Family

Is This The End of Alimony As We Know It?

by  •  • 0 Comments

AP_Time_Shot1_089.JPGFor probably as long as it has existed, alimony has been a man vs. woman thing. Men get ordered to pay, women get alimony and men get bitter. But as women have become more economically powerful, the game has changed.

In 2012, a new law came into effect in Massachusetts that abolished permanent alimony and set up a formula for future payments. Some men there had been paying for decades to women to whom they’d only been married very briefly.  While Massachusetts is the front runner, several states, especially Florida, are rethinking the way alimony is awarded.

Should men still have to pay alimony when women can now be educated and make (almost) as much as men? What about women who live with another guy but still take alimony? What do women who pay alimony think? And if we abolish alimony, how do older women without job skills get by?

In this week’s TIME, we look at the wave of alimony reform sweeping across the U.S. and the surprising people who are helping to effect that change: women.  To do this, we had to interview a lot of divorced couples. As you can imagine, many of them were a little taken aback to find themselves talking to the nation’s preeminent newsweekly about their ex-spouses.

 

Permanent alimony? Still? In this day and age?
Here is a great comment from the article that explains EVERYTHING to me:

In the face of the obvious injustices around alimony, regardless of who pays, the Colorado Legislature passed, and the Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, just signed on May 10, a bill to force people divorcing in Colorado to pay the highest amounts of alimony for the longest periods of time in the history of mankind. Try this on: Guaranteed alimony in any marriage of 3 years or longer, guaranteed LIFETIME alimony in any marriage over 20 years, alimony amounts that are the highest on the planet, calculated using a formula that can award up to 40% of the payer’s GROSS income (not net income, GROSS income!), overtime income of the payer can be considered when plugging into the formula, mandatory life insurance payable to the recipient of alimony, but paid for by the alimony payer, all divorces are absolutely no fault with marital conduct explicitly prohibited from being considered when alimony is awarded, punitive enforcement that throws indigent alimony payers in jail even if they are provably broke, and on and on and on.

Yes, these statutes apply to civil unions, also.

The number of women paying alimony in Colorado is expected to skyrocket. Since alimony is now a guaranteed formula, judges can’t arbitrarily deny alimony to men any longer. Since women are the higher earners in over 30% of marriages now, we should expect 30 % of alimony payments to be made by women in Colorado going forward. Fair is fair, right?

This law will be repealed as soon as a few single moms or lesbians with no kids are ordered to pay onerous alimony payments to their cheating ex-spouses. Somehow the ultra left-wing Colorado state government missed the memo that women are going to be the most negatively impacted by this bill.

This is 2013, not 1953. There is NO WAY a ballot initiative with these terms would pass if put before voters.

Family

Single Fathers Have Slimmer Kids?

by  •  • 0 Comments

Every day I discover more information proving that the choice of single motherhood is a really bad and incredibly selfish idea. I’m going to keep giving out information to hopefully change a few minds. I can only do but so much but, it makes perfect sense to raise children with their biological mother and father in the same home. If that cannot happen, the next best option is to have two homes with as much contact with both the mother and father as possible.

Here is a very interesting report that was just released:

ParentsKissBaby_052213-617x416

Researchers from Rice University in Houston have found that children living in homes with both parents are less likely to become obese than their peers who live with divorced or separated parents.

Following a 12-year study, the researchers say the data suggests children who grow up in a “traditional” home with married parents are at a lower risk of becoming obese. Interestingly, however, their data also suggests that children living with a single father ran an even lower risk of becoming obese.

The study, led by Rachel Kimbro, associate professor of sociology at Rice and director of Rice’s University’s Kinder Institute Urban Health Program, and co-author Jennifer Augustine, also found that even married stepparents were beneficial in reducing the likelihood of children becoming obese.

Given the obesity epidemic in America, Kimbro says she was surprised that so little research had been done to investigate the role played by the family in a child’s weight issues. Augustine and Kimbro’s study is now available in the latest edition of the Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk.

Kimbro and her colleagues began collecting data for this study in 2001, conducting in-home interviews with primary caregivers when their children were nine months old. The researchers then gathered subsequent data when the children were two years old, when they entered preschool, and when they were in kindergarten. Kimbro and crew included a diverse group of families in their study, including families from various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The data concluded that children who lived with married parents in what they called a “traditional” two-parent household had a 17 percent chance of becoming obese. The only group they studied that had a lower percentage of becoming obese were children raised by single fathers or married stepparents.

With 31 percent obesity rate, children who lived with cohabitating, non-married parents were almost twice as likely to become obese as those living with married parents. Children living with an adult relative had a 29 percent obesity rate according to this study, while cohabitating stepparents led to a 23 percent obesity rate. The researchers say they controlled for other factors which have previously been found to lead to childhood obesity, including activity, diet and socioeconomic status.

In a statement, Kimbro suggested why children raised by single fathers were even less likely to become obese than those raised in a home with two married parents.

“Previous research has shown that single-father households tend to have more socio-economic resources than single-mother households,” said Kimbro. “And since socioeconomic status is the single greatest predictor of health, it serves to explain why children in single-father households may be less likely to be obese.”

 

read more here: http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1112854318/child-obesity-lower-for-married-parents-052213/

Fatherhood, Society

Problems with being a male

by  •  • 0 Comments

I saw this on a Tumblr page and had to re-blog:

Problems with being a male:

1) Having emotions is seen as weakness
2) Admitting weakness is seen as an even greater weakness
3) Being called a sexual deviant or a pervert because you were expressing your sexuality
4) A girl beating you in any physical competition makes you inferior
5) Being superficial makes you a pig but a woman being superficial is fine
6) Makeup isn’t even an option
7) Not living up to the insanely unrealistic ideal of manhood automatically makes you gay
8) Being gay is seen as weak
9) You can’t control the size of your “manhood”
10) You can’t report sexual assaults because being a male victim is worse than being the rapist
11) No male specific support groups or movements
12) Unequal parental rights
13) Extreme feminists treating you less than human
14) Women can blame all men or say they are all the same but if a man blames women they’re sexist pigs
15) People dismissing your problems automatically because the universe is obviously rigged in your favour in every scenario imaginable
16) No one will read this past the title

Found on this tumblr page:
http://acruelultimatum.tumblr.com/

Family

Danielle Crittenden Says Feminists Have A Lot To Answer For

by  •  • 0 Comments

If I repeat the same words you hear from the woman in the video below, I’m called a sexist. If a she says it she is a…..?

Men and women are not the same. We think differently, we behave differently, we want different things in life, our sex drives are different, what we want from our work is different, what we might want out of life is different….I could go on and on. The idea that we are equal is misleading and is a sham. I cringe every time I read the word ‘equality’ in discussions about men and women. We will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be the same. NEVER!

Do I think there should be equal access to opportunity in our country? Of course! Do I feel there should be equal outcome? Absolutely NOT!

I suggest you check out Danielle Crittenden’s book “What Our Mother’s Didn’t Tell Us,” or better yet, read THIS BLOG POST for a summary.

Yes, it will enrage radical feminists and those who are sadly hanging on to an idea that was never true. It just might wake up a few of those who don’t know why so many of their friends are not married yet, can’t find a mate, think all men are dogs, are unhappy with their career and life choices, hate dating, or all of the above.

Men and women complement one another. We need each other to get through this life. I am a huge advocate for fatherhood and cannot stand to see so many men walking away from their children, although it is more likely that they were forced out by our horrible domestic relations laws and family courts…read THIS BLOG POST, or THIS ONE and you might understand why.

I also don’t like when I hear so many people say they don’t need a man. I don’t think you are being honest with yourself. Especially if you are a heterosexual. It’s even worse when these same people say those they don’t need a man to raise their children? Hmmm. Ok, you might not need your children’s father, but your children certainly do.

Listen to her closely and pay attention. She might make you think differently about the past 50 years.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU1isJvsTCw]

Fatherhood

Oxytocin

by  •  • 0 Comments

Interesting stuff…if you don’t already know:

Oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that acts as a hormone. Often considered a major player in the regulation of trust and morality, its study is revealing fascinating information about human behavior and relationships. Oxytocin is released in the body when we feel safe and connected and tells the brain, “Everything is all right.” Dr. Paul Zak has determined that the human brain naturally produces oxytocin during breast-feeding, orgasm, hugs, snuggling, holding hands, partner dance, massage, bodywork, and prayer.

Humans have evolved as hyper-social creatures. Oxytocin helps us navigate our world of complex social relationships by rewarding positive social behavior with feelings of contentment and relaxation. As discovered by Zak and Theodoridou, oxytocin thus motivates a variety of pro-social behaviors such as generosity, compassion, and forgiveness. In other words, its presence in the brain helps us to trust and bond with strangers.

Oxytocin and Trust

This finding is related to another study orchestrated by Zak, in which he found that oxytocin increases a person’s likelihood to trust strangers and to give them money. In this study, participants were asked to give away a portion of $10 they had been given by researchers. The researchers found that participants who had been dosed with oxytocin were 80% more generous than control group participants. Participants in the oxytocin condition were more trusting of the strangers they encountered.

Oxytocin and Relationships

Ditzen and colleagues designed a study using couples and found that those treated with synthetic oxytocin had far lower stress levels. Participating couples were asked to discuss a topic that was stressful and had consistently triggered conflict between them in the past. Then, researchers measured the presence of stress hormones within their bodies. They found that oxytocin improved positive communication between couples and was also related to a decrease in the presence of cortisol, a hormone associated with stress and with our flight-or-fight reflex. According to Grewen, partners with higher naturally occurring oxytocin rates also score higher on measures of partner support.

Learning about oxytocin has given me insight into my interactions with other people. One of my friends often jokes about my poor taste in men. When we are out together and I point out someone mildly attractive or “cute,” she always disagrees and voices how unappealing he is to her. We also have very different personalities. Where I am very affectionate with people I am close to, she is more reserved. Research by Theodoridou and colleagues showed that participants who were given synthetic oxytocin were more likely to perceive strangers as attractive and trustworthy when compared to control participants not dosed with oxytocin. I often wonder if the differences in personality and dating preferences between us may be governed by differences in the levels of oxytocin pumping through our bodies.

Read more here: http://positivepsychologynews.com/news/emiliya-zhivotovskaya/2012032321636

by Emiliya Zhivotovskaya, MAPP ’07, is the founder of Flourish, an organization dedicated to using research based tools to enable individuals and organizations to flourish. Emiliya fuses the best of Eastern philosophy with Western science to provide people with holistic tools to increase their happiness, well-being, and sense of flourishing

Divorce

Does Modern Matrimonial Law Represent “The Best Interests Of The Children?”

by  •  • 0 Comments

I found this on a site recently and had to re-post. A great commentary on the reality we live in.

Why do we allow 1960’s laws to exist in 2013?

header-child01

Paternity Law. Does One Size Fit the Best Interest of Children?

Posted by: Jason Brown on the Star Tribune – http://www.startribune.com/local/yourvoices/204388701.html

Jason Brown is the founding and managing attorney with Brown Family Law, a Twin Cities divorce and family law firm with offices in Minneapolis and Champlin. His Minnesota Divorce and Family Law Blog has been recognized as a “Top 25” by the Minnesota State Bar Association. Follow Jason on Twitter @brownfamilylaw.

We’re less married than we’ve ever been. Yet, more unwed couples live together than ever before. More children born out of wedlock. Minnesota’s paternity laws are rather traditional, in what is evolving into a less traditional society. Has the law kept pace with reality?

The answer, of course, is “no.” Not because the law has targeted paternity in isolation. But, rather, because the law inherently reacts to the world around it. As norms change, so does the law. Is it time to tweak the law concerning unwed fathers?

As a family law attorney, I often see one of two types of unwed fathers in my work.

The first involves the stereotypical unwed father – you know, the one who cheated and wants nothing to do with their new son or daughter. This seems to be the fellow that the paternity statutes are geared toward…denying the father any right to see the child in the absence of a court order.

Naturally, there are legitimate concerns addressed by the present law.

What if this father showed up four years after the child was born, demanding to take the child for his weekend parenting time? How might that impact the child? The law seems to protect the child in this instance. Certainly, the court can deal with father in a manner that slowly facilitates a parent/child relationship, assuming paternity is established.

The second situation involves the opposite – someone in a committed relationship with the child’s mother, even living together, as a family, following the birth of the child.

Let’s suppose that this father works days, and mother works nights. When dad works, mom watches the baby. When mom works, dad watches the baby. Weekends are special family time together. This couple signed a Recognition of Parentage at the hospital, without any dispute about dad being “dad.” The child is, in fact, bonded to both parents and recognizes both parents as significant caregivers.

Suppose mom and dad reach a rocky point a year after the child is born, and split up. Mom is, by default, afforded sole legal and physical custody of the child. Dad is not entitled to anything. In fact mom can (and often does) pull the plug on dad’s parenting time, forcing him into court.

The trouble is that dad may not (and often does not) get a hearing date for three or four months.

Is the law protecting the child in this scenario? Or, does the law actually harm the child by depriving the child of time with a significant caregiver? Experts agree that there is a small window of opportunity for critical bonding between an infant and parent.

Forget the father. The question really isn’t geared toward the “father’s rights” crowd.

The issue is whether the present law really serves the best interest of the child in the second scenario?

Now that I’ve offended every mother and father in the Twin Cities, I am interested in your perspective.