Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Marriage Agreements: One Reader's Viewpoint

“If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right.” — Amos v. Mosley

Here are the comments from one of our readers that present a different point of view toward the marriage agreement:

“If you work for an employer who has you to do a job that requires a skill set in very low demand, then you do not have the right to a salary after the employer fires you or lays you off. You get six months to a year's unemployment and that's it. The understanding between you and the employer is that you are being paid to do a job that will not advance your career, will not improve your skill set, will not give you seniority and certainly will not provide for you if the employer cuts the relationship. This is the risk the employee assumes when taking that type of job. The employee can decide to stay or find a better arrangement.

And so it is with marriage. If you decide that staying at home is best, then your decision to do so is a risk you assume, including losing out on other possible career moves. If your spouse insists that you stay and home, you are free to find a better arrangement, or assume the risk that comes with staying at home.

There is an argument that basically says that women (and this argument is always applied to women no matter how gender neutral the law is) are never responsible for themselves or accountable for their actions. Women will never be equal to men as long as this attitude of irresponsibility and unaccountability prevails.

When the women's movement first started and National Organization of Women (NOW) was in it infancy, the group attempted to have alimony laws abolished. Since the early 70's NOW has abandoned that position. But I find it interesting that they admitted early in their quest for equality that women would not be equal to men unless they were willing to assume the same risks as men.

As for women being discriminated at work, I say that's complete hogwash. I work on Wall Street in the computer side of the business. I have been in positions that required hiring large number of people many times over the past 25 years. Each and every time I ask recruiters for resumes I get an abundance of quality resumes - all men. In 25 years I have seen the resumes of only 3 women, two of which I hired. Again, currently, for whatever reason, women are unwilling to do the same things and assume the same risks as men.

And as for the nonsense of women not being in the top positions, again that's hogwash. After my divorce I had the pleasure of dating a woman who owned her own business, had taken it public and decided to retire, all within five years. She had a net worth of about $30 million. This woman was willing to do what was necessary and willing to take the same risks that many men take. And the rewards were plentiful for her. Her take on the state of women is the same as mine. Most women are unwilling to take on the same risks as men. In fact, when she was running her business, she was the only woman on board of directors and the only woman in the management team. She did all the hiring. I think that says enough.

* The Pro Se Way
* Advanced Trial Handbook: Helpful "Trial Tips" to Hone Your Litigation Skills

* Weak women, bad men and the Bill of Rights
* Divorce secrecy vote is imminent Opponents claim bill is designed to help billionaire

Be sure to visit this site: