Fair Divorce?

[MaggieTheCat]

Look at it another way. My dad didn't do ANYTHING around the house. He didn't cook, clean, do laundry, grocery shopping, etc. Was he lazy because he didn't contribute in that way?

Instead of each parent working for money and pitching in around the house, my parents had two separate, distinct roles: My dad worked outside the home and made money, while my mom took care of the home entirely.

[bex1218]

My aunt is a stay at home mom. Can't say she is lazy. My uncle helps his dad with a construction business. He actually co-owns it. My aunt does some house work, but she mostly helps out my cousins (Well now, cousin. The eldest is in college.) with their activites outside of school. She is very hands on, and so is my uncle. And on her free time, she has been painting. She is amazing at what she does. So what if they chose to keep her at home? Honestly, these two are a great couple. I would be utterly shocked if it all went down hill.

I personally don't want someone else supporting me, but thats just how I feel. It works for some people. Does not mean the mom is lazy.

[linguist]

. I must admit bias I have never met a stay at home parent that wasn't lazy with the exception of medical problems in self or kids.
.

so your experience=the totality of existence then? good to know.

[Seifer]

Sorry, but throwing stuff around *is* physical violence. If you swing at someone and miss, it's still assault. If you connect, it's assault and battery.

Throwing stuff around in anger and attempting to hit someone in anger are two totally different things. It's like saying people who punch their pillow to blow off steam are liable to become abusive parents. It's ridiculous to make that connection.

[Andara Bledin]

Dude...you just said every stay at home parent you know is lazy and acts like a child needing to be supported by their spouse.

No, that's not what was said. He said every stay at home parent he personally knew was like that.

so your experience=the totality of existence then? good to know.

He didn't say that, either. >_<

He was providing personal experience to explain personal bias.

He never said that it was that way in every case.

I do kind of agree on the whole thing about stay at home parents getting praise for doing less than a large percentage of working parents manage. Sure, it's great when a family has the means for one parent to stay home and be there for the kids, but it's not required for a healthy family.

^-.-^

[bara]

My sister is the model stay at home mom. She cooks, cleans, does laundry, is involved with kids at school, gets everyone to soccer, hockey, ballet, tap, symphony, football on time. Takes care of things around the house such as seeing the trees get cleaned up after a storm. She also does a lot of home improvement herself if she can. Brother in law works well over 40 hours a week and still helps when he can and makes time to spend with the kids.

Sister in law... was a terrible stay at home mom. Was not involved in school, did not parent kids, did not clean house, and had a habit of spending all the money on crap. She finally got a job and gets paid decently, but even though works far less than my brother still doesnt do shit around the house.

Two examples from the same family.

Sister and her husband are very happy and have three wonderful kids who do well in school and are well behaved.

Brother and his wife... well brother always seems to be worn out and tired. All three kids struggle in school. Two of them shouldnt be struggling are are always into trouble, the middle child tried very hard in school and is well behaved. Sister in law seems to be oblivious to my brother being worn out all the time. Hell, when I was out of work I would go sit with his kids and make sure the house got clean and dinner was ready before he got home. Probably the most restful three months he had.

[AdminAssistant]

This case, as well as the other one posted recently, highlights the problem with stay-at-home parenting, which is that it leaves the stay-at-home parent in a world of hurt in case something ever happens to their 'supporter', whether that be divorce, death, illness/injury, or job loss. Someone who has been out of the job market for a while, even if they were raising their children, is going to have a hard time getting back into the market and supporting themselves and their children. Now, if that's the path you choose, more power to you, but for the love of Pete, have some significant savings and be prepared to support yourself again on short notice.

[draco664]

Throwing stuff around in anger and attempting to hit someone in anger are two totally different things.

I agree. What I made was a comparison, not an equalisation. I was making the point that legally, throwing stuff is considered physical violence. It doesn't matter if you hit someone with a china plate or not. To clarify, I used the difference between assault and battery - both are crimes, but only one has an injured victim.

It's like saying people who punch their pillow to blow off steam are liable to become abusive parents. It's ridiculous to make that connection.

Is it? In general, where children are involved, the law uses the precautionary principle. Often to an idiotic degree. In the OP's case, the hubby chucked something. It may have been at the wife, it may have been at the wall. We don't know. But due to that action, he got hit with an interim restraining order. Which got upgraded to a 12 month order. Had there been no kids involved, that might not have happened.

Either way, the law considered what he did physical violence.

The law can be an arse, remember. Consider the sex offenders register. It lists people who are paedos and people who took a quick piss on the side of the road. Equivalent? Not hardly. But in the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter.

[jackfaire]

Plus praising stay at home parenting as this big noble thing feels like a secretive way of saying, "But women belong in the kitchen not out you know doing jobs"

It feels like trying to encourage everyone to return to a more sexist attitude by making it noble.

[linguist]

Plus praising stay at home parenting as this big noble thing feels like a secretive way of saying, "But women belong in the kitchen not out you know doing jobs"

It feels like trying to encourage everyone to return to a more sexist attitude by making it noble.

assuming that the stay at home parent is going to be the woman is a pretty sexist assumption to make.

[HYHYBT]

It's certainly not always laziness, either. My brother's wife is a stay-at-home mom; she does do all the house stuff and looks after their kids, who are so far the best raised ones I've ever met.

[jackfaire]

assuming that the stay at home parent is going to be the woman is a pretty sexist assumption to make.

Not making that assumption. However men rarely get defended for being stay at home parents or referred to as noble. Most often they are called lazy for making the wife work while they sit around the house even when it is acknowledged that they do all of the house and school half of stuff.

Look at it another way. My dad didn't do ANYTHING around the house. He didn't cook, clean, do laundry, grocery shopping, etc. Was he lazy because he didn't contribute in that way?

Yes. My dad cooked, cleaned, did laundry, grocery shopping etc.

Doing only half of what an adult should be doing to me equals lazy.

To me this is merely a way to get us all to defend sexist behavior to our deaths.

It's easy you pick something that is changing because people are being given more rights but you don't want people to actually exercise those rights because it's against what you believe in. Telling people that it's wrong that "those people" should have to move to the back of the bus seems to just piss people off.

Hey wait try this start praising people that move to the back of the bus treat it like it's this awesome thing they do. Convince everyone you don't want to hold people back you just wish everyone would be as noble as these people.

Wait a generation or two and suddenly everyone in that group that doesn't move to the back of the bus is treated like a "what makes you such a bad person that you wouldn't move to the back of the bus you can afford to do it so do it. That person that moved to the back of the bus is better than you"

Then anyone coming along pointing out it's wrong for people to be praised for dragging an equal rights movement back 50 years will be treated like a monster for disrespecting "noble" people that have been conditioned to not exercise their rights instead of doing what a discriminatory population feels they should be doing.

When's the last time a working parent was praised for volunteering equal time as their stay at home counterpart, for cleaning the house as much, for doing just as much shopping, running as many errands, raising as many kids and holding down a job?

Instead the working parent is told, "It's a shame you both have to work because the economy is so bad" because obviously that is really the only reason to ever have a two parent working household. Couldn't be people exercising their equal rights because you know working parents will never ever be acknowledged as accomplishing equal amounts in both arenas as stay at homers because then people might have to deal with the fact they institutionalized discrimination.

[linguist]

Not making that assumption.

really? let's break your quote down, shall we?

Plus praising stay at home parenting

good start here. nice, gender-neutral language.

as this big noble thing feels like a secretive way of saying, "But women belong in the kitchen not out you know doing jobs"

and there it is. however you want to backpedal after the fact, if the crux of your argument against stay at home parenting has to do with it being a way of keeping women in the kitchen, you have no place arguing sexism of any kind. a truly non-sexist argument would remain gender-neutral, as men can just as easily be stay at home parents.

Doing only half of what an adult should be doing to me equals lazy.

and who exactly are you to make the determination of what an adult "should do?" what qualifications do you have?

Couldn't be people exercising their equal rights .

yes they could. however, you have no place to be making an equal rights argument if you can't also acknowledge that having equal rights also means having the right to be a stay at home parent without judgement.

[MaggieTheCat]

Wow, I guess both my parents were just lazy parents, then, since instead of each doing half of the money making and half of the house keeping, one did all the money making and one did all the house keeping.

[AdminAssistant]

I don't think it's lazy necessarily, especially before the kids go to school. Once the kid has a place to be 8 hours a day...I have a hard time seeing the necessity. Once the kid can be trusted alone to make a sandwich without burning the house down or hurting themselves (14-15), then there's really no reason to have a stay-at-home parent.

Keep your job skills up so that you don't have to depend on the state to support you in case something happens to the breadwinner.