4 ms·

My parents got divorced, but my Mom had always been a stay at home mom. She had absolutely no working experience, no career, etc. There was no way she could hav

My parents got divorced, but my Mom had always been a stay at home mom. She had absolutely no working experience, no career, etc. There was no way she could have paid even 99/1 since she didn't even have any income separate from my father. This is probably less common now, but I still know lots of families where the mother does not have a career outside the home (and 1 example of a father not having a career outside the home).

david38 5y ago
Except women who have careers are treated just as helpless.
Ekaros 5y ago
And that is why we have social security. I see no reason for other partner to pay...
- tempestn 5y ago
  Because the reason the mother doesn't have career experience is because she spend the time contributing to the family in other ways, allowing the husband to focus more on work. Had she not been married, she would have (by necessity if nothing else) had a career outside the home instead. Social security generally provides a bare minimum safety net, if that; it's unreasonable that one spouse should walk away in a far better financial position than the other after both contributed to the marriage.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Mother made the choice to prioritize family over career. That was always an option. I see no reason to punish other person. If the other person forced mother, she should have divorced at that point and gotten on with the career. Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children. I see no reason why such person deserve anymore than bare minimum. That is bare minimum that society considers acceptable. So clearly it should be acceptable for absolutely everyone.
    - oblio 5y ago
      > Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children Abortion, ok. But do you mean putting your own, healthy kids up for adoption???
      - agensaequivocum 5y ago
        oblio 5y ago
        There is no definition of a fetus where it's totally equivalent with a child. And I guess you don't have kids if you imagine attachment to a fetus is the same as to say, a 1 year old child. Anyway, I don't want to discuss abortion, so feel free to monologue if you so wish.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        Why not? It is an option if career and lifestyle is more important.
        oblio 5y ago
        Few people are that callous. And there are different degrees of "more important". "Throwing the kids away" is a super extreme measure few would take. I hate it when during internet discussions, suddenly the other side slides on a slippery slope all the way to Level 99.
        chefkoch 5y ago
        Let me guess. Your single without children?
        cakoose 5y ago
        Even if Ekaros is single without children, I don't see how one can grow up in a society without understanding how difficult it would be for a parent to give up their child. Adoption may be the best option for some people in some situations. I can imagine that. But presenting it as an obvious solution to this problem indicates a glaring gap in their understanding of human beings.
notsureaboutpg 5y ago

david38 5y ago

Except women who have careers are treated just as helpless.

Ekaros 5y ago

And that is why we have social security. I see no reason for other partner to pay...

tempestn 5y ago
Because the reason the mother doesn't have career experience is because she spend the time contributing to the family in other ways, allowing the husband to focus more on work. Had she not been married, she would have (by necessity if nothing else) had a career outside the home instead. Social security generally provides a bare minimum safety net, if that; it's unreasonable that one spouse should walk away in a far better financial position than the other after both contributed to the marriage.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Mother made the choice to prioritize family over career. That was always an option. I see no reason to punish other person. If the other person forced mother, she should have divorced at that point and gotten on with the career. Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children. I see no reason why such person deserve anymore than bare minimum. That is bare minimum that society considers acceptable. So clearly it should be acceptable for absolutely everyone.
  - oblio 5y ago
    > Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children Abortion, ok. But do you mean putting your own, healthy kids up for adoption???
    - agensaequivocum 5y ago
      - oblio 5y ago
        There is no definition of a fetus where it's totally equivalent with a child. And I guess you don't have kids if you imagine attachment to a fetus is the same as to say, a 1 year old child. Anyway, I don't want to discuss abortion, so feel free to monologue if you so wish.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      Why not? It is an option if career and lifestyle is more important.
      - oblio 5y ago
        Few people are that callous. And there are different degrees of "more important". "Throwing the kids away" is a super extreme measure few would take. I hate it when during internet discussions, suddenly the other side slides on a slippery slope all the way to Level 99.
      - chefkoch 5y ago
        Let me guess. Your single without children?
        cakoose 5y ago
        Even if Ekaros is single without children, I don't see how one can grow up in a society without understanding how difficult it would be for a parent to give up their child. Adoption may be the best option for some people in some situations. I can imagine that. But presenting it as an obvious solution to this problem indicates a glaring gap in their understanding of human beings.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago