|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Here here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
BB,
I have always tended to look at social issues from a liberal/left perspective, but it is a fact that the family court and child custody after divorce system is especially bad and biased against men and fathers in Canada. The system in the US is superior, and although I'm not familiar with the systems in the UK or Australia, I have no doubt that their systems are more equitable. Because of this, I believe Canadian respondents (male) to this thread may come across as...seemingly inappropriately bitter or more hostile. It's partly a problem of comparing apples and oranges.
A great many men my age in Canada have discounted the possibility of marriage and children, simply because the system is so biased against men in case of divorce. Even textbooks published in Canada that I have seen, for teaching English in asia, assume and present the idea that marriage is a smooth transition from courtship to marriage to divorce to eventual sole custody of the children by the female; these are described as the NORM.
The contributions of women around the house are lauded by so-called economists, while the household contributions of men are completely discounted. A number of recent Canadian widows whose husbands have been killed in Afghanistan have been 'rediscovering' all the things that their husbands contributed, sadly, now that they are gone. |
Hi MOS,
thanks for your interesting post. It's made me a little curious about the Canadian system, and I'd be very interested to see comparisons with other systems.
Certainly in Britain, (as a group) divorced women (especially those with children) are far worse off financially than married women or divorced men.
Here is yet more proof of that:
Divorced women 'face poverty at 65'
| Quote: |
The shocking financial plight of divorced women at retirement age was exposed by the Office for National Statistics yesterday in its annual report on social trends.
It said 40% of divorced women over 65 were poor enough to qualify for income support from the state, compared with 1% of married women and 23% of divorced men in the same age group.
The figures appeared to explode perceptions based on the experience of celebrity divorcees living in style after taking husbands to the cleaners in the divorce courts.
The ONS figures showed average earnings of divorced women over 65 in Britain were �92 a week in 2001/2, compared with �112 for widows and �227 for married couples.
The reason so many older divorced women are poor is that most spent time caring for children and returned to work too late to build up entitlement to a substantial occupational pension. This left them worse off on retirement than single women.
Few gained any share in their husband's pension as part of a divorce settlement. This also left them worse off than married or widowed women.
Jay Ginn, co-author of the report, said: "Divorced women who have had children are at the bottom of the pile."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mmarshalynne
Joined: 23 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: child custody in the US |
|
|
Men obtaining custody in the US is quite common. Fifteen years ago, my father obtained custody of my four-year-old stepsister. At that time, prejudice against fathers was much higher. About seven years ago, my brother obtained custody of his seven-year-old son, and last year he obtained custody of his two-year old daughter. He had to hire an attorney in both cases, but the cases were relatively easy as he could show that he was the caretaker in the home. As well as bringing in the paycheck, he was fixing the meals, making sure the children were bathed, and taking care all of their needs while both moms were more interested in having a good time. In the US if you are the caretaker, whether male or female, unless the other party can demonstrate you are a bad parent, you will generally get custody, but you will have to pay whatever is required to get a decent attorney.
I believe another phenomenon is happening in the US, and that is more and more mothers don't want custody of their children. They put up a nominal fight, but generally do everything possible to blow their chances of custody. For example, Brittany Spears did everything possible to lose custody but still garners quite a bit of sympathy. People look at her as heartbroken, but just plain stupid. I see her as typical of a lot of young women today -- wanting to have a good time, but not wanting everyone to say that she is a bad person for dumping her kids. She lets the court play the bad guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
My sister has a child. The father of the child is an absolute parasite. She has to tolerate him, because she has a child with him. He gambles, drinks, and gets himself into enormous debt. He deliberately got her pregnant (has boasted about it to her since) so that he could keep her (he knew she was going to break up with him). He uses the son so that he can keep his claws in my sister and sponge off her. My sister has tried to seperate from him several times. Unfortunately, she was the responsible person who had a job and bought a house. He keeps coming back to live at her house. Because of their son, she feels unable to throw his ass out on the street. Now they live together, although they are seperated.
If she could be rid of him, maybe she could have a decent man and buy a bigger house, and go on holidays and live a peaceful life. But parasite either lives at her house, or demands she pays his rent when he lives elsewhere. She's at the end of her tether. Even though he could never hold down a job, he never helped her with the kid. She has a full demanding good salaried job, yet has to carry the burden of the child mostly alone, or with the help of me and my mother. Not only that, she carried the full economic burden of housing and feeding them all. She is absolutely exhausted. She never has a moments rest. Either she is working, caring for her son, or travelling to and fro from work. She doesn't know what she can do. I am very worried about her. She is burning out.
It's not just men who get a raw deal in this life you know. |
Big Bird, your sister needs to separate herself from him. After all, it is not healthy for her child. She is not doing the child any favors. Right?
I am sorry he got her pregnant. Love can be blind sometimes. I know that. She could get married later if she got rid of him and provide her son with a real father and herself with some love. There is no need for her to do this to herself, because she feels she needs to do it for her son.
If he really cared about his son, himself, or her he wouldn't act that way.
This thread does involve us being in a modern era where men are portrayed in a horrible light. Men have been demonized. There are great men and women out there. Just as there is the opposite. Even if men in certain areas are worse than women, there are so many major exceptions.
In my opinion, as a men, I feel that many Western women have been educated that misandry is all right. What is needed is philogyny, philanthropy in the sense of love of men and love of women. Societies need healthier men and women to have better societies. There is no need for the excessive misandry. Past misogyny doesn't make misandry okay in my opinion, and I think it's a big problem.
Men have supported patriarchal systems, but that doesn't mean innocent men should have to pay for that. So many men would make such loving fathers. There is also no need for some man to have to pay for a woman he divorced if they have no children. She has to get a job if we are in the 21st century. It is not 1950. Maybe, part of the problem is many of these judges are as rather old and they may be out of touch with modern society. What might have applied more to 1970 doesn't exactly apply to 2008. That's my opinion on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
