In-Reply-To: <199512260454.UAA19318@iway1.iw.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Mon, 25 Dec 1995 msmithbe@iway1.iw.net wrote:

> >Suppose you knew that you could lose your >children if you 
> didn't have an income sufficient to support yourself AND 
> >your children.
> 
> Obviously, the result would be that I would work harder to  
> develop work-related skills prior to having them.
> 
> >In all divorces, including those where the mother 
> voluntarily gives the >father custody, the total number of 
> male NCPs  is less than 5%.
> 
> In all divorces, or in those in which custody is disputed?  
> Most of the men I know don't even want the responsibility of 
> raising children alone.
> 
> >I've put my Ex and her Husband  through college -- they 
> still expect the >full amount (nearly 50% of my after-tax  
> pay).
> 
> But that was your choice, to put them through college, 
> wasn't it?  Or was it court ordered?
Actually, it wasn't.  I was paying them "Day Care" money, for the purpose 
of putting them into a licensed day-care facility after school.  They
took the money and used it to put Jerry through school.  Since I cannot
take the tax deduction, and Jerry would go to jail (making me real 
popular with my Ex).  I have to keep quiet.  Unless of course, I want to 
fork over $60,000 to keep the kids from ending up in foster homes.

> The only "Dakota Mountains" are the black hills in extreme 
> western South Dakota.  But that's besides the point.
> !!!!You wouldn't, or couldn't appreciate how hard we work.  

Actually, 4 of my Great Grandparents were homesteaders.  My grandfather 
was born in the Oklahoma territory, 2 years before the land rush.  My 
grandmother was born on a homestead in Missouri.  My grandmother's father 
ran off with the organist and (since women were not allowed to own land 
in Missouri) my great grandmother (Bama) and her sister became the first 
women to homestead in Montana.  Bama eventually sold the homestead and 
moved to cripple creek and ran the bath-house.  Miners would pay a days 
wages for a bath.  The saloon girls would pay a nights wages to have 
their dresses cleaned.

Grandma had to chop the wood and fetch the water (up a 500 foot incline).
Grandma and Grandpa got married and Grandpa's last act, before he died 
was to send Grandma a Valentine's Day card, with a two page love-note.
I hope your new husband shows that kind of love to you.

> While you're in your office wishing they'd turn down the 
> heat my husband and I are chopping wood for the wood stove, 
> just in case.  While you're microwaving your Swanson's my 
> husband is hunting for our food, or I'm fishing for it.  

For many, this would be a fantasy come true.  It is a choice.  You know 
that it is hard work.  When you propose solutions on the public forum,
do you reccomend that everyone go back to the farms?  The fact is that 
you have returned to a very effective model, one that has worked for over 
10,000 years.  We have to come up with a new model that will work for the 
other 250 million people in this country.

> Don't presume to tell me that our life is easier, it's not. 
> It's a life that many would refuse to live, because it's not 
> one of conveniences.  But, it is the life we chose to live 
> because it allows us to be together as much as possible.  

If your first husband could earn a comfortable living, and still be home 
with you 80 hours/week, wouldn't that be nice too?  I don't have anyone 
to share my life with.  Meanwhile, my ex and her husband watch my kids 
and collect child-support, welfare (disability), and "under the table" 
income.

> >On the other hand, feminism never bothered to examine the 
> issue of masculine>identity, of masculine attractiveness. 
> It is, after all, a movement of women for women.  We do 
> address self-esteem issues.  Not everything revolves around 
> men.  C'mon.

The question is - in the era of the emancipated woman, what should men's 
roles be?  What should their responsibilities be?  What should their 
rights be?

The average man is responsible for 80% of the child support for 1.8 
children, pays for 2 full-time housholds, and often provides at least 
20% of the support for a "surragate father".  The average woman is 
responsible for 20%.  The courts don't expect the CP to pay 80% of the
rent - only difference between a 1 bedroom and a 2 bedroom (or 3 
bedroom).  The big chunk is the NCP's job.

The result of ignoring the role of men in the culture and family, is that 
men have no role.  The "feminist ideal family" has the father leaving by 
the time the children are school-age so that mother can establish herself 
in the workplace.  The father, who has as little contact as possible with 
the children (don't want to pollute them with patriarchal values) is 
merely a "money machine".  In fact' the incentives are set up to 
encourage the mother to give as little visitation as possible - else she 
will lose child support.

The estranged males, are left to contest for the available women (mostly 
prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, and slightly insane).  Since they 
are already over-obligated, they have no desirability as companions or 
mates.

> >it will kill him.  Take out a live insurance policy on him, 
> while you >still can.

> You can't take out an insurance policy on an adult without 
> his consent.  I worked in the insurance industry as an 
> underwriter's assistant.  This is serious fraud.

It probably wouldn't take much to get his consent.  Especially since 
you'll be paying the premiums.

> >Not only that, your first husband got out of the marriage. 
>  He could >console himself that you were a two-time loser.  
> Yes, he did remind me of this.  
> It probably hurts to no >end your third marriage is a 
> winner.
> And his second, as I understand it, is not going well.  

Of course it isn't.  He's an addict who wants marriage to be this 
"fantasy/party", that never ends.  No one bothered to teach him, when he 
was 11 or 12 and still young enough to listen, that marriage is about 
90% responsibility and 10% "fun".

I'm sure that if I were to get his side of the story, he would indicate 
some area where he was "deceived".  The deceit wasn't yours, it was the 
myth perpetrated by mass media.

> >Great, you didn't just take the three people he loved most, 
> you took away >his parents, and the whole town too.  

> I didn't take his life, he threw it away.  When I divorced 
> him, I called his mother and father.  I told them what was 
> happening, and that he would need their support and a place 

In that red-neck part of the country, you publicly castrated him.
He was a drunk, a bum, and an addict by the time you left, but
you turned him into a unich as well.

> I really expected that they would side with him, and at first, 
> they all did. At first they blamed me for everything. 

Every marriage depends on both partners giving 100% and expecting 0%.  
That way, the 5% or the 20% that is perceived is something you can
be grateful for.  The myth is that it is 50/50.  The problem comes when 
one partner thinks he/she is only getting 49%.  Eventually, that 
degenerates into each partner witholding that which is wanted most.

In my situation, my ex would withold sex, I eventually witheld time.  I 
would come home late, cook dinner, bathe the kids, and we would go
to bed and cuddle.  What she wanted - was for me to stay up and play 
games (backgammon, chess, cards...) with her.  That was a way for her to 
vent her anger and frustration.  She would flirt with me - making me want 
her - and then refuse and make me feel guilty for wanting it.  3 
times/year she would concede.  Later, she told my sister she let me -- 
"Just so he'd remember what he wasn't getting".

> But, as time went on, they would offer him rides to see his 
> kids, and he would refuse.  Or they'd take pictures of the 
> kids to him and he wouldn't bother to take them.

To a man who has been emotionally castrated, his missing children are 
just "salt in the wounds".  So are the support payments, or the reminders.

> Earning their trust was harder than you 
> know, because he told everyone I used to be a stripper.

It's beginning to make sense now.  He could impress all his male friends 
because he married a stripper - which proved he was a big "stud".  He was 
willing to play the "responsible husband", but something changed (you 
became a mother).  He reverted back to his "party animal" mode, trying to 
prove he was still a "stud".  Then you castrated him - by filing for 
divorce.

It doesn't even matter if you were a stripper.  His motives required that 
he believed you were.  If he believed you were a stripper, and could have 
any man at the club - and chose him.  That made him a stud.

> everything was fine until I got pregnant.  

Yup.  Given the scenario above, it's predictable.  Every father goes 
through that "double whammy".  First he is proud because his fatherhood 
makes him more of a man.  Then he discovers that he has lost his playmate 
and has lost the intimacy that was once his alone.

> >You married "a grade up", but you still went for a man who 
> is not living >up to his full potential.  If you make him 
> wrong for it long enough, >you'll dump him too.

> Wrong.  I've grown up now.  My husband has a job he's had 
> for several years that he loves.  He also knows that he's 
> welcome to leave it and explore his options.  He's a 
> grownup.  I'd rather he be happy and love his work than be 
> discouraged about having to spend 40 hours a week to pay for 
> a home he never sees.  What's more important--having stuff 
> you don't have time to use or living simply and never seeing 
> your family?  Of course I'd rather that he work for someone 
> better, but that's not my decision.  I can't marry someone 
> and then start trying to change him, that's not fair.  He's 
> honest, and decent, and kind.  I remind myself every day of 
> his good points and why I fell in love with him.  It's part 
> of my morning ritual.  

Nearly every male is expected to work 40 hours/week.  Most females are 
expected to work that much too.  It's parth of being an adult.  There are 
those who say that much of the divorce rate may have to do with the 
possiblity that we have too much free time.  If we spend that time 
dwelling in the "fantasies" of television, rather than dealing with the 
realities of real human relationships...they might be right.  You and 
your husband spend a great deal of your time dealing with the realities 
of relationships.

> >What posessed you to have children with this man!??  Did 
> you think you >could play God and turn a slick-talking drunk 
> into a responsible 
> 
> He wasn't a drunk when I met him.  Or maybe he was on the 
> wagon for an extended time.  He didn't start really hitting 
> the bottle hard until shortly after I became pregnant.  (Or 
> before; my daughter shows some signs of FAS that she didn't 
> get from me) Then he was on and off for the next few years. 

Where did you meet him?  What was your life-style?  What did you like to 
do together?  When you got pregnant, did you stop "partying"?

This issue here is that your husband was completely unprepared for the 
multitude of changes that come with having a pregnant wife.

>  I really thought, because he told me so, that he was unable 
> to adjust to life in the city.  I thought that when we moved 
> to SD he'd be happier, because I didn't know that this had 
> been an ongoing pattern with him.  (I did a background check 
> on my third husband before I married him; can you guess 
> why?)

The background check is a good idea.  It's hard to do background checks 
on guys you meet in bars.  Meet a guy in church and you can find out how 
many great-uncles were drunks.

> >productive member of society?  If you wanted a responsible 
> man, why >didn't you marry one of those "Egg-heads" who 
> helped you with your >homework and helped you with the term 
> papers.  
> Because nobody helped me highschool.  I was helping the 
> idiots that I eventually dated.  

The point here is that there are idiots who spend the weekends getting 
drunk and suddenly need help to keep from flunking (or getting dropped 
from the team...) and there are the responsible people who are late to 
the party because they had to finish the term paper first.  There are 
even the kids who never make it to the party (longer term paper).  There 
are even the kids who didn't get invited to the party.  Then there are 
the kids who try to write a term paper while hung-over or at 2:00 AM on 
Sunday Night.  And finally, there are the kids who don't even do the term 
paper.

> Even though I've made some pretty crappy choices I never had 
> to seek the help of anyone for intellectual reasons.  To 
> give you an idea of what I mean, I have a 3.1 gpa in 
> college. I'm a fifth-year senior.  That doesn't sound too 
> impressive until you take into account that when I started 
> college I had a 4 month-old, a 3 year-old, and a 6 year-old, 
> a crappy old house 25 miles from school, a $100 car that got 
> 8 miles per gallon, and a part-time job.  I've gone to 
> college taking a full-load of classes and at least 9 credits 
> each summer.  I've taken a year-and-a-half each of 
> chemistry, biology, and physics.  I have a double major in 
> Geology and Secondary Education. I tutor in college-level 
> Algebra, Biology and Geology I teach adults how to use DOS, 
> Windows, and the Internet.  I've only been married a year, 
> so most of that was accomplished more or less alone.  

I'm impressed.  It sounds a bit like my college years. (I worked 40 
hours/week as a carpenter, took 18 hour loads, and did volunteer work in 
the evenings).

> Any one of them would have 
> >killed themselves to make you happy.  And you wouldn't have 
> wanted him to.
> I know that now.  My 3rd husband is one of those "boring" 
> nice guys that I would have never dated before.  Slender and 
> not very tall, with glasses.  In fact, I almost didn't date 
> him.  He was too nice.  

Congratulations.  I'm one of those "too nice" guys too.  I actually 
bought a leather jacket and a motorcycle to look "datable".  It didn't 
work.  I would end up being "too nice" anyway. :-)  Most of us "nice 
guys" are the ones who end up being paid up on our child support, even if 
it means working two jobs and putting cardboard in the shoes (both of 
which I've done), even if the ex is spending money on toys for her new 
husband instead of the kids.

What would happen if women married "nice guys" the first time and left 
the slimeballs to the hustlers? :-).

Unfortunately, us "nice people" end up paying taxes through the gills to 
support the children of slime-balls.

> But, he was so smart and interesting 
> I loved talking to him.  He's extremely cultured, he's just 
> chosen to return to the place he grew up and live a simple 
> life, like me.  He reads several newspapers a day and tells 
> me what's happening in the world.  He's interesting, and he 
> makes me laugh.  He's a cuddler, too.

It sounds like he might do well in a "cottage industry business" like 
financial analyst via internet.  There are several fields where he could 
get paid for working at home (mostly collecting royalties).

> >He's already killing himself.  Having your husband adopt 
> them will give >the ability to put them on his insurance, 
> will enable you to get a single >medical plan that covers 
> the entire family.  
> You can put step-children on your insurance in SD.  
In effect, you have adopted the kids.  Yet you expect CS. (by the way, he 
probably should be paying CS to at least 5 women, you were just "lucky".

> >from him, but you  won't let him off the hook with CSS by 
> having your >husband legally adopt the kids.  
> I brought up the subject once and he said that if Barry 
> adopts his kids he'll kill him.  He's not receptive to the 
> idea.
At least you offered.  It's too bad you can't offer him amnesty for back 
child-support if he lets you adopt.  My guess is he just wants "off the 
hook".

> >but "undesirable" because I am a "father figure" and a "sissy".  
> Since you brought the subject up of where women look for 
> men, where do you look for women?

I work as a volunteer in several organizations.  I used to be very active 
in the church as well.  I have several hundred close personal female 
friends...none of whom will consider me for romance because I'm "too 
nice".  Besides, I never learned to date, quit drinking before I was old 
enough to go to bars, and work rediculous hours.

> Would you look twice at 
> me, (Well-groomed but Rubinesque, brown hair, glasses, not a 
> partying girl) or do you look for the glamorous, exciting 
> types?

My wife (Leslie) was 5'1", had very large hips, wore bifocals, and dressed
like a 12 year-old boy.  We were set up on a "blind date" initiated by
Leslie.  We dated for 3 months before we had sex, moved in together only
after I started discussing marriage as a definite possibility.  I let her
know I was a transvestite and she appeared to accept that, she even seemed to
enjoy that (she told me, 12 years later, that it was a lie the whole time),
so I proposed.  Within a month of the wedding, she was dictating terms for
the marriage.  I had to quit smoking, promise never to ride a motorcycle (a
life-long dream), and she would always have the right to refuse sex.  When
all of her conditions were met (it took me 7 years to quit smoking for over 1
year), she left me to marry Jerry. 

I have been in 4 (brief) relationships other women.  One was 5'6", heavy, 
and 6 months pregnant when we met.  She eventually left me for a man who 
offered her the equivalent of $3 million dollars.  Another was 5'3" and 
weighed 200 lbs and had a wart just below her right eye.  I helped her 
start her own business.  She left because I was allergic to her cat.
There was one woman - 5'9" who met me at a party, called me, and went on 
a series of dates.  Unfortunately, she wanted to live in the country and 
I wanted to live in the city -- I still get calls from her.

My biggest problem in relationships is "letting go".  I bond with a woman 
and even when it's over, we end up maintaining these "long distance love 
affairs" for years, even when there is no hope of reconnecting.

> Do you go for the good girls or for the bitches?

Both.  I have found that good girls can be very abusive in their 
righteousness.  I've found that bitches can be very loving when they 
realize that you aren't going to force them to have sex (or be your 
little plaything)... and "sluts" are often incest survivors who learned to 
associate feelings of love with sex  which is much like me.

> I found out late in life that I had to be a little bitchy to 
> be attractive.  Can't quite figure that out, but it seems no 
> man wants a doormat.  It seems men and women alike want what 
> they can't have and don't want what is obviously available.

More precisely, people want what they feel is available only to them.  
Most of my lovers would casterate a man who tried to "prove their 
manhood" by claiming superiority to me.  A man or woman who just wants 
"anyone" is so available that the spectere of infidelity or "I changed my 
mind" starts to come up.

> Hope this reaches you in good health; 
> Hi ho and Merry Christmas; 
> Misty Smith-Beringer
> 


	Rex Ballard
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.




From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Dec 26 17:42:26 1995
Status: O
X-Status: 
Newsgroups: alt.self-improve,sci.psychology.misc