It's finally hitting home for me - my ex-wife is in danger of losing her job.

[Pale Blue Dot]

As some of you may know, I follow the layoff news very closely. One of the reasons that I do this is because my ex works in Philadelphia for a major hotel chain. With the cuts in corporate and personal travel, I've been expecting to see mass layoffs in the hospitality industry - and I've been surprised to see very few so far.

Wednesday my ex-wife was called into her boss's office and was asked to take the rest of this week off - without pay. They're having meetings to determine what the next steps will be, but she thinks that she may lose "one or two days a month". I, on the other hand, think it's entirely possible that she may not have a job on Monday.

Back it 2003 she and I would talk about the economy. As a "doomer" (as some on DU dismissively call realists), I was beginning to fear this collapse already. She and I would have discussions, and I told her that I believed that our national, corporate and personal levels of debt were unsustainable and that a collapse was inevitable. I told her that in such a scenario, her job would not be safe. I suggested that she examine her options and try to find a job in a safer industry. She didn't listen.

I am not a crazy person. I am not always right in my opinions, but I always base those opinions on the best facts I have. She, and many, many others, based their opinions not on facts, but on what they wanted to believe. I saw this coming, I tried to warn people, and no one wanted to believe any of it. They wanted to believe I was a doomer.

Now the ex is telling me that if she has to get a part time job, she will. Readers of the SMW and other close watchers of the economy know that there are very, very few parttime jobs out there - or jobs of any kind. She still wants to believe what she wants to believe.

All of this has huge implications for our son. If my ex loses her job, she has very few options available. What would be best for my son, in that case, is for him to come live with me, where he can be in a stable environment and I can put him in a good school. I can't see her letting that happen - not out of malice, but simply because she would miss him too much.

My ex and I get along very well. I am not a ranter, I'm not a doomer, and I don't want the economy to fail. However, I am a realist. I continue to be extremely frustrated by what I see as an American willingness to ignore the facts. As I feared, this "willing ignorance" is about to have real life consequences for me. I saw it coming, but I could do nothing to stop it.
Sorry for the rant.

[grannie4peace]

1. sounds like "i told you so to me"

[Pale Blue Dot]

7. In a way, it is.

I won't deny it. I'm extremely frustrated.

On edit: I have not said any of this to the ex. This is a DU exclusive rant.

[roguevalley]

104. wasn't it cassandra that was never believed though they spoke the

truth? Its hell being a cassandra.

RV, been there, done that. (I got out of the stock market before it fell into the toilet. Tried to get others too but they didn't. I don't ask how they are doing anymore.) :(

[elleng]

2. Its ok; contacted your congressmember/senators?

.

[Marrah_G]

3. If she has to get a part time job, and you use that to take custody..........

Then this single working struggling mother would think you were a first rate asshole.

Until heating costs went down this fall I was sure I would have to get a second part-time job just to pay for heat this year. Fortunately I didn't have to. I am fortunate to also have an ex who isn't out there looking for ways to take away custody.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Why is he an asshole?

Shouldn't it be about the best interests of the child, not the mother? And if the mother is incapable of providing care for whatever reason and the father is, isn't that the best place for the child?

You know, this rather pisses me off. We hear so much about the need for fathers to step up to the plate - and they need to, in a big way. Yet at the same time, we piss on fathers every time they want to in these situations. That's not right in any way, shape, or form.

[treestar]

12. Many women still view such a thing as losing their child

She loses her job and her son.

Society expects women to have their children still. Mothers feel that and fight like hell to have custody. It feels like a personal failure.

It's not logical and a bit sexist, but it's still there. How many times have we been told we are "hard wired" to take care of the kids and therefore prefer fathers who make money, etc.?

Having practiced some family law, I can tell you there are still millions of women for whom the best interests of the child is always that they stay with mother. And in this case, it would be upsetting for the kid to have his life change completely. If whoever has the most money is always better, men would tend to have custody. But just moving to Dad's because he has more money is not something the courts always go along with as best interests. They consider other factors.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Giving our fellow DUer the benefit of the doubt

All else being equal (ie, he's stable, not on drugs, healthy environment, etc.) AND he has the money AND he can give better time and attention to the child, there no question here that yes, the child should be in the best environment. You say it would be upsetting for the child to change his life completely - isn't that going to happen anyway, now that he's barely going to see his parents at all because his mother now has to work multiple jobs and because there's a severe change in income involved?

It's not JUST about the money, but it's more than a little sexist that the mother nearly always has custody of the child.

[treestar]

21. This couple may have agreed or the court may have ordered

primary residential custody with the mother. Losing her job doesn't automatically change that.

It affects the child that he's moved from his mother which looks like a punishment for losing her job - it's not in the child's interest to send his mother into a tailspin.

The sexism actually goes against the women - they still feel like failures if they don't have custody - and some fathers know that and seek custody to punish the ex (though I'm not saying that about the OP).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. The sexism goes against the MOTHERS??

Perhaps in public opinion and in social stigma, but the sexism is entirely against the males in terms of preferential treatment under law. The stigma that women face won't change unless we start seeking balance in the application of the law itself.

[Tsiyu]

43. Statistically, when fathers actually fight for custody with $$$$$

They win custody more often than women.

I work one day a week for an attorney who does guardian ad litem work in juvenile court. I can assure you that the judges don't care what the gender of the parent is, only about their stability and ability to see to the best interests of their children.

Fathers are awarded custody as often as mothers in the cases I've seen.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. I don't buy that at all.

I've known more than a few fathers that have fought for custody. Not only could they provide a stable environment, but the mothers were REALLY REALLY not capable of doing so (ie. drugs, unemployment, etc.) They still lost. I don't know where you live, but that is a far, far cry from being true everywhere.

[Tsiyu]

50. Anyone can give anecdotal evidence

I've certainly seen in my life my share of fathers who have been awarded custody even when they were abusive, when I felt the mother should get the child(ren). Isolated stories do not make statistics, they just show the tip of your particular iceberg,

Statistically, when men actually fight for custody, the have an advantage - in the few studies that have been done to monitor such things.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. You realize your evidence was anecdotal, too, right?

So if you want to cite something, feel free to.

[Tsiyu]

54. Yes, my personal view is mine

but the statistics are not. I cannot cite the books/studies but that is what they say. If you are interested, I would suggest doing the research - as I did - to find them yourself.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. You countered my argument talking about statistics.

It's incumbent on you to provide them if you want to make such a case.

[Tsiyu]

56. When you say fathers always lose

(since you made the statement initially) it would be incumbent upon YOU to back them up with studies, not me.

I am telling you what I read when I got up off my ass and studied the situation. You can call it bullshit if you like, it certainly doesn't bother me.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. Who said fathers always lose? Nobody, that's a straw man. If you can't cite your study, switch to

straw man tactics are showing.

I don't believe you ever saw any such study. I think you are unreliable and are making it up.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Tsiyu]

59. See # 57

Or research it yourself. What a concept!

And insulting me is certainly not winning any argument. I haven't insulted anyone so kiss off.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. I insulted your argumentation techneques. Straw men suck!

I did look it up and what I could find refuted what you posted without a url.

[Tsiyu]

65. This is what the poster said

"but the sexism is entirely against the males in terms of preferential treatment under law.

I took that to mean that fathers always lose, in his opinion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

68. YOU read that - I didn't write it.

I expect an apology for your abuse.

[Tsiyu]

79. ...

:rofl:

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. You leapt to an incorrect conclusion.

In this country, whites have enjoyed preferential treatment under the law. Using your logic, that must mean that we'll never have a black president.

Even the magnitude of the preferential treatment can't overcome the merits of the case in a handful of instances.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. Nearly always =/= always.

Nice try though. Try to read properly before you accuse me of something.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. moms are the official primary residential parent after a divorce more than 80% of the time

http://www.newsweek.com/id/174790/output/print

There are surprisingly few studies which look at such an obvious disparity. There are no large, well-funded groups to finance the studies.

The stat comes from the census bureau.

[Tsiyu]

57. Here-took me two minutes

1- Most (85-90%) couples choose their own parenting (custody) plans.

2- The small minority who cannot devise their own plans (about 15%) go to Family Court (many of these couples have conflict & violence).
- Women typically get custody b/c they have been ***the primary care givers***
- men - when they seek custody - are often awarded custody (70%)
- Batterers get custody disturbingly often (see: Leadership Council on Child Abuse, Stop Family Violence). An estimated 58,000 kids go into unsupervised care each year. DV is given little if any weight in Family Court (despite myths to the contrary).
Source(s):


Leadership Council on Child Abuse
STop Family Violence
Google "gender task forces"

(Emphasis mine)

[John Q. Citizen]

60. I couldn't find it on google what's the url?

[Tsiyu]

64. ...

icfcr.org/5_4_WA13_WH.pdf


"Most divorces do not result in custody battles. The vast majority are settled out of court. Father's Rights groups claim that mothers are awarded custody in 90 percent of cases, which is a misrepresentation of out-of-court settlements versus contested cases. Joan Meier, clinical law professor at the George Washington University Law School and founder of Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DV LEAP), cites a study by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force, "which found that 94 percent of fathers who actively sought custody received sole or joint custody, regardless of whether there was a history of abuse. While fathers received primary physical custody 29 percent of the time, mothers received primary physical custody in only 7 percent of the contested cases"



I have other things to do. Here is one link. Have a nice day....

[Tsiyu]

81. What's that I hear?

A lot of crickets.......

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

84. <self delete>

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

63. Flimsy and outdated

Here's a stat from an article in December 2008:

Courts are changing as well; in the small percentage (5 percent) of custody cases that do go to litigation, judges are now more inclined to disregard gender and look at who's the better parent, says Gary Nickelson, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. "Now they look at parenting skills. Who took care of the children before the divorce?" Most often, children still end up living primarily with the mother; according to the most recent census, moms are the official primary residential parent after a divorce in 5 out of 6 cases, a number that hasn't changed much since the mid-'90s.

It also says: Why don't the men who are unhappy with the arrangements they have fight for more time? (Currently about 7 percent of sole custodial parents are men.) Holstein says the legal system deters them. "The lawyers are telling them, 'You can't fight this, you won't get it, and it will cost you a lot of money and heartache.'" While the numbers show that men who do fight for primary custody win as much as women do, Holstein says those cases are self-selecting: "They've been told in advance they have a chance at winning because they were Mr. Mom before the divorce—or there's an obvious problem with the mother."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/174790

[Tsiyu]

66. This is not giving statistics on fathers who actually fight

for custody. Fathers who actually fight for custody win more often than not. If it were not true I would not make the claim.

I have nothing against fathers' rights. I'm just trying to show you that the myth that fathers always lose is just that - a myth. When cases are non-contested, mother is most often awarded custody. When fathers actually fight for custody, they have a statistical advantage.

Have a great day :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. "While the numbers show that men who do fight for primary custody win as much as women do"

You have major reading comprehension problems.

[Tsiyu]

75. Makes your initial point moot then doesn't it?

I did not read the entire article, only what you posted but your quote:

"While the numbers show that men who do fight for primary custody win as much as women do"

means that your inital statement that the law is sexist against men is not actually true.

I'm sorry you feel the need to insult me. I was merely pointing out that there is not blatant sexism in custody cases. That's all.

If you would like to explain that you meant something other than that in the initial post I responded to, feel free. What exactly were you saying?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

76. It's hard to call it an insult when in the same post you again fail to read what's in front of you.

It's a very, VERY self-selecting sample due to the fact that most lawyers advise against seeking custody because they know it's a losing battle.

You are either intentionally misinterpreting my quotes or you are not reading them properly at all. Tell me which it is.

[Tsiyu]

94. I f fathers choose not to fight because they are swayed by

attorneys, what does that have to do with actual judges awarding custody?

The statistics show men have the advantage, so if they take their attorney's advice not to fight, they can't blame the courts for the bias.

Sounds like the lawyers might believe the myths as well. If lawyers did their research they would see that male clients have a very good chance of winning.

Either way, if you don't fight for custody at all, you can't claim the courts or the law are biased against you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

95. Heaven forbid if people don't have money to piss down a well, right?

Are you going to pony up for their legal fees to fight a losing battle? You do realize lawyers and courts cost money and aren't free, right?

Get a friggin grip on reality.

[Tsiyu]

96. You don't even know what I could tell you about

my life or what I've spent in legal fees to fight for custody of an older child.

That ex had the GM legal service plan and paid $700. I spent $16,000 - my entire years salary in 1991 - for legal fees. But my kid was worth it.

Get off your high horse. Sounds like you hate women and you're taking it out on me. Sorry, Buddy. You know nothing about my "reality."

And now I'm out of here. I proved you wrong. Suck it up Big Boy.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

98. Now you're just projecting.

And by the way, you haven't proven squat. You cited a 20 year old statistic that wasn't even statistically valid in the first place and somehow you think you won this? Really?

I hate women? I haven't said a peep that would lead anyone to that conclusion. If you can cite for me even one instance where I said anything remotely derogatory towards women or generalized them in any way, please do so. Unless you can, once again, I expect an apology.

In this thread, you have done absolutely nothing but provide anecdotal evidence, faulty evidence, misrepresented my words, and then slandered me. In this thread, I've produced statistics from this decade (which you haven't done), made no generalizations or derogatory remarks about either gender, and called you out for misrepresenting my remarks.

I think you're projecting, quite frankly. I think you are taking your own bitter experience in custody battles out on other people. I am truly sorry you had to experience whatever it was you did, but that doesn't make it right for you to take it out on me.

[Tsiyu]

102. Okay

On edit: you have insulted me repeatedly, in the last instance inferring I had "no grip on reality."

Where are your statistics to prove me wrong?

You keep moving the goalpost.

First it's : "Fathers are discriminated against"

Then it's: "Fathers are told not to fight."

Then it's: "Fathers can't afford to fight"

You want to be adversarial in this discussion so what is that about? I have been polite, trying to state facts. YOU have been unreasonable and childish.

I proved you wrong as you have no evidence to show fathers automatically or "nearly always" lose when they fight for custody. NONE. There is none.

Peace.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

107. I'm not moving the goalposts - it's all three!

You have been the EXACT OPPOSITE of polite! And you have provided NO evidence whatsoever!! Wow! :wow:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

77. It's hard to call it an insult when in the same post you again fail to read what's in front of you.

It's a very, VERY self-selecting sample due to the fact that most lawyers advise against seeking custody because they know it's a losing battle.

You are either intentionally misinterpreting my quotes or you are not reading them properly at all. Tell me which it is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Fathers who fight for custody are a self-selecting group.

They have both the resources to fight, and a compelling reason.

80+ percent of children of divorce live with mom, in part because lawyers discourage dads from taking on what is likely to be a losing cause.

[Tsiyu]

73. As I said initially, fathers who actually fight for custody

win more often than not. This would indicate no gender bias against men in CONTESTED cases. That was my claim.

In non-contested cases, yes, women do more often get custody.

But the initial post claimed that there was blatant sexism against males in custody cases (how you read that any other way I can't imagine. What else was the poster trying to say?)

I was merely pointing out that the courts would seem to be more biased against women in a CONTESTED case.

The statistics show this. That's all.

I didn't do the studies, just researched this issue for someone. If people don't like the truth I can't help that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Then your court is a far more enlightened operation than others. n/t

[Tsiyu]

53. More than one court

and I should add these are juvenile court cases, not civil court cases.

The cases in juvenile court tend to involve abuse, environmental issues, etc., so there are other problems aside from just determining custody.

So I am speaking of what I've seen there, not specifically of divorce/custody cases in civil court.

[SarahB]

40. Not only that.

If she lost her job, he'd have to move with his mom to live with his grandparents and change schools anyway. Plus, a 14 year old high school aged boy is not the same as a small child. He's not exactly breastfeeding or in diapers at this stage of his life.

[SarahB]

37. I'm the OP's wife.

I share custody of my children with my ex because my children's needs and relationship with their dad are more important than what "society expects". The child in question is almost 14 and will be in high school this Fall. He's not little. Some people might argue his father might be better suited right now for the task regardless of her losing her job anyway.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. That is exactly the way dads feel.

I'm continually perplexed when women feel justified in claiming a monopoly on parental feeling.

Certainly there are situations in which custody with mom is better. The reverse is also true. I've read nothing in the OP which suggests that there are any differences between the two households which make a mom working two jobs preferable.

[Marrah_G]

20. I didn't say he was

I said I would consider him one IF he used the fact that the mother had to get a part time job as an excuse to take custody of the child.

[noamnety]

99. I'm on the side of "he's being an asshole." Sorry.

It's a joint responsibility for each parent to provide support to the best of their ability, and together ensure the needs are being met. If she loses her job, the CORRECT response is not "I get the kid then." The correct response is to go back to friends of the court, and have child support refigured based on the new ratio of who is able to afford what.

Custody isn't supposed to be automatically transferred to whomever earns more.

Personally, if she's working part-time, I think that might make her home a MORE suitable place for a child, since she would be there to spend more time with the kid. I'm not sure why the best environment is with a parent working full-time who puts their kid in child care. And I'm saying that as a former single parent who put my kid in child care - that's not an anti-working mom statement. The premise that children should be with a single parent only if they work full-time though is flawed.

Imho, if the OP is TRULY concerned about the child's needs being met, he will step up to the plate since he can apparently afford to, and ensure they are still being met. There are ways to do that besides continually transferring kids to the parent with the fattest wallet.

Now if he has another reason why the mom is unfit, or why he's more fit as a parent, that's a whole separate issue. But being laid off - that's not a reason.

Also - I find it weirdly controlling for him to feel like his EX has to listen to his career advice. If my ex felt it was his place to "counsel" me about what careers are appropriate for me (short of being a stripper/drug dealer), I'd tell him to kiss off, and would put him in the stalker/creep/asshole category. I have a very low tolerance for exes who think they should still be making the major decisions for their ex-wives.

[SarahB]

101. 14 year olds don't need day care anyway.

He makes no more than his ex makes. He's financially stretched to the absolute max now. He'd probably be living with his parents if he wasn't remarried (I also have children and very little support from my ex). I work nights actually (three 12 hour shifts a week), so I can always be available during the day if my kids are sick, school vacations, etc. We pay the bills. We have no extras.

[VeraAgnes]

10. The words opportunistic, bitter

and controlling come to mind as I read the OP post. Wouldn't it be nice to hear someone offer to help without boxed-up, self-serving terms.

Just saying, it would be nice.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Well, I won't deny that tone.

He does come off rather bitter. Opportunistic? Perhaps, but that may not be fair.

Still, if we truly are keeping the best interests of the child in mind, there's no question it would be with the father under those circumstances.

[philk17088]

19. controlling?

Jeez, the guy is thinking out loud and never said he was making a play for custody.He was putting out an option. Not once in the op did this man denegrate the care the mom was giving.

I think there is quite a bit of projection going on here.

[Pale Blue Dot]

13. I have never, EVER done anything except consider my son's best interests.

My my ex and I divorced, we did not even involve lawyers. I freely gave up custody, and pay my ex much more in child support than the law would require, BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS BEST FOR MY SON. We have been separated/divorced for over 5 years, and I have never ONCE tried to get custody of my son. It would break my ex's heart for him not to be there, and I totally understand that.

This is about what is in his best interests, should it come to that. Should my ex's feelings be considered? ABSOLUTELY. Should they be the driving force in our discussions? I don't think so. If living with me keeps him in a good school with a stable home life, then that is what should happen.

Thanks for presuming to know who I am and what I'm about.

[Marrah_G]

15. The maybe you should reword your post

because that is sure as hell how it came across.

[Pale Blue Dot]

22. I said, pretty clearly I think,

that I don't think there ARE any parttime jobs to be had in this economy. That's why I said she's believing what she wants to believe and not facing reality.

Again note that I have not said any of this to her. This is merely a frustrated post on a message board.

[Marrah_G]

24. Please think long and hard before you do say anything

Because I am telling you, from a single working mother's point of view..... what you posted was incredibly offensive. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it really was. I would do whatever it takes to care for my children. I work my ass off every day. I had to consider taking on a second job this year, I am still considering it. To have anyone saying they think that makes me unfit...is really offensive and infuriating.

[Pale Blue Dot]

25. I said NOTHING of the sort.

I'm sorry, but I think you ARE projecting.

[Marrah_G]

30. Perhaps I am

Just telling you how the post read to me and to a few others.

Just really think before you say anything.

[Pale Blue Dot]

32. I will. I promise. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. No it didn't. The words between the lines? You put 'em there. n/t

[grace0418]

86. It didn't come across that way to me.

I understood what the OP was saying.

[Ikonoklast]

29. So, if the father wants his child to be fed and have a stable shelter

to call home, because the mother, through no fault of her own may not be able to provide one, he's an asshole?

Let me get this straight, if he didn't care, what would that make him?

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. Ooh! I know! I know!

A: an asshole.

Dad's an asshole if he wants custody of his kids. He's an asshole if he doesn't. But this isn't man-hating, you see. It's just... something else.

[TahitiNut]

92. No good deed goes unpunished, it seems.

The presumptive bias against the male in any divorce is pervasive and long-standing. Oh, it's rationalized beyond belief, but it remains a presumptive bias.

"Sally and Steve were divorced yesterday" .... and the immediate presumption is that it's more likely to be Steve's fault. Immediately. We're ALL habituated into thinking this way. (There's not even a female equivalent to the word "cuckold.")

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Of course, if mom and son were living on the street, it'd be "where's the asshole dad?"

If the son is better off living with dad, that is where he should be.

It is good that mom and dad have a good relationship, but "missing him too much" should not enter into the equation. It's rarely questioned that dads miss their kids too.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

44. ...

[ixion]

4. I pulled out of the stock market in 2007 when Bear Stearns collapsed

and people called me crazy. It was only going to go up, they said.

When I started stock-piling food, again, they called me crazy. Food shortages in the US? Get outta here.

Now, those folks are starting to understand why I did what I did.

Eventually, people wake up, I think. Sometimes it takes a big bite from a reality sandwich, but they'll awake eventually.

[KharmaTrain]

6. I Cashed In October, 2007...

I don't want to say how much money I think I saved, but now it's sitting locked away in a CD...5%...better than nothing.

If I had a dime for all the "tips" I got over the years about the market and how one should put more into it, I'd be as rich as Bernie Madoff was. Hell...I was told that I was a "wuss" for not getting into the "more aggressive" funds that promised double digit returns.

In early 2007, I had a bank dude pitch me on what is known as an EFFA fund...foreign currencies. The Euro was hot, the dollar was dropping...and the dude all but assured me of 20% returns in one year. I laughed at him and made him a little bet...that the fund would be lucky to draw 10% (I was being gracious)...and he took me up on it. We took a "snapshot" of the fund and the deal was if it was higher in one year, I'd buy lunch and if it were lower than 10% he bought. Well...last time we checked, the fund has lost 40% of its value over the 2007 fix. And guess what...I still haven't gotten lunch.

Cheers...

[KharmaTrain]

5. The Adjustments In The Economy You Don't Hear About

It's no surprise with air travel down 20% or more that the hotel industry is hurting. We've had a couple small "corporate" hotels in the area shut their doors over the past couple months and I see less cars in the nearby hotels that used to be always full. Our family has cut back traveling this year...part of the reason is the joke and hassle air travel has become. If we're headed somewhere this summer, it's by car.

I'm sorry to hear of your situation...and wish I could offer some suggestion, but I can't. All is the consolation that many are facing similar difficulties. There doesn't seem to be a week that goes by where I don't hear of another good friend losing a job or worse. Some of these people worked in a field or for a company for 25 plus years and now are on the outs. Not easy to find a burger flipping job when you're 50. Meanwhile the bills keep coming.

Many of us saw this thing coming...it wasn't too hard to see. The greed was just "too good"...everyone thought the good times would just go on and on, not realizing how the markets had been "deregulated" and detached from reality. I saw companies take on huge debts that I knew there was no way they could break even for dozens of years (if at all) and somehow their stock prices always went high. When the bottom fell out, so did their balloon...some of these company's stock are worth 20% today what they were a year ago. I used to joke that "the bill collector cometh"...it's no longer a joke, it's reality.

Don't feel you are alone...the suffering is hitting most of us in one form or fashion. The only solace I have is that we're all going down together...here's hoping we all can rise up together as well.

Cheers...

[natrat]

8. some bruce

THE GHOST OF TOM JOAD

Men walkin' 'long the railroad tracks
Goin' someplace there's no goin' back
Highway patrol choppers comin' up over the ridge
Hot soup on a campfire under the bridge
Shelter line stretchin' round the corner
Welcome to the new world order
Families sleepin' in their cars in the southwest
No home no job no peace no rest

The highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Searchin' for the ghost of Tom Joad

He pulls prayer book out of his sleeping bag
Preacher lights up a butt and takes a drag
Waitin' for when the last shall be first and the first shall be last
In a cardboard box 'neath the underpass
Got a one-way ticket to the promised land
You got a hole in your belly and gun in your hand
Sleeping on a pillow of solid rock
Bathin' in the city aqueduct

The highway is alive tonight
But where it's headed everybody knows
I'm sittin' down here in the campfire light
Waitin' on the ghost of Tom Joad

Now Tom said "Mom, wherever there's a cop beatin' a guy
Wherever a hungry newborn baby cries
Where there's a fight 'gainst the blood and hatred in the air
Look for me Mom I'll be there
Wherever there's somebody fightin' for a place to stand
Or decent job or a helpin' hand
Wherever somebody's strugglin' to be free
Look in their eyes Mom you'll see me."

The highway is alive tonight
But nobody's kiddin' nobody about where it goes
I'm sittin' downhere in the campfire light
With the ghost of old Tom Joad

[Subdivisions]

14. I was watching too and was accused of being pessimistic both in

real life and here on DU.

You are 100% correct in your assertion that people believe what they want to believe until disaster is upon them. It's been the same for this economic situation as it has been for warnings of peak oil. People refuse to believe there will ever come a time when oil will become either unavailable or unaffordable. But there will. And when that happens, you ain't seen economic turmoil like you'll see once oil production begins it's inexorable decline.

In the meantime, to those around me I will remain a pessimistic doomer. Oh, and by the way, some of those same people who thought I was crazy when I said we were headed into another depression are now beginning to lose their jobs, their homes, and their sanity.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. Just out of curiousity, what "safer" industry were you suggesting your ex

find a job in?

[KittyWampus]

26. That's what I was wondering. Plumber, maybe?

[Pale Blue Dot]

33. Well, in 2003, this was one of the areas in which even I was too optimistic.

There are some things she could have done; she was (and is) 2 credits away from a BA. But you're right: as it turns out, nothing is really safe right now.

[grace0418]

87. They sure need help at the unemployment office. eom.

[eilen]

17. Maybe you can offer her a room too, if things got that bad. nt

[Pale Blue Dot]

23. Of course I will.

I know her, though, and she won't want to be away from her family.

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. Why not help her out instead? Sounds like you can afford too do so.

:shrug:

[SarahB]

34. No he can't.

He gives more than half of his take home pay already (not because he has to, but because he's a decent man who takes care of his son). If he gives more what this means is his current wife, ME (who has also kids and an ex who is a financial dud, but another story and my options are limited) is now not only covering most of the household expenses like I do now, but then covering ALL household expenses plus his car payment and other incidentals (including travel to his son every other weekend). How is that fair to my kids, me, or him for that matter?

We are working people who work very hard and just because he's frustrated at a situation doesn't mean he's a deadbeat or doesn't care. He drives 200 miles every other weekend to see his son (his ex doesn't contribute even 5 minutes to travel time). IF she loses her job, here's the realistic options: 1.)A teenage boy who is starting high school this Fall (he's almost 14, not a 4 or 5 year old) living with his dad (a teacher by the way), stepmom, step siblings he's close to, with the option of taking a direct train to see his mom EVERY weekend paid by us. 2.)The other option: lives with mom and grandparents in a bad neighborhood with an even worse school system, no room of his own, and stuck leaving his school and friends anyway. 3.) He gives his entire salary, we're essentially financially devastated, and not enough for her to live on anyway without any of her own income.

I could say more, but I'll bite my damned tongue. I've said too much as it is probably pissing off my husband and most of the single moms here. I WAS a single mom and I understand more than people can grasp making self-sacrifices to make my children's lives better. He's not a bad guy at all. He's probably been the most giving, accommodating man in the world when it comes to his ex-wife. Believe me. I know the hard way.

[Pale Blue Dot]

38. ...

:hug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Here's what I find distressing.

A dad who expresses concern for his kid(s) is stereotyped as a deadbeat unless he has a woman to vouch for him.

He's lucky he has you or the DU swat teams would be out in full force. You give him the credibility he would be denied otherwise.

Good luck to both of you but especially to your kids. :hi:

[TBF]

89. Why in the world are you two doing this on a public forum -

you obviously could move this to email. You both sound like nice folks - work it out. Good luck.

[SarahB]

100. Just trying to come to his defense.

We talk about this in person on a regular basis, why would we move it to email? Huh? He made a choice to post the original post, not me. I just saw someone I cared about hammered, so I said something in support.

[TBF]

105. Just seems like a lot to launder in public but whatever. I do wish you guys well. n/t

[Pale Blue Dot]

35. Instead of getting lawyers involved, I agreed to a much larger child support payment

then I would have been compelled to pay by the courts. I was happy to do it; it was the right thing for my son. Since then, I have taken a 1/3 pay cut to become a teacher (and I'm thankful I did, because at least teaching is a more secure job than retail, my previous job). So I really am giving everything I can afford to right now. I will of course try to work with her to find solutions. I'm just worried that if the best solution does turn out to be that my son comes to live with me, she won't allow it.

Hopefully we'll never even have to discuss the possibility. We'll see.

[cat1985]

28. The service sector will be hit hard.

This sounds a bit like an i told you so to me, however better you post it here than say it to your ex wife.

The service sector will be hit hard.

[wryter2000]

82. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[JVS]

48. Let her know that you won't start supporting her and if she can't support your son...

you'll try to get custody.

[bertman]

49. Thanks for this post, Pale Blue Dot. We need to hear as many perspectives on these

types of situations as possible. And thanks to SarahB for adding her thoughts to a very worthwhile discussion.

[Tsiyu]

51. She hasn't lost the job yet

And I can understand that not paying that child support would help your present family out and you can't help thinking that.

You are a cool guy to pay more than you have been ordered to. I have no doubt you are a good dad.

However, the kid is fourteen which will have an impact on any custody trial. Most states allow a child of that age to state his wishes in the matter and many judges would take the child's opinions into consideration.

Hopefully you are not planning any legal action, which would financially be foolish for both of you.

My youngest is fourteen. I have legal custody of him, but he lives with his dad in another state. We both decided that the schools were better there, he is a pilot with a much better home and the two of them are very close.

But my ex didn't demand this or take me to court. When I was agonizing over what to do, he very gently said "I'm not trying to take him away from you, I would never do that, but think over having him come here to live..." and we began a discussion of the pros and cons of the situation. He didn't pay child support and neither do I. We worked it out ourselves, my son is doing well, we are all friends and I can see my son whenever I wish.

If you do decide to bring this up to her, if the worst happens, I would suggest being very diplomatic and asking your son what he would want. Living "more poor" isn't going to hurt your son as much as it will if you force him away from his mom against his wishes.

Not that you would, and BTW this is not legal advice, just sharing what we did for our son.

[bobbolink]

62. So, if "everyone" had listened to you, and changed jobs, where would they be now?

What jobs would accomodate ALL of those who didn't listen, and sustain a living wage?

????

Hmmmmmmmmm????

It's kinda like telling people "You should have come earlier." So, everyone arrives earlier and there are STILL only a limited amount of spaces or seats or whatever it is.

It's like musical chairs.... you have more people than chairs, and SOMEBODY is gonna lose out. And you're ready and waiting to look down on those who miss the chair.

You want to pat yourself on the back for being smarter than everyone else. In Raygun's words, you "Have the edge". So, great for you.

I hope your "Edge" makes you happy.

[Pale Blue Dot]

74. This doesn't make me happy AT ALL.

I have nothing to gain from this economy. While I'm in a slightly safer profession (teaching), I'm still worried about losing my job.

Your post is full of straw men and false analogies. I wouldn't have told "everyone" to get a new job; that's absurd. However, if people had listened to the warnings and changed their behavior 5 years ago (paying off debt, not buying houses they couldn't afford, demanding tax increases, not supporting bad companies merely because their prices were lower, etc.) then we wouldn't be going through what we're going through now. WE HAD THE POWER TO STOP THIS. Myself and many others saw this possibility, but very few listened, even among Democrats. No one wanted to believe it could happen to us.

So yes, I'm bitter and frustrated. If I was a wealthy man who could have afforded to invest any of my money, I would have bet against the economy and I'd be rich right now. But I am not a wealthy man, and I could do nothing but watch it all crumble while most of the rest of America were playing fiddle and calling me Chicken Little.

I repeat: this didn't have to happen.

[bobbolink]

78. "So yes, I'm bitter and frustrated." So turn it on others. That's the "progessive" way.

Some of us thing we're all in this together.

It must be very comforting to you to feel like you're the only smart one.

You'd have a field day judging me.

Have at it.... your statement says it all.

[GinaMaria]

80. If this ends up being a change in residence or custody for your son

please procede gently. My family moved when I was in my early teens and I had to switch schools. It's a tough age to be pulled away from your peer group. Not everyone responds in the same way to this situation, but I really feel for him in this. That was an incredibly tough time for me as a kid. Not saying it would be for your son, but it could and if it does, it sucks :-(

[Fireweed247]

83. Do the right thing for the kid- Invite the X to live with you

Sounds like you get along, this might be a great opportunity to spend more time with the kid and help out at the same time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

85. He's remarried. (nt)

[Fireweed247]

93. set up a yurt for her in the back yard?

Sounds like a tough time for the kid, losing the closeness with his mum would make it worse. But living with his Dad at this important age, who is also teacher...sounds like a pretty good idea with the way education is going these days...

This economy situation is seriously sucky for a lot of people, and the only way for us to get through it is to look out for each other and think outside the box. I applaud the OP and his wife for reaching out for help and ideas, you sound like good people :toast:

[Celebration]

88. take one step at a time

Even if you think the odds are against it, she may not get laid off. Furthermore she may be able to get a part time job.

You don't really know at this point. You are projecting into the future, and this may or may not come to pass.

Yeah, the economy sucks, and yeah, there were some people that saw it coming.

[nichomachus]

90. Doomers of the world unite

But there is no joy in having been right.

If I had a dollar for every time I was called chicken little, I could start my own stimulus program and save the country.

[pacalo]

91. You seem to be concentrating more on being "right" than anything else.

I have a husband like you who calls himself a realist, too. I've been trying for years to convince him he'd be a much happier person if he focused on the positive. Happiness is a choice.

Yes, the economy is bad. She may be laid off from her job or take a pay cut. But she could find another job or a second job & she'll survive. Your knowing how much she loves her son & wants him to be with her should be your motivation to do everything you can to help her do so.

Stop worrying about the "what ifs" & just be there for her & your son. Things have a way of working out; she'll do what she needs to do.

:)

[file83]

108. You seem to be focusing more on the bliss of ignorance than anything else.

The guy was right. Deal with it.

He mentions it because he probably has to hear from people like you constantly saying "don't worry so much" or "focus on the positive".

So now that his concerns have been validated by reality, it's his time to say back to those like you, "told you so". And good for him because being written off or brushed aside for simply trying to breath sense into a situation is a total insult.

There is nothing wrong with assessing the environment, using your brain to anticipate problems, and making corrective actions to AVOID those problems. That isn't focusing on the "negative", it's called being pro-active, or even *gasp*, progressive.

[guruoo]

97. Some DUers seem eager to turn your 'live with dad for awhile' into a 'custody battle'

Getting too much TV, methinks.

[Mamacrat]

103. Finishing degree.

Could your son move in with you for the summer so your ex-wife could take the class needed to finish her degree? I realize that she might not be able to find employment in her chosen field, but some jobs with decent salaries and benefits simply require "a" degree, which she does not have. If so, then no one has the stigma of "losing" their child, your son doesn't have to change schools (I could be wrong about that possibility, but am not sure.) and moving in for the summer is almost like visiting grandparents or going to camp in regards to the fact that many children are away from their primary home in the summer. Hopefully, she could get a better job that way and maybe soon if she shows that she is enrolled and can give a graduation date.

[SoCalDem]

106. Move over, Intelligent Design.. Meet, Selective Ignorance.

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-31-07 08:45 PM


Original message

Move over, Intelligent Design.. Meet, Selective Ignorance.

Selective Ignorance is the technique invented by, and now practiced widely, by republicans everywhere.

SI is what allows them...no, ENCOURAGES them to simultaneously embrace two opposing philosophies , and to bifurcate their thinking processes.

SI is what causes them to march in parades, carrying woefully misspelled signs, as they protest abortion, while at home, their 14 year old granddaughter recovers from a "D&C" performed by the family doctor...for "female troubles".. Her "troubles" started when Uncle Fred took her camping with his family.


SI is what causes them to repeatedly vote against school levies, and then to complain loudly at school board meetings about the deplorable state of their schools, and the threatened demise of their beloved football program...

The eventual solution has to be to de-fund the public school, fire the union teachers, and start up a voucher program. Of course, the vouchers are probably only worth enough for a storefront-Jesus school or a co-op quasi home-school system. These same people will now demand that their children still be welcomed into the athletic programs , and the extra-curricular programs of the shcools they left behind..

SI is what allows them to send in their hard-earned money to support candidates who promise to close those borders, but when it comes time to vote, they always come up short on delivering. It's a moot point anyway, since SI devotees often have no qualms about "getting themselves a Mexican" from Home Depot, if they need some hard landscaping done....or their car waxed cheaply...or their garage cleaned out..or their roof repaired..


SI makes it possible for them to repeatedly elect gay congressmen and senators, while these same voters feel perfectly okay about getting drunk and bashing a few "gays" when the opportunity arises.

The same SI allows those elected gay officials to portray themselves as NOT GAY..NO WAY , in order to get elected, and then live unhappy, closeted lives..always one "incident" away from being exposed. They spend their time in office pretending to be the "confirmed bachelor", or worse yet, find some desperate woman willing to play the part of devoted wife.

SI is also what causes them to sacrifice their long-held beliefs , and to be willing to support multiply divorced, lifestyle-challenged candidates, when no other republican is available.


SI allows them to praise big business and to pretend to follow the intricacies of the stock market because they have a 401-k, and it will somehow make them rich. It allows them to demonize unions, because they might have to pay those "damned union dues", and lord-knows , they don't want some union boss telling them how to vote. Little do they know that their beloved 401-k's are morphing into 001-k's. SI tells them that as long as Maria & Erin are smiling and flirting with them, everything's gonna be okay.

SI lets them love their guns, and still be worried when they send their young 'uns off to college . Of course the solution they come up with , is to arm the teachers AND students.

SI can turn a campus into a shooting gallery, but at least their son/daughter is locked & loaded.

SI allows them to love their God, while actively hating other people for not loving the same God.

SI allows them to think at, as Christians, they are the favored ones, while at the same time, believing that God created everyone, and everything.

SI allows them to feel free to destroy nature, and still find enough animals to hunt, and fish to catch.

SI allows them to eschew evolution, yet accept the fear of evolving mutations of Bird Flu and other pandemic possibilities. It allows them avoid science, and then run to science to cure what ails them.

SI allows them to fight like maniacs to deprive already-born children of food, shelter & a decent education, while claiming to want to preserve pregnancies of women they don't know, will never meet, and never plan on supporting.

SI makes it possible for them to value huge tax cuts for rich people, and meekly accept pay cuts for themselves. It makes them happy to HAVE a job..any job, even if it means that the profits of the company they work for, are never distributed to them and their families.

SI makes them crave the biggest baddest car/SUV/truck, and gives them license to bad-mouth people who choose smaller, safer, cleaner forms of transportation. SI allows them to feel superior, even if they have to choose between braces for their kids, and gas for the cars.

SI gives them a euphoric lift when they deliver a crushing blow to an opponent, even if the opponent was right. SI is what makes them savor pyrrhic victories, as they watch their own world crumbling around them.

SI is also what creates the illusion that they are the majority, instead of a cacophonous minority, hurling insults and epithets at the rest of civilization.