to be.

[EFerrari]

289. "Feminism" does no such thing.

Are you referring to an indivudial author or what?

And thank you ever so much for not having a problem "with women haveing equal rights." :eyes:

[Name removed]

350. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[supernova]

73. Why are you in this thread?

You make no relevant points here at all.

[Conservativesux]

85. When you cant debate the issue, you attack your opponent, right?

It figures !

[supernova]

91. Not at all

You're just off topic from the OP.

You're complaining about having to pay alimony. But that isn't the issue in this particular story.

Her issue is, she played by all the rules you guys support over there at the other underground, yet she's the one who got the shaft. Are you going to go tell her estranged ex that he needs to high tail it back home to her and stop kanoodling in Mexico? Hmmm??

[Nikki Stone 1]

103. Which issue are you debating, Conservative?

Just curious.

[alittlelark]

254. Uh, REALLY.... WHY are you in this thread?

And focusing it in your direction...?

[Nikki Stone 1]

92. Well, at least he's bumping the thread up. Thanks dude!

:)

[supernova]

96. That's true.

:thumbsup: :-)

[LostinVA]

222. WTF? You also have no clue, do you?

[Batgirl]

333. "Feminism has cuased many women to live alone"

But this woman stayed home with the kids and urged other women to join her in going back to a time before feminism encouraged them to have jobs outside the home. I'm not following your logic as to how that she got herself into a pickle by being a feminist. But perhaps in trying to understand what you're talking about I'm just over my head intellectually.

[riderinthestorm]

29. She made a very public mistake, admits it, and is now trying to fix it

I'm not sure why you are so angry at her.

I'm not sure too many people posting right now are "pitying" her.

She's now trying to impart a pretty good and important message to women based upon her own life. I hope she DOES get out there on a lot of teevee shows and does get a lot of publicity. It's a valuable message.

[xmas74]

I do feel sad for her.

My grandmother went through the same thing after 40 years of marriage(except for the book deals and all). She only received my grandfather's SS while he married a much younger woman(younger than most of his children).
They started a new family and a new life together while my grandmother, who raised 11 children, had to move in with one of her children instead of enjoying her retirement years.

[Nikki Stone 1]

59. Soc Security is small. Her hubby should have had a real retirement and

she should have gotten half.

[High Plains]

84. "No pity here"

That's one of your favorite lines, isn't it? You were using it when you were hallucinating about the college student and the flour, too.

The "no pity here" attitude doesn't seem to mesh very well with progressive or liberal values. Would you care to elaborate?

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. They do

They get their husband's pension and Social Security.

My mother in law never had a job outside of her home. She never got a paycheck in her life. Then she became eligible for Social Security. She got a check every month.

This judge was wrong. And whoever said that raising kids is not a job is also wrong.

[Left Is Write]

40. When you say things like "had not bothered to work"

and "her husband who did work all those decades" you imply that she used him somehow during their marriage, and that this was not a joint decision between the two of them. Women who stay home to raise families are not in a situation where they are "not bothering to work." Raising children is a full-time endeavor, and it's hard enough on its own, let alone adding fulltime employment to it.

Most people do not make the decision to stay home unilaterally. When a couple makes the choice for one partner to stay home, there is an understanding that the employed partner will support the family financially and the other partner will shoulder most of the home-related duties, including the primary care of children. For a husband to have that partnership with his wife, then cast her off for another partner and leave his wife with nothing is terrible.

I know nothing of the specifics of the relationship and arrangement between this particular wife and husband, but I cannot stand the implication that stay-home mothers are somehow lazy good-for-nothings mooching off of their husbands.

[xmas74]

191. Bravo!

You got it right.
Stay at home parents(I state parents because my brother stays at home) have the hardest job of all. They cook, clean, chauffer, volunteer for school events, balance the checkbook, garden, do home maintenance, laundry, personal shopping and so much more.
I once read that a stay at home spouse with two children would, if you paid them for all the work they do, earn over $100 thousand a year.

[Kaylee]

266. Not to mention the fact that she did help the family financially...

With some daycare about $1000 per kid you could be out $5000 per month. I don't know about you, but I don't make $5000 a month.

[Gormy Cuss]

102. She should have been awarded alimony.

Alimony is for persons who suspended their careers when they were married. The presumption is that this was done with the consent of the remaining wage earner and with the understanding that said wage earner has accepted responsibility for that person's financial well being. These days the courts rarely rule for alimony as a lifelong commitment but alimony for a transitional period is still fairly common in such situations. It is precisely a recognition that the woman does not have current job skills sufficient for her support.

Ironically the persistence of professional women in the workforce after marriage is why alimony isn't automatically granted anymore because in many marriages both partners have current, marketable job skills. So for all those in marriages where women are working full-time, the divorce agreement is unlikely to include alimony, just asset settlement.

Child support is a completely separate issue.

[fishwax]

161. why should her husband keep it all?

and be honest w. yourself

if you were the judge and you saw a woman standing before you who had not bothered to work for decades now wanting to put a claim for alimony against her husband who did work all those decades, wouldn't you be tempted to tell her the same?

Not to say getting a job is a bad idea for her, but she raised the family and, while the article doesn't talk about division of the estate, it sure doesn't sound like a 50/50 split. If I were the judge, alimony would be substantial.

[Nikki Stone 1]

163. At 67, it's almost impossible for her to get a (first) job

I have a friend in her 50s whose job was displaced by Katrina, and she can't get a decent job to save her life. They are hiring younger people.

[bloom]

187. "hell with her"

And the men who get their kids raised for them - whose jobs are the priority jobs - who have had everything done for them - should keep it all - and the trophy wife, too. As if the 67 year old newly dumped wife had been the unpaid servant all those years.

You are the essence of patriarchy. You are why feminism exists.

[LostinVA]

210. My, you really don't have a clue, do you?

Stay-at-home wives and moms work their asses off, especially if they are married to errr.... certain people who apparently think they do nothing.

Sheesh.

And no, I work for a living outside of the home.

[politicat]

282. No, because she did the "work" of running a household, raising the

kids, and basically making his life run easily. Obviously, you don't know what that kind of work is like - it's never ending, has no pay and crappy benefits, but it lets him have a nice, easy time of it.

She deserves to be paid for her labor as the nanny and nurse to his children, his live in housekeeper, appointment secretary, personal shopper, etc. That's why she deserves alimony. (But I'm glad she's seen the light, too...)

[Sparkman]

331. NICE chauvinism here folks. Child rearing is then an 18 yr vacation?

Maybe chauvinisim raises the gang banger mentality kids that not only disregard women's status as EQUAL to men's, but would regard them as, say breeding units?

[emald]

342. young retirement?

I doubt it, unless she had lots of domestic help. Better deal? WTF? Your joking right? This is satire I hope because otherwise this is written by someone totally unaware of what work raising five kids is. Not bothered to work? Jesus H. Christ, this has got to be satire.

[Straight Shooter]

3. 67 years old.

The risk of being a "disposable wife." Very cruel. Motherhood and homemaking are honorable goals in life. Perhaps she can use her writing skills and craft a new book with a different perspective. I think it would sell, because people tend to be interested in 180-degree turns of opinion.

[supernova]

10. That's what she's doing

writing a new book.

I hope she does well with it.

It's really a common problem now, older wives been left out in the lurch when they've spent their lives being homemakers and helping their husbands polish their careers.

She needed a wake up call and, sadly, she got one.

[Conservativesux]

36. More common: Men being served DV papers and having thier children

taken away while they pay child support AND Alimony.

[supernova]

45. Did this happen to you?

For the record, feminism did not cause the break up of this woman's marriage. She was content with the standard stay at home role.

Her partner, husband, and sole means of support decided to trade her in for a newer model.

What are you going to tell this woman? Hmmm? What are you going to say to her about how she's supposed to survive, provide a roof over her head, keep food on the table, and clothes on her back?

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

edti: It's 1/2 hour from when I wrote this post. I'm still waiting for an answer.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. I've seen these "divorced fathers whining" shows on public access TV

and they come off as a bunch of crybabies who hate the fact that they're living in the 21st century. They can't punish their ex-wives for refusing to put up with their macho grandstanding by taking full custody and forbidding them to see their children at all, as was common practice in the nineteenth century or as is current practice in many Middle Eastern countries.

If they were indeed the primary caregivers of the children, then they may have a point, but when I see the "divorced fathers whining" cable access shows or public demonstrations (which were common in Portland), I see men who probably would have had a fit if their wife had asked them to change a diaper.

As I said, exceptions for men who actually did at least 50% of the chlid rearing. But if not, well, hey, if they have to live less luxuriously than they would like, they should think about all the middle-aged women who have been "traded in for a newer model" and who have to live in real poverty.

Actually, the men who have actually taken real responsibility for child rearing are, in my experience, able to work out reasonable custody arrangements with their exes.

[liberalhistorian]

142. Did men who have to pay

alimony (and there are fewer and fewer of them now, frankly) encourage their wives to get an education and skills and develop a career? If not, if they demanded that their wives stay home with the house and the children, then they have no right to bitch if they have to pay alimony.

[pecwae]

165. Even more common:

Mothers left with total responsibility for the care and welfare of their children. Alimony? I never got alimony and that was 20 years ago. I never got child support either until I scoured the earth for the bum and the state finally found his sorry ass when he was in arrears over $10,000 and many years later after our daughter had quite successfully graduated with honors from high school.

[Nikki Stone 1]

170. A very common story. My cousin also married a scumbag who

disappeared leaving her in huge debt (his debt) and with two toddlers to raise.

[xmas74]

193. Going through that right now.

Never married so alimony doesn't count. But I did help him w/ school. And we do have a child that he refuses to even acknowledge(though the courts did acknowledge her for him).

[Nikki Stone 1]

219. My sympathies. Some people are just bums

I hope you get something for his schooling and child support. You deserve both.

[xmas74]

233. I won't get anything for his schooling.

I've been told that it would be an uphill fight since we were never married.
As to child support-there is an order for that ( a mere pittance compared to cost of living for our daughter). But he usually doesn't pay. He no longer works in his field of study. Instead, he's realized that he can make more money(tax-free and not detected by CSE) if he does small scale home renovations.

[Nikki Stone 1]

240. So his schooling money was your "donation"?

What nonesense.

And the fact that he's working under the table is just awful. This is what happened with my cousin's ex. It's hard to get someone when they're "not making any money" on paper.

[xmas74]

246. They said that I could fight it

but that it might cost more in the long run than it's worth, especially since he works under the table.
And Missouri is not the most progressive state in the US so I can see their point.

[Nikki Stone 1]

247. Jeez! That's just awful.

Just sucks.

[xmas74]

255. But that's life.

You either get over it and learn to live or you roll over and die.

[Nikki Stone 1]

264. Sigh. That's pretty much all that one can say.

,,

[LostinVA]

224. Who the heck pays alimony? Hardly anyone.

You've been confusing alimony and CS all over this thread.

[Name removed]

308. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojorabbit]

312. My little sis

is paying her ex husband alimony and he got half her retirement too.

[Voltaire99]

358. "Motherhood and homemaking are honorable goals in life." Not really.

With all due respect to breeding and washing dishes, isn't your description a bit much?

My wife and I share the duties around the house, but transmuting them into "honorable goals" is putting a nice gloss on the banal. Homemaking is a lot of dirty business, drudgery, and necessity, and anyone stuck doing it full time has my sympathy. And if tidying is one's goal in life, I'd urge that person to elevate his or her sights!

As for having kids, I respect good parenting. But let's be honest: motherhood (or fatherhood) is a biological imperative for most. This "honor" is an automatic function of nature that is equally available to the good and the bad, the intelligent and the stupid, the sane and the insane.

[cornermouse]

4. That happens a lot.

[pitohui]

5. can i say, we told you so, lady?

no pity here

she profited when young from telling lies, this is a capitalist society, anyone who tells women to stay at home rather than chasing the dollar is telling the sweet lie that everyone wants to hear, yeah, i don't wanna work either, WHO DOES? but as long as we live in this kind of society, we have to be responsible for ourselves financially

[Nikki Stone 1]

13. Yeah, we told her so, but she also had a bad lawyer

" Despite that, the judge in her divorce case suggested that - at 67 - she go for job training."

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. The judge needs a good horsewhipping for that.


"Today, she says, women have to look out for themselves as well - to prepare 'for being abandoned, so that if you end up alone you will have the skills to look after yourself'."

Sounds suspiciously like the old feminist saw that married women who didn't work outside the home were "One man away from disaster"

[pitohui]

18. alimony is a thing of the past

i don't know how bad a lawyer she had, alimony is a thing of the past as far as i know, you can't get what the judge is not giving to anybody

[Nikki Stone 1]

22. But not for women in her generation and not retirement

Those women were teens in the 50s and most did not work outside the home when they were young.

[Conservativesux]

67. You mean Jane "Barberella" Fonda's generation?. The 1960's generation?

Miniskirts, the pill, free-love and psychedelic drugs?

Thanks for the laugh !!!

[Nikki Stone 1]

82. No dear. Read the post. 67 yrs old means she was a 50's teen and

was probably married very young, like many of my relatives. The women got married out of high school or college (if they were lucky enough to go) and many were too early for feminism which became big in the LATE 60s and the early 70s, by the time these women were in and around 30 with no job training and a bunch of kids at home.

Jane Fonda, as a child of privilege, lived a FAR different life from most women of that era. I would not use her as a yardstick.

[riderinthestorm]

90. I had to laugh when he used Jane Fonda as an example

I mean, how typical is she??!! LOL.

The norm was for that generation to marry right after high school. Look at the difficulties even getting a career started faced by women of that generation even when they were more than ready to work (numerous stories of Sandra Day O'Connor's difficulties, or women physicians etc.)

[Nikki Stone 1]

94. Yes, Exactly. Even college educated women faced MASSIVE discrimination

if they wanted to work, and their families would give them holy hell for not giving them grandchildren right away.

Life for real people is always very different from the lives of celebrities. But then, that's no brainer, right? ;)

[Conservativesux]

110. They didnt go through the hell of a war in the Republic of Vietnam either.

Life isnt fair, boo-hoo!

[riderinthestorm]

114. Uh, we're way past pity here remember?

I think it's been universally agreed upon that nobody pities this woman. I'm not sure what your point is anymore. You are jumping all over the road with your points.

[Nikki Stone 1]

136. No, but neither did most men. Most men were making money that women didn't

That is all.

And thanks for bumping my favorite thread of the day. :)

[liberalhistorian]

148. No, but many suffered the terrible loss of their

husbands, sons, brothers, fathers, boyfriends, fiances, etc., many being left with young children to raise on their own.

[Conservativesux]

298. Yes, but at least we had safety nets back then. Not like with * and Co.

who dont care who gets killed or destroyed in his little Iraq war.

Sorry, but its an age-old fact that women screw around on their men when they are off to war.

Thats why they call it a "Dear John" letter, not a dear "Jane" letter!

[arikara]

317. Works both ways, sweetie

How many married soldiers had affairs over there with the locals and left little Vietnamese children behind with no support?

[LostinVA]

229. Guess you didn't go, either

Or you would know about the many m,ilitary and civilian women who VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam. Many died, were injured, and even more had Post Traumatic Stress and couldn't get treatment at VAs for it, or were given PHs or combat bars. Educate yourself.

God, you really hate women, don't you? Yeah, you do.

[Karenina]

145. Back in the day

we would refer to Barnard girls as being there to get their Mrs. The family pressure was INTENSE.

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xmas74]

196. cheese please!

Sounds like a done deal!

[liberalhistorian]

146. A child of privilege from

a Hollywood family, also, which was a whole different world. I find it hilarious that conservatives bitch about this, when THEY are the ones who want women to marry young and stay home, THEY are the ones who want to go back to the times when women married right after high school, had kids, and did nothing else the rest of their lives but serve their husband and children, THEY are the ones jonesing over the fifties and before. Pretty damned hypocritical.

[LostinVA]

227. Err... the laugh's on YOU

Most females who grew up then weren't "Barberella." They were very much products of the 50's. So: HAHHAHAHAHHAHA.

[Conservativesux]

72. In California, men pay life-long alimony after 10 years of marriage..

life and its pro-rated up to that point.

[Nikki Stone 1]

112. California is a community property state, not an alimony state, but

I am checking with a lawyer friend just to make sure. If you have a citation, I'd appreciate it.

[Nikki Stone 1]

119. Conservative, your statement is NOT a given according to my lawyer

When you have a long term marriage (10 years +) you will have some alimony paid and it is not necessarily the man but the high earner. A lot depends on the age of the divorced. If the parties are older and the woman has been a homemaker, this type of alimony you describe will be much more likely. But if the parties are younger and the woman has been employed, this type of alimony is much LESS likely even in a long term marriage.

The idea behind the alimony for younger people is to get the (usually) woman some job training. But at 67, that's not a feasible option.

[liberalhistorian]

152. I don't want his head to explode,

but I've known women who have to pay alimony as well, because they made more money than their exes.

[Nikki Stone 1]

159. Yes, so have I. When you make legal claims, you need to have some

evidence. That's why I checked with my attorney/friend.

[Conservativesux]

305. Utter nonsense! What most attorneys inform clients is to fake a workplace

injury (if they _are_ working) and to get on the workers-comp/child-welfare/food-stamp/WIC gravy-train that most of us hard-working MALE Democratic workers have a rough time getting on with _real_ injuries.

Then, if ten years have passed since the marriage, the woman receives a tidy sum of alimony payments, each month, until she:

A: Re-marries

B: Dies

Up until that date, (the ten year anniversary) a man will pay a day in alimony payments for every two days worked, in Caleeforneeyal.

Thats a _fact_ that I would be more then happy to inform your attorney about.

[deek]

351. not true

I can personally attest to that. Married 17 years--no alimony.

[liberalhistorian]

150. Please support that statement,

or back it up with facts, as you guys love to demand. Because I'm a paralegal with some familiarity of CA domestic relations law and that does not sound right at all.

[Withywindle]

34. Well, this 'old feminist saw' is true, isn't it?

Sounds suspiciously like the old feminist saw that married women who didn't work outside the home were "One man away from disaster"


Anybody who puts all their financial eggs in one basket, whether that be a relationship or a business or whatever, is taking a huge risk. Someone who does this for decades without building up any job skills has, in my opinion, gone well beyond reasonable risk assessment and into Jackass "don't try this at home" territory.

For a few years while the kids are little, sure (IF the family can truly afford it, which is only true of a relative few). But as a lifelong "career" choice? Everyone looks at the 50% divorce rate and thinks, "Oh, it wouldn't happen to US," that's what romance is. But anyone who stakes their entire financial life on that, male or female, is also a prime candidate for Brooklyn Bridge sales and Nigerian bank scams.

(edited because I, tellingly enough, managed to misspell "romance." :P)

[Nikki Stone 1]

41. Agreed. That's why it's so funny coming from this woman

All the same, I think she got screwed in court. She needed a better attorney.

[Withywindle]

195. For sure.

And women of her generation were raised with certain expectations and certain roles and the idea that if you play by these rules you'll get taken care of. Pretty cruel to have the rug yanked out from under you at 67, but in this case it seems karmic. I'm glad she's admitting her mistake and writing a new cautionary-tale book, though.

[pitohui]

62. ok now this is a GOOD post

Anybody who puts all their financial eggs in one basket, whether that be a relationship or a business or whatever, is taking a huge risk. Someone who does this for decades without building up any job skills has, in my opinion, gone well beyond reasonable risk assessment and into Jackass "don't try this at home" territory.


sometimes you are fumbling to put something into words and then a smart person who is good w. words comes along and says it perfectly

thank you

[Withywindle]

217. Aw, thank you! n/m

[Lydia Leftcoast]

But in her day, it was conventional wisdom to marry as young as possible

and start having kids right away.

Most of my relatives who are 10-15 years older than I got married right out of college or dropped out of college to get married. If they didn't get engaged in college, everyone panicked.

It's easy to sit here in your 2006 world, when you very likely have no direct knowledge of what it was like for women pre-feminism.

(I was twenty years old when I first learned about feminism.)

[Nikki Stone 1]

143. Exactly,the women of that era played by different rules and shouldn't be

judged by ours.

All the same, if a woman stays at home to raise her children, there should be some compensation in court for that. Usually that kind of decision involves both spouses, so the husband has bought into it and should play by those rules.

[Withywindle]

201. Well, that's true

...I suppose I was speaking more to people of my generation there. My own mother dropped out of college to get married and have me, and regretted it almost instantly--she's one of those Type-A extrovert types who despises being alone in the house with a kid who, while bright, was not a great conversationalist for the first several years. ;) She rectified this ASAP by going to work as soon as I started school, also partly because she had to; the years she stayed at home, we ate a lot of government cheese and peanut butter!

This woman's about 10 years older than my mom; and I know the rules changed hugely in that time period--but if she was able to not work outside the home for all that time, at all, there must have been some level of privilege at work! I don't know any families where I grew up (70s) where one spouse never held a paying job at all: no one could afford to support an able-bodied adult not bringing in at least a little income for an entire lifetime! That's always seemed ridiculously extravagant to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Anyone who thinks staying home and taking care of kids is "sweet"

and "easy", and most importantly, somehow, NOT WORK...

is full of shit.

Right, like anyone -woman OR man- says "I don't wanna work... I think I'll take the 'easy life' and stay home with the kids..."

:rofl:

Um, lemme guess, you don't have kids.

Frankly, I think society has a long way to go to recognize and accomodate families and child-raising- of all stripes. "society" may be capitalist but REALITY dictates that PEOPLE are going to need to have KIDS or there won't BE any CAPITALIST consumers in the next generation.

Does that mean women should stay home? No- PEOPLE should make up their own minds. No one should second-guess anyone else's decision in that regard, whether they work or stay home with the kids or whatever. What it DOES mean, however, is that society -and the corporations that employ people- ought to accomodate working families, men and women, far better than they do currently.

[pitohui]

70. we're allowed to second-guess people who publish their story for gain

i don't know what's second-guessing abt it, the woman blew one way for a profit when she was young and now she is blowing the other way for a profit when she is old

typical fascist republican values, all they really value is expediency

your journalism prof would be astonished to hear that we are not permitted to second guess (also known as comment) on the lives of people who publish their life experiences for gain

that is just weird on the face of it

most women do know, going in, that having and raising kids is not paid work, all the lies and pious little comments about raising kids is a job is a hypocritical disservice really

if you want a child for personal reasons, fine, but don't try to kid me that it's work, if it was work, guess what, they would pay you!

[riderinthestorm]

79. How many children do you have?

"most women do know, going in, that having and raising kids is not paid work, all the lies and pious little comments about raising kids is a job is a hypocritical disservice really. if you want a child for personal reasons, fine, but don't try to kid me that it's work, if it was work, guess what, they would pay you!"

I'll ask again, how many children do you have and who is their primary caregiver? Your comments can only indicate that you have not had any experience raising children if you can denigrate it as not "work".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

130. Note that pitohui has not revealed how many children he has or

who their primary caregiver is.

[riderinthestorm]

133. Yup, 35 minutes and waiting.

I think he left though. No response for a while. Did we chase him off?

Grrr. This is/was the most bizarre conversation on DU I've ever lurked at, or participated in.

[liberalhistorian]

156. That's because most people, women as well

as men, who feel that way have no children themselves and have no fucking clue at all what work is truly involved in raising them.

[Name removed]

281. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lukasahero]

332. Hang in there Tavalon

Sorry to hear about your little boy. Hope he is doing better.

PS - Try not to let the idiots get you down. :hug:

[tavalon]

339. I've finally learned of recent

the adage that our founder expounds. "Ignore is your friend". No more problem. We're heading to the doctor this morning. I've been having a niggling suspicion that he's developed asthma. We shall see.

[Ilsa]

7. I wonder how much of a cut her husband took from her first book?

OR was it as successful as they are leading us to believe?

[supernova]

11. That's a really interesting question

I bet she turned over the managment of it to him at the time.

[Nikki Stone 1]

14. I'll bet he got a good deal of it. Why isn't she getting 1/2 his retiremnt

??????

[supernova]

98. Why he's able to be in Mexico

How much you wanna bet that the royalties from her first book are the reason he's able to go galavanting off to Mexico.

[Ian David]

16. Disregard First Book

Today, Hekker told The Observer, she is planning a follow-up book. Its working, albeit jokey, title is bluntly honest: Disregard First Book. For her life did not turn out as she planned, and she now believes her decision to become a housewife and homemaker should serve as a warning for young American women.

'My anachronistic book was written while I was in a successful marriage that I expected would go on forever. Sadly, it now has little relevance for modern women, except perhaps as a cautionary tale,' Hekker wrote last week as she announced her U-turn.

In a display of spectacular bad taste, Hekker's husband presented her with divorce papers on their 40th wedding anniversary and left her for a younger woman. The divorce left her facing an uncertain financial future, bereft of income and - after spending her adult life bringing up five children - lacking skills to make her attractive in the job market. Despite that, the judge in her divorce case suggested that - at 67 - she go for job training.

She ended up selling her engagement ring to pay for roof repairs and discovering she was eligible for food stamps. Her ex-husband, meanwhile, was holidaying with his new lover in Mexico. Hekker, once a role model for young homemakers, is now rapidly becoming an icon for so-called 'silver divorcees', older women who suddenly find themselves alone without skills and with a much reduced income.

More:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,16937,1681744,00.html

[Dem Agog]

33. Actually her second book should be titled:

"I was a stupid fucking bitch... now I regret it"

At least she's seen the light. Hope her husband's enjoying his new lay.

[Conservativesux]

100. That was uncalled for.

[Conservativesux]

21. Sad, but how many men have been harmed in divorces compared to women?

She should have had a pre-nuptual contract.

[liberalhistorian]

158. ROFLMAO!

A pre-nup in 19 sixty FIVE? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! The only people signing them at that time were the super-rich, most others had never even heard of them. And if she'd asked her ex to sign a pre-nup then, guess what his and the cultural reaction would have been? Thanks for the laugh, really.

[chastitybeaverhausen]

23. I have no problem with staying home to raise your children

To me that is an honorable profession. My problem with this woman is she felt the need to write a book touting her way of life over others and being anti-feminism. It appears she was judging others. It also appears she was WRONG. I don't have a problem with people doing what they think is best, I do, however, have a problem when they judge others who don't agree and feel the need to write books about it. Oh well, better late than never for her to pull her head out of her ass. Ain't karma a bitch?

[LisaL]

27. Better late than never.

[Dem Agog]

31. Guess life lessons teach her to stop hating women

she deserved the swift kick to the head. dumb bitch. we need fewer women like her.

[Nikki Stone 1]

48. True, but I still think the judge should be horsewhipped.

She was an idiot and a traitor to women as far as I'm concerned, but the judge was being an asshole.

[bobalu]

239. I find it ironic -- in a depressing way -- that

you accuse this person of "hating women" but describe her twice as "a dumb bitch". Ugly.

[Nikki Stone 1]

265. self delete

:)

[gulliver]

42. Divorce screws everyone, and it is here to stay.

Republicans are so lost. They rail against divorce and gay marriage. They try to use antiquated tools like social stigma and legislation to cling to values indirectly that they can't grasp directly. The world keeps slipping through their fingers, and their leaders just bait them and suck their blood.

I really feel sorry for Republicans. They don't know they are being stupid. They don't know their tantrums and kicking will only sink them deeper in the quicksand. They think they have thought their problems through. They think they can just blame someone (the Dems) and "beat them" in some way, and the world will go back in kilter. They need to think again.

Republicans need to decide. Do they want to live in the real world or not? If not, then they should have the decency to stop trying to meddle with it. But if they do want to live in the real world, they need to start really thinking about the human predicament and stop trying to fight their way out of it. Their way won't work. It just adds to human misery. It assures that the many good things they (and we) really value will suffer.

[omega minimo]

44. Feminism is the radical notion that women are people

:patriot:

[supernova]

47. You go mega minimo

:applause:

[omega minimo]

50. We're all in this together, eh?

:hi: :grouphug:

[Nikki Stone 1]

51. God, that's PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!

:yourock:

[omega minimo]

58. Second wave slogan-- not sure of attribution. It's TRUE tho!

:bounce:

[renate]

121. Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

I know one of them and I also know for a fact that they don't get royalties off this slogan (at least the one I know doesn't), even though it's on t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc. Still, here's a link or two:

http://www.now.org/cgi-bin/store/TS-FEM.html
http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/5773.html

[omega minimo]

151. Thank you renate, I'll remember that and tell them thank you too

:thumbsup:

[renate]

318. I will!

:pals:

[NI4NI]

52. national surveys say that

marriage is the #1 cause for divorce.

[Nikki Stone 1]

56. And that there is an inheritance pattern of death

If your parents died at the end of their lives, then you are probably genetically predisposed to also die.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal condition.

Oh No!

[Nikki Stone 1]

109. heh heh heh....

:)

[zalinda]

69. Wow, just wow

I am almost at a loss for words. She got married in 1965, in 1965 a woman rarely worked outside of her home when she was married. A woman having to work outside the home really didn't start until Reagan was in office. There were also very few pre-nups unless you were REALLY wealthy. There is a reason there is a saying that behind every successful man is a good woman. Women stayed home and took care of EVERYTHING but the money, back then, so a man could concentrate on becoming successful. She probably entertained his business associates and turned a blind eye to working late.

I am constantly surprised at how many people here devalue a woman who stays at home, as if she is sitting on the couch eating bon-bons all day. So, you would rather a woman go out and work and hire people to clean house, cook, and take care of the kids. Maybe we should go a step further and hire someone to have sex with her husband too, as he probably is wham-bam man in bed too, spending little time to fulfill her needs.

At 67, she deserves alimony. She could be plunged into poverty. What if she didn't have any skills other than being a wife/homemaker, what should she do? This is for any woman of that age. Would she go out and become a maid? What if she was 87? Does that make a difference? Why should any woman stay at home and raise her children, when she can be discarded at any time just like an old shoe? Why have children at all? Why get married even? Let's all be selfish and do what we want and this will be a much better world. Yeah, right!

So, according to some here, a woman has no worth unless she brings money into the home? Your responses to her plight are very telling. Does loyalty mean anything? Apparently it doesn't to companies, and now to spouses, what next children? Where do we draw the line? It is horrible to toss people away when they are at their most vulnerable, whether it's a company who wants to make more money by hiring a younger employee who costs less, or a woman who has given 40 years to a man who decides he wants to trade her in for a younger model. Maybe we should start throwing away our disabled too, or those who don't neatly fit into society.

As dems, I never would have thought that I would read some of the comments that I read here today.

zalinda

[pitohui]

87. problem w. your comments

first off, if she was married 40 years, she gets social security based on her husband's income even if he divorces her

so she is lying abt not getting retirement, she gets it under law

as for talking abt what a good and valuable job raising 5 kids is, you can't really claim it's a good and valuable job, and then three paragraphs later characterize her this way: What if she didn't have any skills ...

there's a tacit acknowledgement there, which we all know in our hearts, that being a wife and mother is not a skill and she brings nothing of value to the employer because of her lack of skills

but she is not penniless, she has the same social security we all have to live on, so tell me why she's something special again?

she profitted from being a fascist anti-feminist shill when she was young, now she wants to profit again from our side now that she's old?

hell with her

[riderinthestorm]

99. Do you have children?

You are avoiding my question. You are making all of these grotesque blanket statements about being a mother.

And for the umpteenth time, this women probably only has a high school education based upon the particular socially normative deal she made with her husband at the time of their marriage. She's not supermarketable based upon the fact of lack of education, lack of technical expertise (I would guess), age discrimination etc.

Most of these things have nothing to do with her being a mother and her skills at that job, or lack thereof. They revolve around other factors.

You attitude is really not progressive at all. It's bizarre reading and debating this here....

[Karenina]

120. I find your judgements

appallingly harsh and without a scintilla of understanding or empathy. Back in the day many stay-at-home moms felt completely under attack. She's over a decade older than I but I do clearly remember the paradigms of the time. She was born on the cusp of that happily-ever-after American dream and by the time my generation girls started running wild and loose, was too old and encumbered to participate. I, for one, am THRILLED at the prospects of her new career and mea culpa, ESPECIALLY as young women are again being herded back into the barn.

[Lavender Brown]

190. We all know this in our hearts?

:puke: Speak for yourself.

The fact that the marketplace doesn't value the skills that a woman has does not mean that they are not in fact skills.

[bettyellen]

213. It's obvious your own Momma lacked skills, dude... but don't project that

onto the rest of us. My condolences on your obviously lacking upbringing.
Our society legally mandates thay someone must supervise, feed, clothe and shelter individuals under the age of 18.
All of those things are duties that there is a legal obligation to perform, hence it's work, not a hobby you can just give up on a whim. And one way or another the family figures out a way to do it, whether they compensate the bio Mom or a caregiver, or some combination thereof.

[lukasahero]

336. Here's a list of (marketable) job skills employed daily by parents:

Analysis, organizational, communication, diplomacy, mediation, time management, tutoring, cooking, money management and cost/benefit analysis, basic medical, health and nutrition...

Any parents want to weigh in with a few more?

"there's a tacit acknowledgement there, which we all know in our hearts, that being a wife and mother is not a skill and she brings nothing of value to the employer because of her lack of skills" This comment is so foul I can't believe I'm reading it on this "Progressive" board. Speak for yourself but don't suggest that "we all know" this because I, for one, do not know any such thing.

[Nikki Stone 1]

106. Good post, Zalinda. Some people don't remember the 50s and 60s

And until the LATE 60s, the traditional marriage remained pretty much unchallenged. I remember the 60s well, and we were always going to some relative's wedding. The women almost ALWAYS left their (usually secretarial) jobs after marriage, and certainly after their first child. That was the way things were done.

[crispini]

127. Right on, zalinda.

If you ask me, there's an awful lot of telling mysogynism on this thread. She was treated like shit by her husband and people on this thread are blaming her for it. Amazing.

[Horse with no Name]

149. Hey crispini!!

I thought I logged onto the wrong message board after reading some of these responses.:wow:

[LostinVA]

250. These threads always bring out scads of misogyny

Lots of little men trying to act big.

[Nikki Stone 1]

252. So I've noticed. IT's sad.

:(

[Batgirl]

275. I suspect a couple of the vanished ones

might be wondering if they revealed a little too much about their "leanings" in this thread.

[Nikki Stone 1]

276. Think they were freepers or our own?

?

[Batgirl]

278. I find myself hoping like hell they're not ours! nt

[Nikki Stone 1]

284. Me too, although I wouldn't be surprised. Sadly.

:(

[omega minimo]

135. Glad you weren't at a TOTAL loss for words

"As dems, I never would have thought that I would read some of the comments that I read here today."

Clearly, some of these comments are by insincere gamesplayers. The current atmosphere that enables them, makes it hard to tell who's who-- which is part of their game: plant bullshit to make it seem like Dems or DUers are more clueless/sexist/RepugLite than we really are.

Never the less, I am VERY glad that the bullshit elicited your excellent post. :hi: And you are on to something there, with the dots being connected:

"Does loyalty mean anything? Apparently it doesn't to companies, and now to spouses, what next children? Where do we draw the line? It is horrible to toss people away when they are at their most vulnerable, whether it's a company who wants to make more money by hiring a younger employee who costs less, or a woman who has given 40 years to a man who decides he wants to trade her in for a younger model."

[Ikonoklast]

147. What ? A woman didn't really work outside the home

until Reagan? You gotta be kidding me, right?

My mother ALWAYS worked outside the home as a medical secretary, working days and my dad worked nights. She raised five children and only took time away from work to give birth and take care of us until we were about six weeks old. She worked for a very progressive group of neurosurgeons that valued her as an employee, and went out of the way to do what it took to retain her services. That was starting in the late 1950's and ended only when she retired at age 62, 10 years ago.

BTW, she did it because we needed the money for all sorts of frivolous things like food, clothes, shelter, etc. We needed every penny back then, or things would have got pretty grim.


And to the rest of the posters here wringing their hands over the fate of this woman, I am a single divorced father that has sole custody of my three children and have raised them by myself from when they were all under the age of twelve with out any help, financial or otherwise, from their mother. Not DIME ONE. Yes, she had a full-time job. She made almost as much as me, in a unionized environment. She quit it just before she filed for divorce. Bad move on her part. Thought that the judge would just naturally give her everything, kids, house, cars, whatever. Guess what happened. Judge told her that she had better go out and look for a job ASAP as she was going to need one, very, very soon. Next day, as a matter of fact.


I have absolutely no sympathy. No one had any for me, nor did I expext any. I just dug deep and did what I had to do to get out of the massive debt that my ex stuck me with (over 100K) and take care of my family. Worked six and seven days a week for three years without missing a day just to keep my head above water. I hated it, but I finally got to the point where I could see daylight.

And in my mid-forties, I got job retraining to change professions so I could make more money to be able to send my kids off to college.

Not complaining, but things didn't go the way that I thought they would for me and my kids, either.

[Gormy Cuss]

167. Your ex owes you a lot of money.

It's great that you've been able to take care of things without it, but she does not deserve to be absolved from her financial responsibilities to her kids, even if she never sees them or talks to them or otherwise stays connected. Failure to live up to it on her part should have her jailed. Child support is their right unless she's incapacitated or dead.

[Ikonoklast]

176. You would think so

IIRC, women that are adjudicated to pay child support default at a rate of three times that of men.

Numerically there are more men defaulting because more men than women are ordered to pay support. There are plenty of deadbeat moms out there, however.

[Gormy Cuss]

183. A deadbeat is a deadbeat.

Many noncustodial parents who fail to pay child support are unable, not unwilling.
Parents who have the means and aren't supporting their kids deserve a special place in hell.

[eppur_se_muova]

226. Women started taking jobs in large numbers way back in the fifties...

but it was always "understood" that hers wasn't a "real" job like her husband's was, because her family didn't "rely" on her as the sole breadwinner. Of course no one worried about her job security, or benefits, or retirement, or "career". It was just a "woman's job". (And of course, they were always asked "how much does your husband earn?".)

The emergence of CAREER professional women was definitely a later development, but it sure didn't wait until the Reagan years. All that happened in the Reagan years is that jobs in management and the financial sector opened up to women -- those were the "MBA years", remember? "Traditionalists" couldn't argue that women shouldn't take these jobs because of danger or physical strength requirements, like they did for blue-collar jobs. That didn't mean equality for women, but it did mean a big increase in women working outside the home.

And more than anything else, it was the CREEPING TAX BRACKETS that led one family after to another to accede to the requirement that Mom take a job. It ceased to be a "choice" and became a necessity. Nowadays very few middle-class couples can afford for the woman to give up her job.

[zalinda]

294. When I looked around in the neighborhood

I was living in and all my school friends and relatives, very few moms were working outside the home, unless it was during the Christmas season. My grandmother did sell Avon though, more to get out of the house than to actually earn a living. She ended up buying a car with her earnings and then learned how to drive. Almost every mom was home when their child came home from school. I grew up in a lower middle class neighborhood and there was only one mom on my entire street who worked outside the home, in a factory. Later, when my mom decided to divorce my dad, she got a job in that same factory and stayed married for another year before filing for divorce. This was in the mid 60's. Believe me, back then everyone knew everyone's business, especially who's mom worked, because that would leave an empty house where we could go to hang out or dream of hanging out because there would be no parents.

I'm sorry Ikonoklast that your wife screwed you financially, but she is not all women. Women are at a disadvantage when they have children, no matter what era you're in. When a women has to take time off to give birth to the little darlings, corporate doesn't see someone who is career minded. Her resume is full of holes, unlike the father of those children, who continued working. A woman who is divorced and left with the children will most likely not be able to see daylight for many, many years. All you have to do is talk to the single moms who are working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, because all the education money when to hubby because he was the important one in the family. Or the ones who got left behind when hubby decided he wanted to have fun. Or countless other stories. Men leaving their children is non-gossip, just pity. Women leaving their children is a big story, and talked about for years, wondering why.

Most everyone has their own little divorce horror story, I certainly have mine. But, we get through it and hope that we are mature enough to realize that not all of the opposite sex is the same type of person we just shed. Yes, things are different now. Ozzie and Harriet no longer exist, now you have to look out for yourself, you can't trust love and that's a real shame. In some ways, I long for yesterday.

zalinda

[LincolnMcGrath]

356. My story is very similar.

Except that I had refused support that the judge wanted to force the mother to pay.

[stanwyck]

169. Actually, you're stating a commonly accepted myth

that "most women didn't work." Not true. White women of a certain income were more likely to be at home during the 50's and 60's. However, minority women have always worked. And many women were working but it wasn't considered employment. Like my grandmother and aunts, who were farmers. Trust me. They worked. And our nation used to be largely agricultural. Where I grew up, in Illinois, these 50's and 60's housewives also had livestock and vegetable gardens. Other women assisted their husbands in the family business. They weren't considered "working women". But, of course, they were. Others had beauty salons in their homes. Or sold Avon, Tupperware, or other merchandise.
And there have always been millions of other women in the workforce. Nurses, teachers, secretaries, and factory workers.
The Norman Rockwell apple pie scenario you're presenting is not really accurate.
Not when you take in the full picture of American women.
I do agree with you about people too blithely dismissing the amazingly difficult task of being a homemaker. But any woman who chooses that role needs to know the risks associated with leaving the workforce in today's economy and culture of divorce. It's sad. But that's reality.

[malaise]

188. My mother got married in 1943

and at that stage she was more qualified than my father. She quit working for a few years but ignored my father and his family and went back to work.
She knew nothing about feminism but had no intention of giving up her financial independence or of wasting her parent's hard earned money that was spent on her education.

Sure there were no prenups in those days and she put up with a lot of stuff I would not have tolerated, but she never gave up her financial independence.
I really have no tolerance for people, male or female, who believe they can make self destructive choices and then bawl about them. She chose to stay home and did not demand a paycheck for her work at home. Others must learn. There is no guarantee that at the end of the day hubby is still going to want you no matter what decisions you both made so make sure you are financially independent and not some sacrifial lamb at the altar of folly.

[LostinVA]

249. Just remember one thing Zalinda

Just because they are posting here doesn't make them dems...

[Nikki Stone 1]

260. You mean freepers might post here? Zoiks!

:)

[Beaverhausen]

105. I think it's sad that a woman who raised 5 kids is thought to have no job

skills.

Here are just a few examples of the skills a mother has: cooking, organizing, budgeting, cleaning, transportation, nursing, decorating, refereeing, etc.

I agree that the judge is completely wrong in his ruling. This woman needs a better lawyer. At 67, after a 40 year marriage she should get alimony and a cut of the assets.

[Nikki Stone 1]

108. Yes. She needed a better lawyer and a better judge.

..

[kineneb]

128. 67 and stay-at-home skills

money management (hopefully)
food service
cleaning
laundry/garment care
personal transportation
health aid
interior decoration
gardening
mediation
child care

No, she is not unemployable, and besides, she is elegible for social security, based on her husband's income. What is she whining about? She is probably better off without the bastard. Now mind you, most of these jobs do not pay well, but she could do them without any retraining.

Heck, my BA is in Music, and both of my previous jobs were office administration, which I learned by managing music gigs, not at school. I am now an "unpaid" health aid to my disabled husband, and we are living on his disablilty payments. Cry me pool of tears.

[liberalhistorian]

162. Actually,

she IS unemployable in the traditional sense. In the real world, most employers do not value the kinds of skills acquired through running a house and raising children, they only care about outside work skills and experiences. And most employers are not interested in hiring people over 55, certainly not 67, and especially not women who've never worked outside the home.

[Left Is Write]

241. You are correct.

Skills are skills, but those acquired through homemaking and child-rearing are not generally accepted by potential employers.

I've been out of the workforce for 7½ years, and though I have lots of work experience, my skills would need updating for me to obtain a job and make a decent living. There have been a number of advances in my field (radio) in the ten years I've been off the air. I did take a weekend job at a radio station a few years ago just to keep my finger in the pie, but my son was an infant at the time, and my husband was doing a start-up business back then and having to put in a lot of weekend hours at first. The scheduling just didn't work out.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

117. Well, she had to see the sense SOMEDAY.

It's sad that it took her this long, though, to come around and realize how, um, women aren't men's slaves. NEWSFLASH!!

:crazy:

[Batgirl]

124. She thought would never happen to her

Yet the "being dumped for a younger model" scenario is so common as to be a cliche.

She wrote a book smugly advising women to make themselves vulnerable to financial devastation in the event of the marriage ending. She must have been aware of many real life examples where the stay-at-home approach backfired for other women. Why did it have to happen to her personally before she issued a denouncement?

I'm not suggesting that women live their lives based on the assumption that the man they love will someday betray them in the cruelest way possible. But shit happens, including widowhood. Or what if the woman some day wants out of the marriage but feels she has no options but to stay, because she's unemployable? These are common sense reasons why women, even those who have mutually agreed with their husbands to stay home and raise the kids, ought to make sure that if/when the time comes they have the ability to earn money.

But as for child-rearing being some kind of cake job -- or personal hobby -- no one who's ever done it would say something so off the mark. Furthermore, those kids she raised were the husband's kids too. She didn't cultivate them on her own out in the potting shed. Over the years, it would have cost her husband an arm and a leg to pay someone to care for his FIVE kids while the wife worked outside the home.

[no_hypocrisy]

126. A reversal and variation of "A conservative is a liberal who got mugged."

[CTyankee]

129. "A kiss on the hand may be quite continental, but

diamonds are a girl's best friend. A kiss may be grand but it won't pay the rental on your humble flat, or help you at the automat. Men grow cold when girls get old and we all lose our looks in the end. But square cut or pear shaped these rocks don't lose their shape, diamonds are a girl's best friend."

Sigh. Get the money, honey. Life is long. You'll need it.

[newportdadde]

134. I just want to make a comment on stay at home parents and 'not a job'.

First up if you can make that statement with a straight face you have never had to do it yourself and I doubt have any kids. It is a job and should be respected

My wife is a stay at home mom, she was a teacher before deciding to stay home with our son who is now almost two. She is now 8 months pregnant with twins. Now she has to stay home even if she wanted to teach. Why is that? Because even with a college degree her salary would not cover the cost of a toddler and two newborns in daycare(even a middle of the road one), hell there wouldn't be much left of my freakin salary and I make over 50k. I think it was like 3k a month! :nuke:

My wife kicks ass. She is very uncomfortable and tired yet is getting up with son at 5 or ealier(sleep schedule is wacked) so I can get some sleep to go to the office. She is playing with him right now so I could jump on the net. When the twins are born she will be up feeding them in the middle of the night so won't be a zombie and fuck up pushing numbers at work.

Its time stay at home parents got some respect. Its a job a hard job with a lot of hours and no real 'downtime' away from it.

[Nikki Stone 1]

138. Good post. Thanks for making this clear.

....

[Karenina]

155. Ya know, Nikki...

The conempt for women, children and families on this thread has REALLY upset my tummy. :puke: Got any Pepto-Bismal in your medicine chest? I could use a swig dringend and can't get it here...

[Nikki Stone 1]

160. I only have Alka Seltzer, but I'll bet a shot of brandy might help.

:)

[Karenina]

198. Good idea!

:beer:

[Nikki Stone 1]

221. That's an awful big shot!

I coulda used that last night when I was trying to get to sleep. :)

[Karenina]

235. Meine ficken Fresse!!

Look how long this thread has become!!! I took your advice and did a down the hatch. We're in the wee hours here; bis dem näschte, Du! Ich gehe schlafen.

[Nikki Stone 1]

243. The hotter the topic, the stiffer the drink, I say.

:)

A nice cognac would hit the spot.

[LibDemAlways]

154. Terrific post.

Your kind and loving attitude toward your wife and your appreciation of the truly difficult job she has - wow.

When my daughter was born 12 years ago, I quit my job to stay home. My salary would have just about covered the day-care expenses, so it was a no-brainer. Have to say those infant/toddler years were extremely difficult - tougher than any job I've ever had.

Raising children requires patience, creativity, selflessness, a sense of humor, dedication, and the willingness to tackle a job that is 24/7 with new, unexpected challenges daily. Men and women who stay home and take on the responsibility should be applauded.

The last thing "stay-at-home" parents need to hear is that they don't "work." They do - in spades.

[CTyankee]

173. I had both experiences

at home raising 3 kids for 10 years then in the workforce as my husband couldn't stand working for other people for very long. I worked full time for 32 years after that.

Here is my take on the workplace v. home deal: raising kids is the most awesome, and most important, job you can have. But you have an advantage over the workplace mom. You don't have a boss who can control whether or not you can make a mortgage payment or just make your life miserable with crazy demands. When I was at home I pretty much ruled the roost (except when the kids were infants). I had more control. When I went into the workforce my life was much more controlled. But of course I got a paycheck. So that's the trade off.

[noamnety]

184. I've been a stay at home mom

though I started working once mine was in school. And yes, it's a lot of work. But she's 67 ... has she been raising her kids ALL this time? Aren't they grown yet?

[Withywindle]

211. THANK YOU!

My comments upthread were in no way meant to put down people (of either gender) who step out of the paid workface to take care of children when the kids are young and need full-time care. But they don't stay that way for 40 years! (well, some kids do, but I don't think parents should put up with that!) That's actually a pretty small portion of a person's life.

I think that when the kid is old enough to get a job, they should. And the stay-at-home parent should too.


But then, I didn't grow up in a household that could afford to support able-bodied adults who brought home no bacon ever in decades. I wish more people would recognize that's a BIG FRICKIN' LUXURY, not a norm, and it's becoming more luxurious all the time: one working-class or middle-class paycheck went a lot further in 1955 than it does in 2005.

edited because I am crap with numbers.

[Nikki Stone 1]

225. Apparently, she had been doing a lot of community work

Which used to be typical for women when their children left home.

[bloom]

197. I'm glad you appreciate her. n/t

[XanaDUer]

171. "Ever Since Adam & Eve" is the name of her book...

but they didn't get divorced, did they..?

[mcscajun]

192. That was the name of her First book...touting the wonderfulness

of committing totally to marriage and homemaking.

:)

[malaise]

175. At least her story has a happy ending

Any woman who gives up her profession/trade or job to look after the family is a complete fool. After a while neither the husband or children see it as some great sacrifice on the wife's part.
If my better half gave me such cruel walking papers, it would hurt big time emotionally, but it would not change a thing in relation to my standard of living. I have always maintained financial independence while sharing the essentials. We've never had what others call a family car. We have my car and his car although we drive either. Subsuming self for love of family is only for naive women who read too many love stories. I never joined a feminist movement, but I've always practiced a lot of what they preach.

I know a once beautiful woman who never worked a day in her life and lived with this man who was separated from his wife for decades. He put her up in this lovely home, but despite all our advice, she never thought she needed to earn a living so she never acquired a single skill. Then thirty years on when her looks were fading, he finally got the divorce from the wife and the children of the marriage came for the house their dad had bought in their names, while he married a much younger woman. She was on the street and drifted from one bad relationship to the next.
That could never happen to me or mine. We're way too street smart.

That Hekker attacked feminists in the past, because she was young and naive and didn't have a clue about life, would prevent me from buying her book because even teenage girls can see reality if they stop, look and listen.
It's hard to feel sorry for her but her husband is a dog.

For those who say she had a full time job at home, I disagree. She was unpaid labour. People are paid for jobs. If I'm staying home, I'd demand a paycheck
Edit -add

[mcscajun]

181. "I never knew there were so many who had had the same experience,'"

Um...Duh! That's what was missing from her first book...a good hard look around at all the less-than-perfect marriages and the experiences of abandoned spouses.

Today, she says, women have to look out for themselves as well - to prepare 'for being abandoned, so that if you end up alone you will have the skills to look after yourself'.

McWhorter Sember agrees: 'Any young woman who didn't acquire skills to earn money for herself is taking a huge risk. It is not just divorce, though. After all, your husband could die.'

And NONE of thise occurred to her before her own marriage crumbled. Typical of the preacher-type of author. "I've done it, so this is the way it should be," they always say. "What's wrong with you that you can't do it too?" Ugh.

[Nikki Stone 1]

200. Typical also of a narcissist. If it didn't happen to ME, it isn't real.

These types are incapable of processing empirical data until they become part of the statistic.

[malaise]

202. And therein lies the lesson n/t

[Nikki Stone 1]

228. Good point. We so often think that it can't happen to us, whatever "it"

may be: cancer, unemployment, death of a spouse, rape--whatever. And those of us who do realize these things can happen--to ANYONE--fight for a more effective government to cushion the blow. We vote for healthcare, unions, unemployment benefits, and choice to abort a rapist's fetus. We KNOW it can happen to us.

[salin]

182. who knew... feminism makes women be alone... AND women

who work to raise the family deserve no alimony because it wasn't "work" - ergo it didn't contribute to the home? Dang - women get it - and nasty - from both sides on this thread. Heck - even accuse the woman of being the cheater in the 40 year marraige that leads to the divorce (how is that for a bit of wild speculation). Geez, not going to get into the flamewars above - and not going to respond to the same if I get flamed for this thread - just summarzing what I read above and express a big... wow - you would think we were trying to pass the ERA or something. :eyes:

[Nikki Stone 1]

203. Hypercriticism of women is a worldwide phenomenon

Capitalists and Marxists can be equally nasty.

[salin]

204. bingo!

[I Have A Dream]

216. Amen!

:applause:

[LWolf]

205. The issue is much larger than this one woman.

From the distance of 2 grown children, 2 failed marriages, a lifetime going to school and working, and a career spent interacting with families, I can confidently say that this is not a black and white, either/or issue. It is more complex and many-layered than that.

What kind of choices do women REALLY have in our society?

Raising children is work. It takes time, attention, and resources. Where do we draw the line for "choice?" Should women not be able to choose to have children when time, willingness to give attention, or resources are in short supply? Should only the independently wealthy who don't have to work or depend on someone who works be able to have kids? Having raised 2 kids while working full time, I can confidently say that babysitting/daycare is an uncomfortable compromise. No one nurtures your infant/toddler the way you do. Modern families that are trying to keep up with jobs, daycare, and all of the other things involved in caring for children tend to be short on time and resources. A family is lucky to be able to afford to live on a single income. For those that can make that choice, how do you support the future of the adult who gives up a money-earning career to do that job?

How many women can really be confident that the man they married won't bolt for a younger woman at some point in the future? Is there some biological reason why men are less satisfied with women in their own generation when they get older? Should we quit pushing monagamy to begin with? If so, how do we protect the parent who sacrifices career advancement for family responsibilities? Marriage insurance? What?

If we want a spouse to be able to choose family over career, we need to provide a safety net for those whose partnerships dissolve later on in life. If we want our kids raised in day care, we ought to be building a much stronger infrastructure to do so, based on higher quality care. If Democrats really support "choice," it has to extend beyond the choice to get an abortion.

[Karenina]

258. I always tell my younger girlfriends

of my decision to be a stay-at-home mom which backfired after my second child was diagnosed as autistic and our marital contract was breached (his condition was my fault), leaving me residing in my car, having to be available to my son's educators while working part-time to acquire Section 8 housing; DO NOT get pregnant with ANY MAN'S CHILD unless you have at LEAST a years's living expenses socked away in YOUR OWN NAME.

I was the ONLY ONE who could advocate for my kid. The WORK had to be done THEN and I was the only one qualified to do it.

We survived somehow. My kid is now an exchange student, studying advanced math in an Asian language. (I'd been told to institutionalize him). I had to fight for EVERYTHING while living in my car. Naw, NO WORK involved in filling out detailed questionnaires, corresponding with every specialist in the area studying the spectrum, observing and writing up layman's reports for our pediatrician on a hundred or so children, reading and digesting every bit of info I could get my hands on, meeting with other parents. Naw... it was just a "hobby."

Never mind that the education I aquired has helped me flag children who need help and provided me with the skills to approach their parents. Naw... no WORK involved there...

See no one PAID ME for any of it. Therefore it has NO VALUE.

Will anyone mind if I screech a hearty FUCK YOU to several posters on this thread?

[Batgirl]

263. the heartier the better

Sounds like you've earned FU rights the hard way. And congratulations on having done a great job for your son in spite of the abominable circumstances. Your story is an inspiration.

[Balderdash]

280. Will anyone mind if I screech a hearty FUCK YOU to several posters on this

Yeah, I hear ya. I raised 2 on my own because the "sperm donor" couldn't
be bothered to send any money to help out. We didn't live in the car but
came mighty close many times. So I'll join you that hearty fuck you especially
to posters who haven't raised any children and don't know what the hell they
are talking about.

[LWolf]

325. Screech away.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The number of women who are left to manage everything alone is more than significant. Is there anyone of adult age out there who doesn't know at least one woman who was left to work and raise kids on her own? It's a common scenario in America. So common you'd think more people would see the need to address it. Is it that the "family values" people don't want to bring up how many of their own women are "left behind?"

An autistic person studying advanced math in an asian language sounds like Asberger's to me; I've been priveleged to teach a few. Regardless, I'm so glad he is able to, thanks to your mother love, strength, and determination. :hug:

[Nikki Stone 1]

271. A thoughtful post. The idea of "marriage insurance" is intriguing, but

who would underwrite it?

[LWolf]

327. Not me.

That kind of insurance might be too pricey for any but the already well-off. It's an interesting idea, though. Who pays for that safety net?

[liberalhistorian]

279. Marriage insurance?

Actually, that's not really such a bad idea once you think about it, especially since you're right about society needing to provide a "safety net" for people whose marriages dissolve later in life. Seems to me that it's similar to the idea behind prenuptial agreements. Marriage insurance really isn't a bad idea!

[Nikki Stone 1]

285. I wonder what the pre-existing conditions would be?

Could we reduce the amount of adultery if adultery raised the premiums?

[liberalhistorian]

295. LOL,

not a bad thought! Seriously, though, marriage insurance really isn't a bad idea. They have insurance for practically everything else nowadays, why not marriage?

[LWolf]

326. I wonder about that.

Would it lead more men, and perhaps women, to postpone marriage, or to not marry at all? To be more honest with themselves about whether or not they really want a life-long partnership?

Probably more married men would do like my 2nd husband did. He "cheated" without sex for a couple of months, while I was frantically trying to find out what was going on; he was not "himself." When I confronted him about his cell phone bill, with 15 calls a day to a married woman, he made his big announcement: "I'm in love with someone else; you have to leave." Thus ended a 12 year marriage. He waited until I moved out, and moved her into my house and bed within hours of my departure. All the while patting himself on the back for "not cheating."

Perhaps a marriage should automatically include a prenup. Spouses who stayed home to take care of kids, or who worked in low-wage jobs to keep the place together while the man went to school or built a business, could receive the same support while they went to school and established a career. Maybe insurance for this sort of thing makes more sense; it's hard to take an income supporting one household and split it to support two. I'll bet the premiums would be pricey, though.

[FreedomAngel82]

206. Wow

Yes it is sad. Hopefully she can inspire someone else her age. My grandmother never went to college either but she got lucky because my grandfather just recently died (this past summer) and they had retirement money and other stuff so she doesn't have to work. My Mom worked when she was younger so she isn't totally helpless or anything. I'm glad she realizes everything now and maybe she can change other people's minds.

[MrSlayer]

208. So, I take it the original book didn't sell very well.

Or she wouldn't be in such financial difficulty. A top selling book can fetch you a nice egg to sit on if you're smart.

[supernova]

234. I'm sure the original book did sell well

and, if we scratch the surface, I'm sure that's why we'd find out Mr Since Adam and Eve can now loll about in Mexico.

[Nikki Stone 1]

237. The plot thickens......

:)

[greiner3]

238. So some only love ya when it's cool to be loved;

Welcome anyway.

[hiaasenrocks]

267. So she's pissed that she got dumped for a younger woman.

There are a lot of women who can identify with that. I bet the book will have moderate success. Maybe even make it on Oprah. LOL

[Nikki Stone 1]

273. No, she's pissed that she was left without assets of any kind

after investing her life in a man who didn't see fit to invest in hers.

[hiaasenrocks]

277. Like she seems to be implying with the "cautionary tale."

At least she takes some responsibility for her current predicament.

Sounds like she must have had a pretty lousy lawyer, too.

[Nikki Stone 1]

288. Yeah, We should find the name of that lawyer and spread it around

so everyone can avoid him/her.

[Marr]

290. I'm unimpressed. People who deny problems until they themselves have them

are a big part of the problem.

[Nikki Stone 1]

291. I agree with you. But I still think the judge was wrong and the lawyer

wasn't so hot. Seems like she's learned something. Maybe her book will carry some weight with all the young women doused in neocon/fundie propaganda who think it can't happen to them.

[the_real_38]

304. Subtitle: Ann Coulter in 22 years ...

... n/t

[liberalhistorian]

310. LOL!

One can only hope; miracles have been known to happen! :rofl: :rofl:

[Nobody]

324. Seems like the husbnd chose the slimiest path possible

Seems like a lot of people commented far better than I could about the woman's predicament. Does anyone else think it especially slimy of the husband to leave her on their 40th anniversary?

And as another poster observed: some of the statements above me are highly surprising coming from long-time DUers. Judging by some of those comments, their insecurity seems to be emblazoned in neon lights on their foreheads for all the world to see.

[buzzard]

335. Just reminded me of this joke,

A ninety-year-old couple decide to get a divorce. They go to the judge and say, "Judge, we want a divorce."
The judge says, "You've been married 70 years and now you want to get a divorce? Why did you wait so long?"
The couple say in unison, "Well, we wanted to wait until the kids were dead."

[rodeodance]

337. "Ever Since Adam & Eve" I recall reading this book in a Wom Studies

class. uuk.


....Terry Hekker wrote a book in 1980 that made her famous. Ever Since Adam & Eve was a passionate defence of her decision to eschew a career and spend her life as a wife and a mother.

Coming at the end of the Seventies, when feminism was enjoying a renaissance and the career woman was emerging from behind the cooker, Hekker became a celebrated poster child for more old-fashioned values. She wanted her job choice of 'homemaker' to be considered as valid as those of up-and-coming women bankers, bosses and company directors. The book sold well, Hekker appeared on all the TV prime-time chat shows and went on a national tour. But that was then.

Today, Hekker told The Observer, she is planning a follow-up book. Its working, albeit jokey, title is bluntly honest: Disregard First Book. For her life did not turn out as she planned, and she now believes her decision to become a housewife and homemaker should serve as a warning for young American women.

'My anachronistic book was written while I was in a successful marriage that I expected would go on forever. Sadly, it now has little relevance for modern women, except perhaps as a cautionary tale,' Hekker wrote last week as she announced her U-turn.

[Nikki Stone 1]

363. Why did this book show up in women's studies?

Just curious.

[wryter2000]

345. Goddam idiot

I am so fucking sick of these "oh, you mean it could bite me???!!!" types.

[Name removed]

348. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[velma_cruther]

352. hypocrite

She seems to change her views as it becomes convenient.

Marriage is a contract, but not indefinite. Husband or wives don't have to stay with each other if they don't want to. And even during the contract, they don't have to provide for each other, let alone after.

And raising children is not a job, it's an obligation, no one forced men or women to have kids.

Like every right-wing wackjob, she only learned the truth when it hit her like a brick wall. Well done.

[Name removed]

355. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

359. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AngryAmish]

361. This is a very long thread

[newyawker99]

364. Locking

This has become inflammatory and the conversation
has run its course.



NYer99
DU Moderator