Charles Bruce and debtors prison

[Warren DeMontague]

8. You and I agree on much, but I think we part ways on a couple parts too.

What it does is prevent a situation where a parent wants to remain tangibly involved in their child's life and cannot because the judge feels empowered to pick, choose and punish.

I think that parents who want to be part of their kids' lives should be able to, as much as is logistically feasible and barring any obvious examples of not being fit for the job.

Breadwinning isn't in our genes

True dat. But it may be in some of our resumes, and not so much in others. Those are facts, too. Parenting couples are teams but not every member of every team is suited exactly the same for every role. The best teams have members who are strong in different areas. It's not reasonable to expect that a stay at home parent who has spent a decade changing diapers suddenly be the one to go out and land the 70K a year job or whatever.

When that family dissolves, the respective partners shouldn't be forced into the preexisting roles.

Again, that depends. Like I said, if one partner has been the one nurturing the career and money making opportunities while the other has been fielding the considerable home duties, it's not reasonable to expect that those roles are going to suddenly reverse. Not in our current job reality.

Not every breadwinner wants that role and certainly would not choose it except as an expression of love for the other partner. Absent that love, it's slavery.

Here's where we diverge, I think. Again, when you make the commitment to not just get married but have children, you are committing to something above and beyond the mere personal gratification or fulfillment that a loving family relationship entails. You are becoming responsible for someone else's life. Parenthood, as Louis CK says, is the only job you can't quit- at least, it should be. If you don't want to be a "slave", don't have kids.