Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    For starters -- try looking at marriage as +100/100 at all times!
    I never could figure out how a marriage could work using teh 50/50
    concept. In the 14 years of our marriage -- we have discovered that
    we made it this far because we both work at it 100 % (usually!).
    What happens with us is simply when one of us is in say 75% mode
    the other virtually has to be in 125% mode - it's a pretty good
    system -- especially knowing that whne you're the one in the "dumps"
    (75% mode) -- someone else will take up the slack for ya.
    
    As far as children go -- there isn't any posible way of "splitting"
    up the duties!  You have to give in to the fact that not everyone
    is capable (or willing) to share these additional responsibilities
    -- or for that matter -- taking up more other duties that tend to
    be left by the wayside!
    
    Since the arrival of our children ( now 12 & 9) our priorities/needs
    continue to change - you just have to relax and try not to analyze
    who's doing what and how often -- you may find it really doesn't
    matter.
    
    k

	RE: .0

> I was discussing marriage with my so of 13 years the other day and 
>we spoke of the 50/50 commitment. The idea of +- 50/50, In_the_legal_
>sence seems to me to be tilted to the child_bearing woman. If a woman
>chooses to not have a child, it seems that both parties are treated
>relatively equaly but the moment a child enters the situation, that
>legally, the woman has the benefit of the law. 
> I asked what seemed to be a simple question of where 'legally' the
>50/50 commitment was and ended up in a quagmire.

Tom, I'm confused by your question.  In what legal (or non-legal) area
do you feel that both parties are treated equally until there are children? 
And who doesn't treat them equally? The legal system, society?

...Karen

    I'm a little confused by your question myself. In most marrages
    its what ever the partners feel comfortable with. Through out
    a marriage the participation by both will very. What counts is
    how each supports the other and one doesn't try to over power/
    smother the other.                        
           
    How you act in a marrage comes more from society pressure and how
    you were brought up, more then by some law.
    
    The fact is that a marrage doesn't survive on laws, it survives on 
    a unwritten commitment between two people.
                        
    dave

Hello,
 It has taken me this log to reply as are having problems accessing Womannotes 
from Husky. 
 re: .1, 100/100 - I like that. 
 From a personal committment point of view, it is the best way for both to be. 


 After re-reading .0, I see that I did not make myself clear at all! Let me 
give some background which promped me to enter this.

 A friend of mine wrote me a letter saying that after 4 years in a relationship
that they were going to have a baby. They had talked about it in the past and
both seemed eager to have a child. His so is now pregnant and does not want to
have a baby _now_. She feels that she is not ready and that perhaps later would
be best. He is dealing well with the situation and supported her in her decision
not to have the baby. They are still together and seem to be getting on well.


 This letter made me think about other outcomes of this situation. For example
if both agree not to have a child. This seems to be an easy decision to make 
in advance but conception may totally change feelings on this subject. An
example of this is the Ms Whitehead (sp?) case. Suppose one person in the
relationship _really_ wants the baby and the other doesn't? 

 The legal question comes in here in that both people in a relationship had an
agreement but then the situation changes. If, for example, the woman chooses
to have the child, then legally the man is bound. It is unreasonable to force
the woman to not have the baby. However the woman's decision generally is backed
up by the courts and the man becomes responsable for her dicision. 



 My so pointed that it _must_ be taken on faith that the relationship is the
most important thing. I agree but feel that conception can change everything...


 This seems to be unresolvable to me...

 I appreciate your replies,
-Tom

RE: .4

"If, for example, the woman chooses to have the child, then legally the man is
bound. It is unreasonable to force the woman to not have the baby. However the
woman's decision generally is backed up by the courts and the man becomes
responsable for her dicision."

I believe, in addition, that a man cannot stop his child from being aborted.
Nor, can a man prevent his child being given up for adoption, or decide to give
his child up for adoption.

Women have the upper hand with children.

Jim. 
                                          

    Get back to the point, Jim, and off your private agenda.
    
    The topic is marriage.  Are you really sure that in a marriage in
    the U.S., the wife can decide to put one of _their_ children up for 
    adoption with out the consent of the husband?  If this is a fear
    rather than a fact, please be more explicit in labelling it as such.
    
    It is sad that only women can bear children, but it is a constraint.
    You're going to have to get used to the fact that children are a
    product of two people, and are never just "his".

>< Note 652.6 by 3D::CHABOT "Rooms 253, '5, '7, and '9" >
>                               -< oh good grief >-
>
>    Get back to the point, Jim, and off your private agenda.

    His response  was  to the point. In the last century men routinely
    got custody of children. For the first 70 years of this century it
    was  almost  impossible  for a man to get custody of children in a
    divorce.  Neither was fair. We are now approaching the point where
    "the  fitter  parent" gets custody. It may be fairer, but it leads
    to  long custody battles which aren't good for the children. There
    is still a presumption in many courts that a woman is inherently a
    better parent than a man, though this is getting weaker.

>    It is sad that only women can bear children, but it is a constraint.
>    You're going to have to get used to the fact that children are a
>    product of two people, and are never just "his".

    It is  also  true  that  children are a product of two people, and
    should  never  by  "just  hers".  It  is now the case that a woman
    (outside  of  a  marriage)  has  the  choice of whether to have an
    abortion,  keep  the  child, or put him up for abortion, while the
    man  has  no  say  in  the decision, he must pay for whichever the
    woman  chooses,  and  if  she  keeps  the  child  may not even get
    visitation  rights  if  they  weren't married. In this case, woman
    seem  to  have all the power about children. The man must pay even
    if  the  woman  lied  to  him  about using contraception (This was
    decided  in  a case involving Serpico (the cop the movie was based
    on)  where  a  woman told him she was on the pill when she wasn't.
    The court ruled that the child shouldn't suffer because the mother
    lied.)


FLAME ON

    Give the guy some peace. Jim (from his notes) is suffering because
    he  can't  see  his  children.  Your  lambasting him when he makes
    perfectly reasonable statements strikes me as cruel. While this is
    womannotes,  remember  that  woman ask for a safe place to discuss
    issues  here,  and  if  men are going to participate, they, by the
    same  logic,  should  be entitled to at least a little respect for
    their feelings.

--David

	RE: .7

>    It is  also  true  that  children are a product of two people, and
>    should  never  by  "just  hers".  It  is now the case that a woman
>    (outside  of  a  marriage)  has  the  choice of whether to have an
>    abortion,  keep  the  child, or put him up for abortion, while the

	The woman should have the final decision about whether to
	have an abortion, keep the child or put it up for adoption, 
	especially outside of a marriage.  It is her body that has
	to go through the changes and take the risks involved.

>    man  has  no  say  in  the decision, he must pay for whichever the
>    woman  chooses,  and  if  she  keeps  the  child  may not even get
>    visitation  rights  if  they  weren't married. In this case, woman
>    seem  to  have all the power about children. The man must pay even
>    if  the  woman  lied  to  him  about using contraception (This was
>    decided  in  a case involving Serpico (the cop the movie was based
>    on)  where  a  woman told him she was on the pill when she wasn't.
>    The court ruled that the child shouldn't suffer because the mother
>    lied.)


        I really find it hard to believe that men *must* pay for abortion,
        adoption, etc.  I imagine that only time men are forced to pay
        anything (outside of marriage/divorce situations) is in cases of
        paternity suits.  And in that case they do have some input into the
        decisions that are made.  I know a woman who refused to accept any
        financial help from the father so that he would not have any legal
        rights to the child. 

	Perhaps this is what marriage is for, so that the father can
	have rights where children are involved.  It's a form of
	contract.  It's sad that some fathers cannot have visitation
	rights (legally) with children born outside of marriage.  On
	the other hand, there was no agreement between the couple
	about any children.  In that case I think rights should lean
	towards the mother.

	...Karen

    Re .-1:
    >I imagine that only time men are forced to pay anything (outside of
    >marriage/divorce situations) is in cases of paternity suits. 
    
    I think that's the point.  While I believe that it should ultimately be
    the woman's decision on whether to have the baby or not (it IS her
    body), still, the man has to pay for her decision, esp. if her decision
    is to have and keep the baby.  If she keeps the baby, he can be sued
    for support of the child, and perhaps not even get the chance to visit
    the child.  If she chooses to give the child up for adoption he has
    nothing to say.  Wouldn't it be fairer if the mother chose to give the
    child up for adoption, that the father had first dibs on adopting the
    child, assuming there was no good reason why he shouldn't have custody
    of a child (i.e., history of being an abuser)?  And if he does choose
    to raise the child, shouldn't the mother have to help support her
    child?  After all, it did require 2 people to make the baby, so
    2 people should share the privileges and responsibilities it brings.
    
    I think the major point here is that the mother has *all* of the
    choices in the matter.  First she can choose to use or not use birth
    control - with or without the man's knowledge.  She can walk away from
    the pregnancy or child with no further obligation if she chooses to
    abort or adopt. The man has no options.  While some of this is inherent
    in women's unique ability to become mothers, some things could be made
    more fair. 
    
    Elizabeth

    Elizabeth,
    
    Just a small nit:
    
    > First she can choose to use or not use birth
    > control - with or without the man's knowledge.
    
    Men may also choose to use birth control.  Condoms.  And if you
    don't know a woman well enough to be ABSOLUTELY sure that she is
    or is not using another method of birth control, then you don't
    know her well enough to have sex without a condom, for both preventing
    unwanted pregnancies and for preventing the spread of sexually
    transmitted diseases!  PLEASE!  This is important!  They're not
    100% effective in either prevention of pregnancy or disease, but
    it's the best chance you've got.  Make it count.
    
    Rita
    

    Elizabeth:  
    
    I like the idea of giving the father the first rights to his child
    if the mother wishes to give it up for adoption -- assuming, as
    you do, that he is also otherwise qualified.  This seems like
    a sane and reasonable way to balance the rights of both parents.
  
    I wish there were an equally reasonable solution to the dilemma of a
    woman who does not wish to bear a child and the man who dearly wants
    the same child.  I remember the heartache my brother went through when
    his girlfriend chose to abort their child -- but he was only 16, and
    she was 15, and really, none of the other choices was reasonable in
    their situation.  Still, he grieved for months, and I think he treasures
    his own children more now for having gone through that experience.
    
    It's a mistake to think that the father of an aborted child is not
    part of the abortion statistics.  
    
    Sigh.  The world can be a cruel and difficult place.
    
    --bonnie
    

    I too think that giving the father first rights to adopt (assuming,
    etc) would be the best and most humane solution, and that if he
    takes up on that, then the mother should be obligated to contribute
    to the child's support to the same relative extent that the father
    would be required were the situation reversed.
    
    						=maggie

    Maggie, I like what you said in theory because it sounds fair. 
    In practice, though, I think many women would choose abortion over
    carrying the child and then being financially liable for a child
    they were not raising.  
    
    Many women who are choosing abortion are doing so at least partly for
    financial reasons.  Some would love to have a child if they were not a)
    in school 2) just starting out on a career 3) supporting other children
    on a shoestring. 
    
    No doubt some men who are poor feel the same way financially.
    
    But I think that a policy such as you propose would make most women
    feel safer choosing abortion.
    
    Holly

    "Many women would choose abortion over carrying the child and then
    being financially liable for a child they were not raising."
    
    Holly, I have no doubt this is true.  I don't know that it's an
    adequate reason to say we shouldn't let the father have, to borrow
    a legal term, the right of first refusal.
    
    It also illustrates the attitude that some of the men have been
    complaining about -- that the woman can decide *not* to abort the
    child, then expect the *father* to be at least partially liable
    for support, even if *he* wanted the baby to be aborted.  The reverse
    is not true.
    
    I'm beginning to think that there's something wrong with the whole
    way we raise children in this society, something that's much bigger
    than forcing a person to help raise, if only monetarily, a child
    that he or she helped bring into the world.  If things were right,
    why would we have to *force* parents to provide their child's minimal
    needs?
    
    This whole topic makes my heart hurt.  How can we treat helpless
    children this way?
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    RE: .14
    
    "..forcing parents to supply children's needs"  
    Indeed.
    
    Not only with unmarried or divorced parents. There are a *lot* of
    parents living together with their children who <do something>
    until the kid(s) is 18 or 21, which (so far as *I* can see)
    cannot be described as "raising".
    
    And how can you force *anybody* to do it?
    
    Dawn
    

    Re .15
    
    It does seem a little strange that we only make specific demands
    on parents that are unmarried or divorced - parents who live together
    with their children can do almost anything with little threat of
    any consequences.
    
    As someone has already said, there is clearly something wrong with
    the way we raise children in this society, but I can't think of
    anything better.
    
    Elizabeth