From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: none
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:40:57 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

murphy1@husc10.harvard.edu (Gerard J. Murphy) writes:

> In Message-ID: <kLH2wB1w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us>
> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) says:
> 
> >It's true that BOTH incomes drop. I pay little attention to the 
> >statistics which show that men have more money after divorce. That's 
> >obvious. 
> 
>    Could you clarify exactly what you mean here, Bob?  You say it's 
> obvious that '...men have more money after divorce.' and I'm curious,

I see where you misinterpreted what I was trying (badly, I guess) to
say: BOTH incomes, or effective incomes decrease after divorce. That's
number 1. Number two is, that it is obvious (to me) that men generally
have larger incomes (do not read that larger disposable income) after
divorce, because more men are employed. If you look at the number of
divorced men and divorced women, more of the guys have jobs than the
girls. Since more have jobs, they have more money. If your interpreta-
tion was that men are more affluent following a divorce than women are,
then you didn't get my meaning. 

I ignore the statistics because they attempt to bend meaning of the
stats as though men get rich from divorce while women suffer. Since
that's baloney, I don't pay any attention. To do so would indicate I
think there's something wrong with men having employment.

> >Just look at the workplaces --there is a disproportionate amount of 
> >employed men compared to women. Yes, many factors enter into WHY there 
> >are more men and why men make more money than their female counterparts. 
> >But, to try to include that generality with the specifics of divorce is 
> >apples and oranges.  Women don't have the marketplace recognition that men 
> >do --equal pay for equal work --or, for that matter, equal opportunity. 
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>    Bottom line, Bob, do YOU really believe both of these statements?

Sure I do. I see it all the time. The same traditionalist views amplified
in the courts affects society at large. Ten years ago, an equally qualified
man and woman applying for a job would get the man hired. Today, it's a lot
better --maybe 4 in ten cases will a woman get the job in the same circum-
stances. I'm NOT saying that there's NO work out there, I just acknowledge
that there's (still) an inequity. Failing to admit that is like saying we
have no racial problems in this country since EEO took effect.

> >I keep saying this, and I keep getting ignored. But I'll try one more 
> >time.  The system screws EVERYBODY one way or another. 
> 
>    Your last sentence may be trivially true but it seems to suggest that
> everybody's getting about the same screwing.  Surely you can't believe
> that?  Let's just have a poll and see what percentage of male NCP's
> would swap their situation for that of their CP former spouse.  Then ask
> the same question for the CP women.

Perhaps trivial from your perspective, but not mine. In my work I see a
LOT of women who get screwed over by the system.

On the whole, if a woman is not on welfare (AFDC), then she has little
help in getting support due her. (Yes, I say due HER, because when she
isn't getting the father's support, she puts out 'her' money to cover 
the man's share. Thus, the back support IS her money. (Feel free to go
ahead an substitute gender titles for the CP/NCP, I used this example
because it's common, and we're discussing gender).

Here's two most people miss. 

When the system allows/encourages the woman to 'go for the throat' it
sets her up for later. She becomes alienated from someone who could and
should be a parenting partner, and quite often causes relational breaches
with the child/ren of the marriage.

Regardless of whether or not a woman was a 'bitch' in a divorce, I'll 
grant that the vast majority DO love their kids. Low or no contact
between father and child has some detrimental effects which are coming
out as long-term studies are beginning to reveal. The propensity for
substance abuse, educational mediocracy, and incompatibility in social
and work arenas goes up significantly. These moms feel pretty crappy
when they come to the realization of what they did (or were prodded to
doing).

What other women get screwed in this? How about the ones who fall in 
love with divorced men, and know that their life is always going to be
at least somewhat unstable. Do they deserve this because they chose to
hang out with the guy they love? Do they deserve this because they're
women? Perhaps it would be better is we guys get one chance at love,
and if it blows up, we turn into celibate recluses for the rest of our
lives. However, I don't think so.

I refuse to get hauled onto a bandwagon of sides. The 'Us and They'
approach has no appeal to me. Instead, I despise anything that screws
people. To do otherwise is like having a man executed and a woman put
in jail for a few years --when both were innocent. The man sure as
hell got screwed BADLY. But that doesn't mean the woman didn't. Volume
of wrong has no meaning if one's intent is to eliminate the wrong.

If we want equity, we have to give it. Otherwise, all we want to do is
to reverse a perceived position of power. Welcome to the Crusades. We
can ignore inequity because we have God On Our Side.

My bottom line point is this: Acknowledging that many people take the
short end can add to the numbers of those anxious to right a wrong. If
that majority moves to fix inequity --not just reskew who it steps on,
then fix the inequities we will. If we don't choose to do so, then we
can keep right on waving the battle flag and continue to pummel each
other while the real villian, the system, just gets worse and worse
and worse.

Wouldn't that be nice?

---
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA