There was a story by foxnes.com last week. A woman in England has 13 children and won't stop until she has twins. She already costs the taxpayers of England $83,130 a year. That's over $6900 a month.

I think we can politely say she doesn't give a shit.

OOps! foxnews.com. I guess spelling is the first thing to go!

Speaking as someone who has been on general assistance and food stamps, I am all for the stigma.

Nobody treated me badly or anything, but I hated having to pay with the things and got off of them and the rest of it just as soon as I could. (Which is what you're supposed to do, I add for the hard of thinking.)

I actually heard a woman years ago refer to her welfare check as her salary! And that dumbass Octomom denied she was on welfare because she and a lot of other people have gotten used to considering food stamps and other public assistance as something else entirely.

"Of course, I think we should be highly intolerant of them, on behalf of the kids born without a choice into these situations."

Well that's the problem: how do you propose stigmatizing/punishing parents who make irresponsible choices without penalizing their kids, who can't help being born into bad situations?

No matter how many adult get on it you will always have families like mine. I have 3 older sisters and 2 younger brothers. THe youngest 2 are my half brothers through my father.. We were all on welfare as children. I have on sister who, every time I call her and mention a problem, knows the government solution for the problem.. I have weathering issues with my home.. there is a program for that. There are programs that pay for her to get meds every month when she sees her psychiatrist.. There are programs that pay your utilities. And she is on all of them. I hate it.. Mostly I have it because the government paid for her to go to school to become a nurse. I have to explain to her ever time she advises me to get on a program that I ma not the one who benefits from the program I am the sucker who pays for it..

I have 1 younger brother, the youngest, who is lazy as a bone. He will eventually knock a girl up for the welfare bennies.

Then there is my younger brother who is going into the military. He would rather risk death than hold another food stamp in hs hands. They disgust him..

Then you have my second oldest sister. Who was on benefits but decided it was a religious moral imperative that she quite reciving money from the state. She says she was convicted by God that it was theft.

Then you have me and my oldest sister.. We own our houses and cars. Pay our own bills. Take care of our own kids..

Now I have one brother I haven't spoken to in years..

So that is 2 for welfare 4 for none and 1 who's affiliation is uncertain.

It does something to a person. And no matter how you destigmatize it there will be those of us raised on it who will not play along..

Hmmmm... without any stigma, I wonder what has happened to adoption rates? If a girl is no longer stigmatized for being a babymama, and can get benefits to afford the baby, why give said baby up for adoption?

I think we can politely say she doesn't give a shit.

So, is this an Englishwoman who is actually daring to have kids, or is this another transplant from an ROP country?

Imagine US farmers, totally unashamed to run budinesses that make more money from federal subsidies than from profits--for decades at a stretch. Generations.
Imagine getting paid not to work--like a farmer.

butholier than thou is back. You speak of things you can never know. Until you actually live on a farm you have no right to speak. Nobody, and I mean nobody works harder than a family farmer.

I'm going to say up front that I know this opinion is going to be wildly unpopular...but how about this: if a woman has a kid and can't show she can support it, she is forced to give it up for adoption? I mean, shouldn't the right of a kid to grow up in a stable home supersede welfare mommy's need to have a DNA replicant? I know this doesn't cover the situation of everyone on welfare but it's a big start.

Again, I'm not under any delusion it will ever happen.

"Until you actually live on a farm you have no right to speak. Nobody, and I mean nobody works harder than a family farmer."

And thank YOU for your insights on the much-needed limits of human freedom! First Amendment, my ass. What this country needs is a First Offendment! "I was offended first, therefore, you are not allowed to speak!". Think of the arguments that could be avoided. Think of the money that could be saved. Think of how much simpler life could be if we could only shut everyone up who disagreed with us.

Just goes to show how gov't programs grow exponentially, also goes to show how those perpetually on the gov't teat will likely vote for those that promise more of the same. Expect healthcare reform to expand beyond the original intent, by a factor of several times.

Re the single parent thing. I have known, over the last ten years, four single mothers. In each case they were single because their loving husbands (or in two cases partner) dumped them and their children.

Three of them were aghast at this, one really humilitated herself crawling after her ex to try to convince him to come back (she even left Australia and went back to the UK to chase after him - paid for by her brother). In no case was the ex-husband willing to give any money, in one case the UK Child Support Agency (can't remember the name) had to be brought in, and in two cases these creeps had to be taken to court. I had to write an affadavit to support the mother in one case, because apparently just dumping her and his three kids, living in a large house with a much younger woman, driving in his new car and going on holidays every couple of months wasn't enough for him, he tried to assassinate her (intelligent, educated and excellent) character as well.

Courts take a very long to do anything, at least in Aus, when it comes to forcing deadbeat dads to pay up. One of the dads was particularly adept at hiding his money and still has not been forced to pay a decent amount. To give you an idea of how little they were living on, one mum was getting $2 (Aus) per week for each child from the man with the brand new car.

In all instances, this happened while the youngest child was of toddler age and the mother was particularly vulnerable. Each of these women were forced to get assistance from the government over the next couple of years because the contract they had with their husband/partner had been broken by the man. One lady is now a piano teacher, one has gone back to nursing, one is now a full time teacher aide instead of part time. One is, admittedly, still rorting the system for money when she should, by now, be out working to support her family herself.

The problem is that when you stigmatise single mothers you are often unfairly judging the wrong person in the relationship as you simply cannot know what the flip side of the coin is. None of these women chose to be single, they were not single when they had their children, and they were willing (some of them for years and years) to try again in the relationship. The children certainly did not choose the lifestyle they were forced into by their respective fathers.

I believe that women with children who are not old enough to attend school (not kindy or creche or whatever it is called in different places) should be cut some slack on this. However, once your children are old enough to go to school full time, single mums certainly should be working to support their families.

We already have the destigmatization problem with personal bankruptcy. People used to be embarassed to file bankruptcy. Now, it's a financial strategy. Because of the increased risk that brings to lending, credit cards rate keep climbing.

And we'll soon have the same issue with foreclosure. And mortgage rates will climb with the increased risk that brings.

Ailson I very seriously doubt these four men just up and one day changed from decent hard working gentelmen into the assholes you describe.

Something tells me they were assholes all along

I think lujlp is right. Sound like these guys were scum all along and these women knew it. They chose them because they were scum with great resources and they were expecting a payout from them. They didnt get it and now they are pissed. This is of course the part when you Alison tell me im a cynical sexist asshole but you know that im more then half right on this. Otherwise you wouldn't try so hard to paint all these guys as complete scum. This is what people do when they recognized their parties culpability and try to either minimize or eliminate it. Of course i could be mistaken about them but you i can tell care mostly about the money. From youre tone i get the real crime isnt that they left but that they dont pay.

Alison,

While I agree those men are asses, women default at a greater rate than men do when it comes to paying child support and alimony. And I know plenty of women who have done the exact same thing those men have done.

This isn't a gender issue, it's an asshole genetic donor issue.

As long as the government is going to reward people for bad decisions, people will make bad decisions.

> you are often unfairly judging the wrong
> person in the relationship as you simply
> cannot know what the flip side of
> the coin is.

Stop saying that. Stop fucking saying that.

You want us to weep with quivering chins for these four friends of you who were so spectacularly brutalized by those meany grown men. But the the context of all the divorce going on this this culture, and compared to all the women you know who WEREN'T so naive about the men they married, we have to wonder exactly what is the shared current in their think (and possibly your own) that resulted in these bungled families.

There's far too much divorce, and far too many successful marriages, for people to tilt their heads wistfully and say 'Golly, you just never know.'

PLENTY of people DO know.

And many, many more OUGHT to know.

I am of the beilf that most people get married to have sex becuase for some reason having sex while not married is bad, but having a bad marrige is good enough for jebus.

Although why a guy who spent alot of time with hookers frowns on sex is something no church has yet to explain

Jesus don't enter into it lujlp.

Before modern conveniences made it possible for a single person to survive, sex was the currency a woman used to get a man.

Now women are giving away the one thing of value they have that men want - and they aren't asking for anything in return. And we're surprised about growing single motherhood and divorce rates?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/men-the-gender-wars-are-over-%E2%80%94-we-won/

I was with my lady for 13 years. When I first hooked up, I was not in a position to marry her. By the time I was, she was on SSI.

I couldn't marry her because of pre-existing conditions.

Part of it, she qualified for food stamps. We agreed, over time, to only use the food stamps for staples (flour, eggs, bread, vegetables, etc.). The "extravagant" stuff (steaks, ribs,etc.) we paid cash.

When she passed, I took her daughter on a $400 shopping spree to buy staples as well.

Over the years I had been offered $0.50 the dollar to burn the card off. I and she just couldn't do it. It was a basic self-respect issue. We were embarrassed that we fell into such a situation. And we both aeed that we had too take the help that was "forced" on us because of the SSI & medicaid.

I was shifting a bit off topic to reasons for so many failed marriges brian

That didn't make a whole lot of sense. lemme try again.

forget it. it's late, I've slept 8 hours in the past three days, and I can't remember my point.

But I had one, and it was good. I promise you that.

It has something to do with the fact that men and women don't really need each other to survive any more, and once the women started giving away the sex there was no reason for men to commit.

which has fucked over a couple generations of kids.

I do find somewhat amusing the whole notion that men are better off today because they have more opportunities for no-strings sex without the responsibility of raising a family.

Aside from the fact that some men do actually want to have a family, the benefit for single guys of having access to more slutty women has to be offset against the increased risks faced nowadays, such as false rape allegations, paternity fraud, draconian sexual harassment policies, not to mention the increased burden of having to finance government-as-substitute-husband. But hey, why don't I feel guilty and beat myself up because a bit of free pussy comes my way!

The whole argument that men have benefitted from the sexual revolution is designed to make women feel better about themselves as they go about the business of marginalizing men. It is a variation on the ancient theme of 'those _______ are just a bunch of vile savages who deserve what they get'.

My 6 year old read 109 books over the summer. Her dad, who's not around much by his choice, didn't read one to her or with her. I did. The mistake in choosing a mate was all mine, and I admit it and berate myself for it enough so no one here has to, believe me. But it's a crock to say that poverty isn't the largest factor, followed by the age of the mother, in determining a child's academic capabilities or love of learning. Go visit those students' homes, Amy, as I so often did when I was writing about urban affairs, and I guarantee you will find a lot more missing than just daddy.

In response to the comments on Alison's post: I think it's easy to sit here on the internet and say "well you should have known your husband was an asshole and therefore you deserve all the consequences of marrying of a jerk." Maybe that's true in some cases, but people do change and it's not always possible to tell the future.

Amy's column this week was about a guy who was considering leaving his wife and step-kids for his (unrequited) high school crush. Had he done so, would you say that it was her fault for not reading the signs before she married him? One frequent commenter here, sterling, has talked about how his wife became a meth addict, landed him in jail, and cost him millions of dollars. But I suppose that lujlp, Raziel, and Crid wouldn't feel much sympathy, since he really should have seen that one coming, right?

Anyway, from what I gathered Alison's point wasn't that guys are jerk, but that there are some circumstances in which people can be forced into single motherhood against their will. And that's certainly a valid point. Even if you think that the women in this example should have "known" that their husbands would leave them, they still had their children in a stable, two-parent home with zero initial intent of going on welfare. That's a huge difference between a 16 year old who decides to get knocked up by a random guy to get some extra food stamps.

Shannon, you're right, and this is another of Amy's positions that I find silly. Write to her and she can tell you who to marry so it'll definitely work out? Please.

Amy, with all due respect, you chose Greg when he was well into middle age. It's easier to know what you're getting then because most of the monumental growth and change an individual goes through has already taken place.

Plus, you're 13 yrs younger. For a man, that's a good trade. As you often point out, men are attracted to youth and beauty, and, as men age, that's still true but they'll usually settle for "young-er-ish".

Yet, if a man who's almost 60 still feels he can attain a woman in her 40s, a man who hits his 40s still feels he can attain a woman in her 20s.

A lot of my friends have had long-lasting, successful marriages end because of this. They chose good, ethical men, who, at the time, and for many years afterwards, were crazy in love with them. They didn't do anything wrong in their choosing. They just GOT OLDER.

You simply can't predict this 20 yrs in advance - which men will succumb to this temptation and which won't. Yet, it shouldn't surprise you that it happens because it's completely consistent with the biological motivations you usually ascribe to relationships.

Of course, it happens to men too, but I'm using the more typical male mid-life crisis just because it fits neatly with your philosophy of male/female attraction.

As much as you always want to make this the abandoned spouse's responsibility for not "choosing better", the reality is that it's almost impossible to predict how someone will change and grow over decades. None of us really know who WE will be in 20 or 30 years, much less who our partner will be.

You may trust and have faith in Greg, but you honestly can't say, for sure, that you'll still feel the same way 20 years from now, or that he will. It's a pretty good bet, but that's all it is. No one can really do any more than make an educated leap of faith.

You simply can't predict this 20 yrs in advance - which men will succumb to this temptation and which won't

And yet even though they apperently know this a majority of women still have children 6 to 12 months into the marrige with an average engagemnt/relationship of less than a year

I'm sorry but when you settle for something that seems "good enough at the time" without bothering to turn over a few rocks you'll get no sympathy from me.

My life was hell growing up becuase my parents didnt bother to find out anything meaningful about eachother until it was too late.

Your worried about how children might be affected by stigmatizing poor behavior on the part of the parents? Trust me most of these kids have so much crap to deal with from their parents to beigin with they dont give a flying fuck what people they dont know think.

And with statisitically few children being born to clueless asshats you'll have few people getting thier "feelings hurt" in the long run which works out to be a net gain on self esteem.

Who are these women who have been married for 20 years *and* have infant/toddler children *and* are suddenly dumped by their husbands? I don't know any. I do know women who have been dumped by their husbands in middle age, but in those cases, the children are grown or nearly so.

MomofRae writes: "But it's a crock to say that poverty isn't the largest factor, followed by the age of the mother, in determining a child's academic capabilities or love of learning."

Statistically, there is a strong correlation. But I don't buy that the correlation, in this case, equals causation. Reason: For most of U.S. history, the bulk of the population lived in what would be considered poverty by today's standards. Yet, we eventually developed a population with a very high percentage of reasonably well educated people. If poverty alone impled inability to get an education, the number of Americans with college degrees would be about 10% of what it actually is.

The type of poverty we have now is a recent thing -- last 50 years or so. Prior to WWII, most people who lived in poverty did so because their employment simply didn't pay an above-poverty wage. Today, an able-bodied person would have a hard time being full time employed and not making an above-poverty wage -- it may be very hard work, it may mean working two jobs, but almost anyone can work their way out of poverty if they work at it hard enough.

No, the nature of poverty today is that it's made up largely of people who don't care. They don't care about themselves, they don't care about their families, they don't care about their loved ones, they don't care about anything other than partying and drinking and getting high. Yes, there are still some people who fall into poverty through no fault of their own -- illness, injury, major financial loss, spouse unexpectedly leaving, these are things that happen. But they don't make up the majority of people in poverty. Most of the people living in poverty are there because they don't care enough to get out. They are abusing the system and they don't care.

And this is the real tragedy of welfare -- the way it plays to the baser instincts of human beings. Everyone has a threshold for how much temptation they can resist. When there's free money on offer, and especially when the source of that money has been obscured such that there's no shame attached to taking it, some people's thresholds will be crossed.

Dave, plenty of women still have young children by the age of 40. A lot of people don't start having kids now until several years after marriage, which as lujlp noted, is smart. So, many couples don't have their first child until in their 30s, and if they have more than one, spread out by a few years, the youngest can still be a toddler or elementary school age.

> In response to the comments on Alison's
> post: I think it's easy to sit here
> on the internet and say "well
> you should have known


&

> this is another of Amy's positions
> that I find silly.

The witless egotism of your thinking is like ineradicable cancer.

BLLEEECCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

"The witless egotism of your thinking is like ineradicable cancer."

I submit that the witless egotism is presuming that one, without any marital experience, can tell someone else how to perfectly pick a mate who will never cheat, never become indifferent, and never leave.

Re the earlier comments - yes these men I talked of probably were arseholes right from the word go. However, if your point is that the women should be stigmatised because they fell for the lies of a deceiver then that covers most of the human race at one time or another.

I definitely don't believe that women who keep popping children out like a litter of puppies should be continually handed welfare. I was chatting about this very thing to some friends of mine a few weeks ago. We decided that when it came to women who had up to 3 children who were still young enough not to attend school, we had no real problem helping them - after that our compassion had reached it's limit. If you have more than 3 children then for the fourth and subsequent ones you should be on your own financially, and once the children are at school get off your arse and work like we all do. This would at least prevent the ones who are truly abusing the system from continuing to do so for year after year while still providing a safety net for the unfortunates who have been put in a bad position by someone else and are struggling to do the best they can.

However, I do not believe that a woman with young children should be shunned for the horrible behaviour of her dreadful partner/husband - however stupid she was to believe in him in the first place. (I actually agree with the idea of shunning in some instances, jut not in this one).

I don't think you can imagine just how financially vulnerable a woman is with a young child if you have not been that person. Thankfully, although my husband has his flaws, he is a hard worker and a good dad.

Yes we can usually judge character reasonably well in a person - at least if we are paying proper attention - but even the most decent- seeming person can turn into an absolute arse when put in a truly stressful situation. There is nothing I can think of which is more stressful, life-changing and perspective changing than having a child, and while many show true character and rise to the occasion selflessly, some do not.

It is foolish to imagine that based on someone's past behaviour you can tell what sort of parent they would make. You can made an educated guess, certainly, and many women are surely not doing that - but you cannot know.

Anyway, my problem lies with the ones who keep repeating the same mistakes at our expense, I believe a few changes to the welfare laws would limit that quite efficiently.

Finally, for all these reasons I do not agree with the notion of stigmatising all single mothers. I also do not agree that there is no stigma for the truly disgraceful ones - I certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the woman who was mentioned earlier who has thirteen children, I find every aspect of her lifestyle unimaginably repulsive. However, to compare her to the other women I mentioned is not, I feel, a fair comparison.

Oh, just noticed this comment: >Who are these women who have been married for 20 years *and* have infant/toddler children *and* are suddenly dumped by their husbands?

I don't believe I mentioned anything about 40 year old women who had been married twenty years, though some do exist, the Teacher Aide I mentioned is one such woman. The piano teacher was around 35 when this happened to her, married 15 years. The one who is still rorting the system was about 28 when he left her with one 22 month and a 12 month old, and the one who returned to nursing would have been maybe 30 when it all started (she was actually dumped when the baby was only a few weeks old and came to live with us for a while as I was afraid for her mental well being).

I know a lot of people and have lived in three countries, so statistically I suppose I am more likely to know more women who have been abandoned by their mate than the average person. I also know a great deal more who have not, of course.

> presuming that one, without any
> marital experience, can tell

You haven't been paying attention.

Many, many women are reproduction robots. They follow their feelings and their nature blindly yet imagine themselves to be thinking and volitional... Though their capacity to empathize registers only to those in their own life circumstances, or to those threatened as they themselves might have been threatened. I regard this as a special, high pinnacle of human foolishness. It's an entirely understandable narcissism, but it's nothing to be proud of.

Anyway, this is all Darwin's fault,. The natural world gets what it wants, always, and decency isn't an especially large item on the requisition. Remember that movie title?: Mars needs women!

"However, I do not believe that a woman with young children should be shunned for the horrible behaviour of her dreadful partner/husband - however stupid she was to believe in him in the first place."

But how do you know? It's not always him dumping her, you know. Statistically, in the U.S., it's more likely to be her dumping him.

That's the whole point Dave, you cannot know, so you should not stigmatise just based on the words "single mother". By all means, if you genuinely know that the woman is a lazy, feral, dole bludger popping out sprogs to sponge off the state, stigmatise away - but you cannot know, based solely on the fact that a woman is on her own with children that she is any of those things.

> but you cannot know, based solely
> on the fact that a woman is on her
> own with children that she is
> any of those things.

What we can know, absent the sort of unexpected death described by Amy above, is that she's behaved in a manner inimical to her children's best interests... Either she's married recklessly or incompetently.

I'm not certain you're a very nice person.

"Either she's married recklessly or incompetently."

The idea that there is a totally competent, fool-proof way of marrying is untrue.

For instance, I would've probably married Tiger Woods. Spotless reputation, great job, and apparently good character. Who knew he was a cheater? Did you? No, you didn't.

The world is shocked, as I'm sure his wife is, because he is precisely the kind of man you marry "competently", or want your child to marry.

So, he only cheated because he's a celebrity? All anyone needs to do is avoid marrying one then, I suppose.

My ex wasn't a celebrity, but women treated him like one - because he was good-looking and had money. There were always offers being thrown at him. Any man with money has plenty of opportunities to cheat.

But, with the internet, not to mention work-related connections, there are a multitude of ways for anyone to cheat. It can happen to anybody, even those who believe they've married "competently".

> Who knew he was a cheater?
> Did you? No, you didn't.

'Know why people hate hens? The clucking.

Review the 12:53pm comment. This is the small-mindedness described there: You're considering only the consequences for the person in the circumstances most like your own, then or now.

We hear you prattling that 'you just never know', now matter how large the holocaust of poorly-forged families. This isn't about any kind of affection for you; it isn't about the deep love of a man for a woman (or vice versa), sensibly pursued, or about any compassion for the well-being of children.

No matter what, NO MATTER HOW OBVIOUS IT SHOULD BE TO A WOMAN THAT SHE'S CHOOSING A RISKY COURSE FOR WHICH OTHER PEOPLE WILL SUFFER, you'll sit there and smirk that 'we just never know'.

You want babies. You don't want them loved, you don't want them cared for, you don't want them raised in decent homes, and CERTAINLY don't want those who get them to be held to any kind standards, before or after: That would be unpleasant!

You just wanna hear the squealing meat hit the floor in the delivery room. Reproduction robots... Soulless ones, lovely or otherwise.

Ever notice how some people marry well? Hhhmmmmmm... How do you suppose they do that?

Do me a favor: go look at those divorce charts again, and just pretend (pretend!) to understand that each imaginary dot under that ascending cliff is a house full of brokenhearted children. Just pretend you understand that.

The thing i was trying to say is that these women arent tricked. They dont fall for the lies of some master manipulator. They just shut their ears and close their eyes because the guy they want looks good on paper. Sure he doenst act like a good person and everyone says he is a bad guy but he drives a nice car and brings home the bacon. Its like those shy nervous guys dating the hot crazy girl. Everyone says she's nuts. Everyone has a story about how she scrod them over but shes just so hot and hes probably not gonna find anyone as hot as her ever again. So he ignores everything his friends say about her until its too late. The only difference is that nobody has any sympathy for this guy but everyone heaps buckets of it onto the stupid girl who married a jerk. Except that the guy hasnt hurt anyone but himself and the girl messed up the lives of her kids.

"Ever notice how some people marry well? Hhhmmmmmm... How do you suppose they do that?"

Well, if I were to devise a formula, to safeguard a marriage from infidelity, it would probably be: marry a poor, ugly, non-celebrity with good ethics.

Unfortunately, the poor and ugly part kinda takes a lot of the joy out of it. But I have a friend who only dates ugly men because she believes they won't cheat (like her handsome ex-husband). So far, she's been right. Maybe unattractive people are more faithful.

I tried it though, and just couldn't stomach it. My boyfriend is poor but good looking. I know I'm probably taking a risk.

You couldn't even pretend, could you?

> marry a poor, ugly, non-celebrity
> with good ethics

Is that what you see in the good marriages in your life? Are you that bitterly removed from reality?

(hours later)

Grrrrrr...

"Is that what you see in the good marriages in your life? Are you that bitterly removed from reality?"

Perhaps. I live in FL, not the midwest. Frankly, I don't see that many good marriages. I'm trying to count them on one hand.

My parents were married 45 years. Dad cheated somewhere along the 30 yr mark. Eventually (after years of back and forth), they divorced. This was after my teenage brother was killed in a car accident.

Very few marriages survive the death of a child. Like infidelity, it can just happen. Life changes people. I'm not willing to lay the blame entirely on "incompetent" choice. They're both good people.

You like the black and white of being able to say that any divorce is the result of some failing in the very beginning. I understand why you like that - it's clean, it's neat, and removes any randomness or gray areas. More importantly, you can feel secure that it can NEVER happen to you.

But I don't think that's realistic. As much as I love my boyfriend, and have every reason to believe he's a great person, if we marry, I'm going to have a prenup. I can't say the marriage will last forever just because we're both decent people. You hope. You trust (cautiously). Then you make an educated leap of faith. That's all anyone can do.

> You like the black and white of
> being able to say that any divorce
> is the result of some failing
> in the very beginning.

No. I like the black and white of knowing that the contemporary, 'street' view of divorce –your view– has sanctioned an incredible amount of suffering. For the last three generations or so, clumsy, self-centered adults have been able to plow through life as dullards, glibly excusing the horrors they've brought to their children's lives by saying 'these things happen' or 'you never know'.

And here you are, ready to write another chapter (one which, for the record, no one here has asked to read) about your blind but proud charge into marriage, listing fearful stupidities about prenups and "trust (cautiously)"... Ending, of course, with "That's all anyone can do." (As if the kids will just have to understand... even if plenty of parents can do much more, and their kids aren't expected to be so patient.)

I've never liked you.

Well, that's too bad, Crid, though it's irrelevant whether you like me or not. Or anyone else here, since you often like to end with snarky comments like that.

I happen to agree with you that divorce has caused an enormous amount of suffering, people have a lackadaisical approach to it, and divorces are far too easily attained. I don't think what I'm saying conflicts with your view.

But if a partner is hell-bent on leaving the marriage, or running off with someone else, there's not much anyone can do except try to explain to the kids that it's not about them, and these things sometimes happen. I also see no point in further kicking the abandoned partner down with this, "You should've known!" shaming. Maybe or maybe not. I don't believe they always could have.

I've never liked you.

Posted by: Crid

The thing I love, abso-fucking-lutly LOVE about Crid is he always know just how to put the cherry on top of an argumet

I've never liked you.

Posted by: Crid

The thing I love, abso-fucking-lutly LOVE about Crid is he always know just how to put the cherry on top of an argumet

> But if a partner is hell-bent
> on leaving

But THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID, is it? Your language wasn't constrained to a few nasty circumstances, and the behavior of a limited number of dorkweed miscreants whose incompetence will always be with us, no matter how we try to eradicate it. (We might ask what sort of woman sleeps with such men, anyway.) Nope, it's all right here on this very web page... Your shameless reflex is to smirk –drunkenly and stupidly– at those who ask people to behave responsibly. I believe there's a reason that you do that, and it's not oversight on your part.

People with children do not have the right to be naïve.

The problem is that people are naive usually BEFORE they have children, Crid.

If we could all pick partners in middle age it would certainly work out much better, especially 20 years later, as most are more emotionally settled by 60 than 40.

But young people breed, crid. And young people are often choosing an unknown commodity. Middle-age people have histories by which to judge them. Young people give you very little to go on.

Sure, in many cases, there are early signs of bad character, but not in all. I just don't know why you insist that people have this omnipotence to see all/know all and therefore must be blamed for "sleeping with" or marrying someone who turns out to be a jerk.

Lol Crid, I am reasonably certain I am indeed not a very nice person, but I do the best I can with that I have been given.

> I just don't know why you insist
> that people have this omnipotence
> to see all/know all and therefore
> must be blamed for "sleeping
> with" or marrying someone who
> turns out to be a jerk.

Because you're a coward. You're too afraid to admit that many, many people do a better job of it than do those who divorce. They do it by making sacrifices and adjustments and by gratefully accepting unpleasant truths about their own nature and the nature of others. And they live happily ever after, and they never have to explain to their daughter that she'll always be Daddy's Little Princess, even though he's decided to move down to Florida with a busty blond a live in a castle (near Disneyland!) with a whole batch of new princesses, and can't even be bothered to send support checks.

You want to call it "omnipotence". I think that's a chickenshit thing to say. I know too many happy families. They're not omnipotent, they're just good and they're strong.

Maybe they just don't have the opportunities to cheat. Even Amy admits that it comes down to opportunity, not ethics - celebrities have opportunities that most of the rest of us don't. But, if it was all about ethics, Tiger Woods wouldn't cheat either, no matter how many hotties threw themselves at him.

I don't know where you live - I'm guessing the midwest, which still seems to have the marry-for-life values that most of us (absolutely me) hold dear. But I still can't believe that you've never known the "perfect couple" who broke up because of someobody's unfortunate mid-life crisis. Have you never seen the kind of breakup that shocks all your friends?

> Maybe they just don't have the
> opportunities to cheat.

Go to the happiest-married couple you know. Or fifth-happiest, or five-hundredth, or five-thousandth, and ask them if that's what it is.

"Maybe", she says....

And you're not answering the question: Don't you know people who seemed like the perfect couple who fell apart because of some mid-life stupidity?

I do. And I know people who regret it with all their beings, but it's too late to rebuild that marriage and family.

Honestly, Crid, I agree with you, on so many things. You're a very smart guy. And I've been trying to think of "the happiest married couple I know", and I've come up with either "married" or "happy". Not both. The longest married couples I know are not happy. They're miserable and do everything apart.

Maybe it's like Amy says - living together kills the passion. I'm really being confronted by that as I consider whether to marry/live together or not.

I wonder - and this gets down to the basest insecurities of us all, Amy - do you ever feel that Greg's not that committed to you because he's fine with the living apart situation? Obviously, he takes care of you, but life-long commitment is different.

I think if it's YOUR idea not to live together, it's one thing, but if it's HIS idea, it would be another. That's a double standard, I know, but I think women should make the call on commitment.

> I agree with you, on so many things

Never imagine I'm your partner in cynicism. Your system of belief is odious.

Why harsh this woman so ferociously?

It's an analogy I've used many different times over the years: Modern divorce is the slave trade of modern life. A culture powerless to defend itself from a meaner, craftier class of people is brutally compelled to fulfill the needs of the overlord without compensation.

Now, women want babies. I've never understood this. But they do. Some people, people I trust, say it's a biological thing. But our lives are full of biological impulses that have to be tamed before their expression is permitted. Men, for example, like to fuck. So for a woman (or man) just to say "I wanted a baby and didn't want to worry so much about whether it had a father (or mother)" isn't excusable. And often (in Hollywood, at least) women have been known to make babies to seal their own access to a man's fortune, which isn't excusable, either.

But that's what LS has spent the entire thread trying to argue, that these people should be forgiven; that if one appealing couple unexpectedly drops the ball, then all of them should be forgiven, and the children will just have to understand. "Lovelysoul" would rather obliterate standards than see children benefit from them: Their souls are never mentioned. ("DEAL WITH IT, Kid: I was looking for love!")

In the South, it was said that slavery was essential, that the farms and plantations wouldn't be able to turn a profit without this cheapest possible labor. ("DEAL WITH IT, Slave: I had cane to harvest!")

It was never explained why a slave should care whether the master turned a profit. Or why a fatherless child should care if his mother (or father) enjoys this biological fulfillment at the cost of a child's warped spirit.

The parallel is just too powerful to ignore.

But no matter how loudly you shout about this, LS can't hear. (And you'll agree I've done some loud shouting in this thread.) Her mind's so closed I'm not sure her ear canals were ever open. She just can't consider the sacrifice that's demanded of children.

Just before Y2K, George Will reviewed a book about Y-One-K, about what life was like a thousand years ago. There was no unemployment: If you weren't doing something productive, you were probably dead by winter. And there was this wonderful passage:

[T]he difference between slavery and other conditions was not always dramatic. In 1000, before stone buildings and iron bars made prisons feasible, and when people had no money to forfeit in fines, their labor was what could be taken from them.

Since then, abject slavery has almost been wiped off the face of the globe.

But here we are in America, with several generations of fat, safe citizens, the worst of human nature still beats in our hearts. The average man (or woman) still needs a way to feel superior to others, to imperially command their day-to-day and destinies, and to imagine grateful cooings in response.

But you can't have slaves now, because it's against the law. What to do?

Aha!

I guess women have babies and men fuck.

You've explained exactly why marriages fail - why, perhaps, it's unrealistic, and always was, to expect them to succeed...especially "till death do us part", which could be 60, 70 years nowadays. Without performing so much labor to mercifully kill us sooner, we're stuck for a lot of years if it's bad.

Despite all your interesting rambling, I still don't understand what you want to do. How do you propose stigmatizing divorced people, even when they are abandoned by a randy spouse?

Would they wear different letters? "Scorned spouse"..."Adulterer"? How lovely for the children this stigma will be.

We used to have that social shunning, and I recently read a book written by a son of a divorcee from that era, and how his family was treated and how he got into fights all the time at school defending his mom. And she wasn't guilty - she was just left.

So, if we're going to do it, shun the person who leaves or breaks up a marriage. Chastise and shun the adulterer, not the family left behind. Don't invite him/her to your cocktail parties anymore. I really have no problem with that.

Well, we need to stop watching TV shows, like the Kardashians, for instance, that glamorize out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Maybe we could start petitions against their advertisers, and against the films of any celebrity glamorizing having daddyless children. But it seems like those on the religious right are the only ones that can get riled up and organized enough to do this. And I suspect that's why the stigmatizing attitude fell out of favor because it's associated with religious intolerance.

Plus, as you point out, just being unmarried doesn't necessarily equate to having daddyless children. Those LAT couples may be doing great - unmarried and not even living together, yet still raising children.

> still don't understand what
> you want to do.

Pay attention!

> And she wasn't guilty - she
> was just left.

Says her loving son, who must feel compelled in blind allegiance to the parent who's still there... Childhood is all about desperation and vulnerability and the wicked venom of misplaced loyalties. Let's ask the husband who was "guilty", shall we? (No, WE FUCKING WELL SHAN'T: This is not about personalities, this is about a broken contract between a couple and their surrounding civilization.)

> How do you propose stigmatizing
> divorced people

Oh, there are so many ways! Sometimes it can be hard to choose... It's like asking a jazz guitarist how to improvise a solo. Well, what are you in the mood to play with— Rhythm and ritardando? Dynamics and timbre? Modulations and counterpoint? Or are we all about the melody today? There are so many wonderful options!:

1. Bitter, deprecating personal gossip

2. Barbed comments in social encounters

3. Shunning

4. Blog mockery (etc.)


> even when they are abandoned
> by a randy spouse?

You cannot let go of this. You focus is that small, your mind really is that closed. No matter how many children suffer because of their parent's incompetence, all you wanna talk about is men who stray. (Your own personal sitch, I presume, but no, I'm not asking. Got that? Not asking. Don't care.) ...As if this were a new hazard, one from which stronger, more attentive women had not defended themselves (and their children) for millenia. As if dishonesty and wandering eyes were new concerns in the human heart. Your desperation would be poignant if it weren't so pathetic. You can't let go... You want other grownups to care about YOU, a fellow grownup. But we find it difficult to do that while genuine children suffer.

> So, if we're going to do it,
> shun the person who leaves or
> breaks up a marriage.

Goddammit, NO. This isn't about you, you poor little broken teacup. You are a fucking grown woman or you are a fucking grown man and you've sworn before the community in petition for its support that THIS PERSON is the one who'll get the job done.

Y'know, the first time you hear of a new danger, you give the person who suffers the benefit of the doubt. When it happens to the next guy, you wonder why he wasn't paying attention. When a cavalcade of suffering like this thunders through nearly half the families with children in just a couple generations, it's not possible, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRETEND THAT DIVORCE IS A SURPRISE IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE.

And these are generations in which nearly every other blessing, from longevity to material comfort to personal safety to adventurous opportunity, has erupted in a bounty undreamt of by our forebears. These children should be among the happiest who ever lived, or could ever live. This is America at the pinnacle.

And people are fucking it up.

Society wants justice, but it will never care enough about you (or your lyin' spouse) enough to take a personal, cuddly interest in the he said/she said of your life. That's just not something the rest of the world has time to be concerned with.

But that should be OK for you: You're adults, after all, which is how you got married.

Maybe this is the article?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21369007/

"I presume, but no, I'm not asking. Got that? Not asking. Don't care.) ...As if this were a new hazard, one from which stronger, more attentive women had not defended themselves (and their children) for millenia. As if dishonesty and wandering eyes were new concerns in the human heart."

I had to absorb this a bit, crid, but what you are suggesting (I think) is that women should just deal with a wandering spouse. To defend themselves and their children, but not leave a marriage because of it? Is that right? Is that your view...even in the day and age of HIV, which past generations didn't have to deal with (though they had syphilis).

I still believe there are alternatives to that - ways to have a Daddy around, benefiting the children, but not infecting anyone with STDs. My ex, who was definitely a philandering type, is here (when in town) at my place probably as much as Greg is at Amy's. The kids know, by now, that he is not a monogamous sort, but they love him, and he is still welcome for dinner, and walks in and out of my house, pretty much at will (not that I'm crazy about this, but he's my kids' father). We have kind of a LAT relationship, which still gives the children the benefit of a dad, while not forcing either of us to pretend that he is someone he isn't.

The only difference is that we don't stay married while I ignore his wandering eye. That I couldn't do. But we are still a family. And I think the definition of family can be broader than what you believe in...which is what would make it hard to shun and stigmatize people. How could we really differentiate?

Sorry for the silence, I thought this was dead.

> what you are suggesting (I think)
> is that women should just deal with
> a wandering spouse.

No, and I've said it so many different ways that it's not possible for you to misunderstand unless you want to, and I think you want to very, very badly.

What I am suggesting is that good women recognize that some men will wander and that almost all men will, for some time (a few scattered seconds or several contiguous decades), want to wander... Even though they don't wander.

I think women should protect themselves and their families from wandering. I can't advise on this any more than how to swing against a major league baseball pitcher... So the way to do this is to look at the marriages of women who are successful at it. The sheer number of people in unions of fidelity and reasonable contentment ought to stop you from saying that these things can't be judged in advance... LOTS of women judge them in advance. I know dozens personally who've thrived at this.

They certainly don't succeed by marrying men who, as you suggested earlier, are unattractive and thus have no opportunity to stray... That was a crass thing to say, and it pissed me off, which is stupid: The women who succeed in marriage wouldn't bother to be offended by your sour grapes. Many men love their wives enough to make profound sacrifices for them.

(Most of this applies with the genders swapped, too, those I suppose men are more likely to go out and chase tail.)

> And I think the definition of family
> can be broader than what you believe in...

If the frustrations you describe –which most modern women would find intolerably manipulative and humiliating– are acceptable to you, then that's your own beeswax. But wordplay like this describes a world where any bus driver you've seen more than twice is a member of the family.

The thing about patterns like these is that they can last in a family for generations. Kids begin to think that having some distant, grouchy, half-interested guy blowing in and out of the house is what family's all about, so that's what the do with their lives, too. They associate selfishness & pain with what you're calling "family".

I'll say it again and let this die (unless you surprise me, which is statistically impossible at this point): You seem to regard the forgiveness of women in your particular circumstance, perhaps your particular relationship, as civilization's highest concern.