NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/men/23368

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 2.8 KB | 63 lines

Newsgroups: soc.men
Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!ulowell!news.bbn.com!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!karl
From: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:42:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL
Lines: 52

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Beth Weiss) writes:
>Karl Denninger writes:
>|> Not true.  She made the decision to marry OF HER OWN FREE WILL.  The other
>|> party is not responsible for what she could have had as a career had she
>|> chosen to continue it (note that marriage does NOT mean you must stop
>|> working if you're a woman, only that it is convenient to do so if you can
>|> sap off a man instead).  In fact, it could be argued that the man is owed
>|> instead if the woman decided at marriage not to work -- the man was deprived
>|> of some substantial portion of his funds as a result (he had to support
>|> her)
>|>
>|> Neither is it relavent what her standard of living would be if she had
>|> stayed married if the majority of the support during the marriage came
>|> from the man.  Again, the choice to not work and continue her carrer was
>|> <hers>.
>
>In most cases, isn't it _THEIRS_, rather than hers?  For
>example, he gets a great job offer, so she gives up her job
>and follows him to where his new job is because they think
>it's best for their family.
>
>Another example: he quits work for a few years, and goes back
>to school, while she supports them, because it's best for
>their family.
>
>Another: she quits work (or cuts back) to stay home more with
>the children, because they think it's best for their family.
>[this one could be that he quits work, of course]
>
>When one member of a married couple makes a career decision,
>it's made in the context of their marriage, not in a vacuum,
>and presumably with the input of the spouse.  That means it
>is made with the assumption that the marriage will continue.
>Isn't that part of the basis for the community property
>laws in some states: financial choices made by spouses are
>made together--and both are contributing to the assets of the
>marriage.

You presume much.

Further, when such a decision is made, and then the marriage ends, <both>
spouses are impacted negatively.  Therefore, this is also a specious
argument for increased support.

You also ignore the case where a husband would <prefer> not to have a
parasitical relationship (both partners working) yet the woman refuses to go
out and practice her skills in the marketplace.  It happens (trust me;
first-hand experience here).

--
Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [[phone]]