Divorce, custody, and Pepsi-Cola

[snopes]

Comment: Guess you can add this to your list, it can't be true?

Divorce, custody, and Pepsi Cola:

A man and his wife were getting a divorce at a local court, but the
custody of their children posed a problem. The mother jumped to her feet
and protested to the judge that since she had brought the children into
this
world, she should retain custody of them. The man also wanted custody of
his children, so the judge asked for his side of the story.

After a long moment of silence, the man rose from his chair and replied:
"Judge, when I put a dollar into a vending machine and a Pepsi comes out,
does the Pepsi belong to me or to the machine?"

Don't laugh, he won!

[snopes]

After a long moment of silence, the man rose from his chair and replied:
"Judge, when I put a dollar into a vending machine and a Pepsi comes out,
does the Pepsi belong to me or to the machine?"

The judge pondered the question and then asked, "It depends -- did you NFBSK the machine first?"

- snopes

[Lainie]

The judge awarded custody to the mother because the father is a NFBSK-wit who thinks of his children as property.

[Eddylizard]

I seem to recall reading this years ago, but told as a joke.

[Flyer22]

Originally Posted by Lainie

The judge awarded custody to the mother because the father is a NFBSK-wit who thinks of his children as property.

To go off on a tangent, there's a frighteningly large number of people who on some level think of children as property. For the most part, however, it's not parents--it's lawmakers, who think that they are justified in passing intrusive and unconstitutional laws such as helmet and seatbelt laws in order to protect the "property" of the state--i.e., the children.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Flyer22

To go off on a tangent, there's a frighteningly large number of people who on some level think of children as property. For the most part, however, it's not parents--it's lawmakers, who think that they are justified in passing intrusive and unconstitutional laws such as helmet and seatbelt laws in order to protect the "property" of the state--i.e., the children.

I wasn't aware that helmet and seatbelt laws existed solely to protect children.

[Nonny Mouse]

Originally Posted by Flyer22

To go off on a tangent, there's a frighteningly large number of people who on some level think of children as property. For the most part, however, it's not parents--it's lawmakers, who think that they are justified in passing intrusive and unconstitutional laws such as helmet and seatbelt laws in order to protect the "property" of the state--i.e., the children.

Caring enough about children to want them kept safe is not only not the same thing as considering them property, it's practically the opposite!

Nonny

[Syllavus]

So if my husband gives me a dollar he might get a baby to pop out of me? That's not what they taught me in Health class...

If it only costs a dollar where he lives, I want to know where that is.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by Lainie

The judge awarded custody to the mother because the father is a NFBSK-wit who thinks of his children as property.

Seems to me the mother is thinking of them as property, also. Else why why the "I made them, I should get them" remark (as if the father contributed nothing to the process.)

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by geminilee

Seems to me the mother is thinking of them as property, also. Else why why the "I made them, I should get them" remark (as if the father contributed nothing to the process.)

I don't think that suggests property necessarily (could just be one of those "connection" arguments), and it certainly doesn't suggest that they are cheap, disposable, unhealthy, slightly addictive consumables.

[Beachlife!]

Originally Posted by geminilee

Seems to me the mother is thinking of them as property, also. Else why why the "I made them, I should get them" remark (as if the father contributed nothing to the process.)

Yep, excatly. I think both parents are looking at it from a concept of who has the greatest right to their 'property'. The mother's argument is exactly along the lines of the breadwinner in a marraige claiming that since they earned the money they should keep it.

Neither parent made mention of what was best for the kids as human beings with wants and needs.

[Christie]

A man and his wife ..

I absolutely loathe this term. This actually kinda dates this little anecdote for me even more than the $1.00 for a pepsi.

[Troodon]

Originally Posted by Christie

I absolutely loathe this term. This actually kinda dates this little anecdote for me even more than the $1.00 for a pepsi.

What's wrong with the term?

[Cervus]

Originally Posted by Troodon

What's wrong with the term?

Not to speak for Chloe, but the phrase "man and wife" relegates the woman's status to that of her husband's property. She is no longer a woman, she is a wife. As in, "I now pronounce you man and wife." The man's status, like his title of "Mr.", never changes regardless of marital status. But when a woman marries, she ceases to be an individual person and becomes Mrs. So-and-So.

No minister ever pronounces a couple "Woman and husband".

[Artemis]

But it didn't say "man and wife." It said "a man and his wife." Saying "my husband" or "my wife" doesn't necessarily mean someone is your property. How else would they have said it? Two married people? A man and his equal partner? A man and woman who happened to be married to him?

[Simply Madeline]

Originally Posted by Cervus

Not to speak for Chloe, but the phrase "man and wife" relegates the woman's status to that of her husband's property. She is no longer a woman, she is a wife. As in, "I now pronounce you man and wife." The man's status, like his title of "Mr.", never changes regardless of marital status. But when a woman marries, she ceases to be an individual person and becomes Mrs. So-and-So.

No minister ever pronounces a couple "Woman and husband".

I agree. But I don't know why you're dragging Chloe into this...

[Simply Madeline]

Originally Posted by Artemis

But it didn't say "man and wife." It said "a man and his wife." Saying "my husband" or "my wife" doesn't necessarily mean someone is your property. How else would they have said it? Two married people? A man and his equal partner? A man and woman who happened to be married to him?

The sentence is "A man and his wife are getting a divorce at a local court...". Do you honestly think that if it were changed to "A man and a woman are getting a divorce..." that it would then be unclear that they were married?

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Simply Madeline

The sentence is "A man and his wife are getting a divorce at a local court...". Do you honestly think that if it were changed to "A man and a woman are getting a divorce..." that it would then be unclear that they were married?

That makes sense. But I just don't see why saying a man and his wife is evocative of sexism. There are many other situations where it would make sense. "A man and his wife walk into a bar..." What, we're supposed to say, "Two married people walk..."? It just seems needlessly nitpicky.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Simply Madeline

I agree. But I don't know why you're dragging Chloe into this...

She must have known it would just be a matter of time.