Breadwinner

Lets say there is a case where a mother works and the father doesn’t work. The father gave up his profession so that he can take care of the children, and the mother works all day to support the family. As the kids grow up and leave home the mother finds that the father doesn’t do much of anything and justs spends “their” money and doesn’t bring any income in. The mother finds this irritating and sees that the behavior continues after she had continuously told him to get a job. The mother wants to divorce him, but she is afraid that she will have to pay him money that he does not deserve. She has a catch 22 situation, on one hand, if she doesn’t divorce him she still has to pay for everything and put up with his disrespect. On the other hand, if she divorces him, she will have to pay for other family expenses and plus alimony. She had thought that she would support the family while he took care of the kids and after the kids were gone, that he would get a job and contribute to help pay for college, household necessities, and retirement. She wants to divorce him, but is it fair that she has to pay him money for doing nothing? He doesn’t do anything all day long, and if the mother divorces him, he will continue to get her money. What should she do? Government statistics show that one third of the primary incomes of families comes from women now a days.
will the judge be biased, will he think that since the man is usually the breadwinner, the primary moneymaker in the family, that he is entitled to less money as if the situation was reversed and it was the wife staying at home while the husband worked? In this case, the husband should be treated as if he had a very hard job working 24 hours day with the children. I think the law should acknowledge that this husband has worked at a difficult job and has contributed to the family. Had he not done this job they would have to pay for a nanny or a housekeeper. His contribution to the family is financially valuable; he should be paid a salary (although there is no one to make this payment). If they do move forward with the divorce is it fair that the judge should simply split their savings and not give the husband any alimony while he tries to train for a job outside the home. Its now time to try and put aside our expectations as to who is the breadwinner and who should stay home with the children, and we should also try to consider the contribution of the stay at home parent to be a financial contribution equal to the breadwinner.

Standing Up For What Is Right – Is it always the best way to handle something?

Is it always good to stand up to tell the truth? Should you always have the courage to stand up and do the right thing? Is standing up for oneself the best way to handle a situation? In most cases, these questions don’t need to be answered; the obvious answer is always that you should do what you believe and stand up for yourself. In fact, it sometimes is imperative that one does that. For example, someone’s life could depend on your courage to tell the truth, as it did in the Twelve Angry Men. I have always learned that telling the truth is always the preferred decision if you’re a very moral person who believes in justice. Is this the way we should handle all situations? Is it ever ok to not be truthful to yourself?
Its one thing to stand up for what you believe in, but it is another thing to be smart enough to stand up for what you believe in. In other words, if you are going to be assertive with other people, it is important that you have “quick” thinking. Part of standing up for yourself is having the ability to stand by your statement. Dont let your weakness show throughout your time with them. This is the reason juror number eight was so successful. He was able to stay “above the game” to prove his point.
In this play a boy’s life was solely on the shoulders of twelve jurors. In the jury room eleven men voted guilty, but one man, juror number eight, voted not guilty. Being truthful to himself had given him the courage to stand up against eleven angry men for the truth and in the end it saved an innocent young man’s life.
If juror number eight had not told the truth a young man’s life would have been gone. The other eleven jurors had voted not guilty solely on the idea that they wanted to get out of there “quicker.” Three and ten men were very intimidating people, in the play they were stuck on the idea of guilty, they weren’t very logical thinkers. All they wanted to believe was that a kid from the slums is definitely a killer. It is never good to think like that, and it was relieving that people like juror number eight were able to set these guys straight.
In conclusion, there are many reasons to stand up and tell the truth. Respect is given to people who are seen to be strong and courageous. Juror number eight had these traits and acted in this manner and was able to receive the respect of the other jurors. So the answer is yes, standing up for what is right is always the way to go. (and I don't mean die)
I hope you enjoyed this wonderful essay, and I would like to add a few things. First if you read this essay you should be convinced that the truth is the way to go. Finally, one man can make a difference if he has courage.