Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Men's Group
In reply to the discussion: Charles Bruce and debtors prison [View all]Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)8. You and I agree on much, but I think we part ways on a couple parts too.
What it does is prevent a situation where a parent wants to remain tangibly involved in their child's life and cannot because the judge feels empowered to pick, choose and punish.
I think that parents who want to be part of their kids' lives should be able to, as much as is logistically feasible and barring any obvious examples of not being fit for the job.
Breadwinning isn't in our genes
True dat. But it may be in some of our resumes, and not so much in others. Those are facts, too. Parenting couples are teams but not every member of every team is suited exactly the same for every role. The best teams have members who are strong in different areas. It's not reasonable to expect that a stay at home parent who has spent a decade changing diapers suddenly be the one to go out and land the 70K a year job or whatever.
When that family dissolves, the respective partners shouldn't be forced into the preexisting roles.
Again, that depends. Like I said, if one partner has been the one nurturing the career and money making opportunities while the other has been fielding the considerable home duties, it's not reasonable to expect that those roles are going to suddenly reverse. Not in our current job reality.
Not every breadwinner wants that role and certainly would not choose it except as an expression of love for the other partner. Absent that love, it's slavery.
Here's where we diverge, I think. Again, when you make the commitment to not just get married but have children, you are committing to something above and beyond the mere personal gratification or fulfillment that a loving family relationship entails. You are becoming responsible for someone else's life. Parenthood, as Louis CK says, is the only job you can't quit- at least, it should be. If you don't want to be a "slave", don't have kids.
I think that parents who want to be part of their kids' lives should be able to, as much as is logistically feasible and barring any obvious examples of not being fit for the job.
Breadwinning isn't in our genes
True dat. But it may be in some of our resumes, and not so much in others. Those are facts, too. Parenting couples are teams but not every member of every team is suited exactly the same for every role. The best teams have members who are strong in different areas. It's not reasonable to expect that a stay at home parent who has spent a decade changing diapers suddenly be the one to go out and land the 70K a year job or whatever.
When that family dissolves, the respective partners shouldn't be forced into the preexisting roles.
Again, that depends. Like I said, if one partner has been the one nurturing the career and money making opportunities while the other has been fielding the considerable home duties, it's not reasonable to expect that those roles are going to suddenly reverse. Not in our current job reality.
Not every breadwinner wants that role and certainly would not choose it except as an expression of love for the other partner. Absent that love, it's slavery.
Here's where we diverge, I think. Again, when you make the commitment to not just get married but have children, you are committing to something above and beyond the mere personal gratification or fulfillment that a loving family relationship entails. You are becoming responsible for someone else's life. Parenthood, as Louis CK says, is the only job you can't quit- at least, it should be. If you don't want to be a "slave", don't have kids.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
32 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba779/ba779ab3925ebbd60f409ffa468f64bd892e4931" alt=""
Kids aren't a consumer good. One doesn't need "to pay for them", one needs to "parent" them.
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2012
#5
Here's my point. Going by the "traditional", Mitt Romney style family arrangement
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#6
You and I agree on much, but I think we part ways on a couple parts too.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#8
I hear you, Jeff. In my family it was my dad who was the alcoholic. I do suspect that both our
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#14
Fitness based on what though? Whose criteria. There really only is one acceptable one
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#21
I'd start with who has been providing the majority of care, and then see how the kids feel.
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#24
And I think that since the marital union is not an issue any longer, any arrangements made are not
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#25
You don't think, for instance, that the fact that one parent has spent 10 yrs in the workforce
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#26
No.Let's turn that around. Since one that one parent has spent 10 years in the workforce should they
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#27
I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the narrative of "greedy ex... and !kids!"
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2012
#16
When your kids live with you half of the time, you are supporting them. Period. nt
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#22
The whole non-custodial parent is an invented and discriminatory state that is unnecessary
stevenleser
Apr 2012
#23
Progress is slow when there's a strong financial incentive to keep it the way it is.
lumberjack_jeff
Apr 2012
#29