NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/men/23198

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-24 | 2.7 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:23198 alt.abortion.inequity:6706 alt.feminism:7593
Path: sparky!uunet!seismo!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!ddsw1!karl
From: [e-mail] (Karl Denninger)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Privacy -- and responsibility
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:13:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL
Lines: 48

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>[e-mail] (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>
>>>Not so.  According to The Economist (Christmas issue, 1992) usually the
>>>woman's standard of living drops after divorce.  Often that of the man
>>>rises.
>
>>So what?  The salient question is this:
>
>>    Did her standard of living <rise> when she got married?  If so, then
>>    she has <returned> to her former standard of living, and has not
>>    been screwed in any way.
>
>No, actually the salient question would be: how does her post-divorce
>standard of living compare to (1) what her standard of living would
>be in the present if she had never married; and (2) what her standard
>of living would be in the present if she had stayed married.

Not true.  She made the decision to marry OF HER OWN FREE WILL.  The other
party is not responsible for what she could have had as a career had she
chosen to continue it (note that marriage does NOT mean you must stop
working if you're a woman, only that it is convenient to do so if you can
sap off a man instead).  In fact, it could be argued that the man is owed
instead if the woman decided at marriage not to work -- the man was deprived
of some substantial portion of his funds as a result (he had to support
her)

Neither is it relavent what her standard of living would be if she had
stayed married if the majority of the support during the marriage came
from the man.  Again, the choice to not work and continue her carrer was
<hers>.

>Unfortunately, as with most "what-if"s, the answers to this question
>is impossible to ascertain.        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So therefore you advocate "for the good of the woman" that her standard of
living be maintained at the pre-divorce state.

Are least you are consistent.  Advocating that women get the best deal
regardless of what that does to men, and regardless of whether you have any
solid evidence that it is a fair assessment to make.

--
Karl Denninger ([e-mail], <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [[phone]]