# Men's Roles, Marriage and Today's Society



## JCD

Here is a video I saw posted. Longish and uses swear words, but otherwise work friendly.

Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?

She uses some loaded words and some non sequiters, but I think she has A piece of the truth.

Yes, men also have unreasonable expectations in their mates.

However, parts of this resonated with me and I am wondering if other *men* feel the same way?


----------



## treyvion

JCD said:


> Here is a video I saw posted. Longish and uses swear words, but otherwise work friendly.
> 
> Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?
> 
> On TAM men have reasonable expectations of their partners.
> 
> She uses some loaded words and some non sequiters, but I think she has A piece of the truth.
> 
> Yes, men also have unreasonable expectations in their mates.
> 
> However, parts of this resonated with me and I am wondering if other *men* feel the same way?


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JCD

Asking everyone to watch a half hour vid is probably a lot to ask.

A quick summary is this:

Men are not stepping up to the plate for marriage for many reasons.

One: That it is a fiscal sucker bet if things go south...and 70% of divorces are started by women, not by abuse or infidelity, but because of a lack of happiness. So you can have your kids ripped from you, shoved out of your house, have half your stuff taken and have your role as a man destroyed (more on that later) by a woman who is going through depression or entitlement issues.

Two: Male roles are not natural. Womens' are. Every woman is a mother or potential mother so they always have a 'purpose'. Men need to create their own purposes and have as defender, breadwinner, builder and father. Recent changes in society in the workforce (making work much less 'male' places), the denigration of the military, more women outstripping men in earning and the arbitrary and anti male divorce laws all combine to degrade those roles. So men see far less 'return' on their investment in work and home life.

Three: Cultural depicitions and respect for men and maleness has diminished precipitously.

So why would men marry in this climate?


----------



## deejov

I did try to listen to it. Really.

I agree with what you you've noted above.
I've always thought that more traditional male\female roles within a marriage are still necessary... in some cases, not all. It works better with natural female instincts. It's what I would want.


Yes, female roles have changed. It has hurt respect for men, they have a less clear place in the world.

One point that is not covered.
Take those female instincts.... look for a mate that will provide, protect, especially if one has children. 

Men now do make different choices, more so then generations ago. They can simply choose to walk away, not provide, protect, even if there are children. That is more prevalent than it was years ago. Why?

Years ago, it was called feminism. Today, it's more of a requirement for a woman to be self sufficient. Instincts. We now teach our daughters to be financially independent, never rely on a man. Because the rules have changed. But being the mother hasn't changed. Provide, protect. By yourself if you have to. 

The other points you note about why marry when your kids, half your stuff can be taken from you? Same reason. Because women have proven that they CAN be mom and dad. Because they HAD to. A generation of men started the deadbeat dad syndrome.

This opened the door for the divorce settlements. Somebody had to look after the kids. It was necessary for a generation or so. Until women caught up to men a bit more with the wages.

Now... it's just silliness and revenge. 

But putting all that aside, I do believe men are healthier, happier, and live longer when they are in a fulfulling relationship. And I believe marriage is that ultimate relationship.


----------



## Goldmember357

I would agree with all of this EXCEPT the reasons for divorce. Most divorces are because of infidelity or abuse of some sort, but it gets blamed on something else. Also in my opinion its quite easy to see when a relationship is headed for divorce.


----------



## JCD

I think this is a trifle backwards. The whole point of the 60's was women started to seriously reject their traditional roles as housewives and mothers. They worked very hard to break into the work place. It was an entire political movement.

Now, there was also a simultaneous rejection of male roles at the time as a number of young men questioned (and rejected) their military responsibilities as well as fathering a lot of bastards, getting worked into a drug culture which made them unemployable, and other 'mind freeing' exercises.

Prior to that, divorce had to be for cause: adultery abuse etc. I do not think men pushed to make divorce easier. I think it was generally the brainchild of women's rights advocates.



> In addition, advocates for no-fault divorce argued that the law should be changed to provide a straightforward procedure for ending a marriage, rather than forcing a couple who simply couldn't get along to choose between living together in "marital hell" or lying under oath in open court. The most prominent advocate of this position was feminist law professor Herma Hill Kay (who later became dean of UC Berkeley School of Law).[11]
> 
> At its convention in 1947, the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) voted to draft and promote a bill that would embody the ideal of no-fault divorce and describes its efforts to promote the passage of no-fault divorce laws as "the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken."[12]


This doesn't seem to be a bill designed to address the problem of walk away husbands...(oh...sorry WOMEN get to 'walk away' if they are unhappy. If a man is unhappy, he's a 'deadbeat'. Language is important particularly when used pejoratively). It seems to have been designed to deal with unhappy marriages...and look who made it their hallmark? The same gender who institutes 70% of divorces.


----------



## JCD

Goldmember357 said:


> I would agree with all of this EXCEPT the reasons for divorce. Most divorces are because of infidelity or abuse of some sort, but it gets blamed on something else. Also in my opinion its quite easy to see when a relationship is headed for divorce.


Got stats for that?


----------



## deejov

Reasons for divorce wasn't what I was getting at... but gender role changes  Trenton is the one to debate that logic

I define deadbeat dad as one who is not a father. Emotionally, as well as financially. A husband who divorces, but remains a father is not a deadbeat. At all.

Wives walk away. But they take their kids. Most of the time.

It's only recently that it's become more frequent that a mother will leave the kids. It's much rarer. Yes, I would define that as deadbeat mother. Terminology corrected. And very similar financial awards are given to the remaining parent. I would say it's equal, when looking at deadbeat parents.


----------



## JCD

Gender roles change but don't make the assumption tha change is always good. 

The niche that men used to have has been removed. And for every horror story you hear about a father abandoning his family destitute, there is probably an equal story where an imperfect but good man who suddenly got kicked out of the house for rather frivilous reasons except 'she wasn't happy.' And the courts (at least in America) find this sufficient grounds to fiscally rape the man.

So what incentives are there for men? There is soft talk about 'healthier' and 'more emotionally supportive'. As a married man, I know the incentives are there. Frankly, marriage gives men a sense of purpose that they need.

But I also fully see how fragile that state of affairs and how it is predicated on the whims of one person...


----------



## TeaLeaves4

JCD said:


> Gender roles change but don't make the assumption tha change is always good.
> 
> The niche that men used to have has been removed. And for every horror story you hear about a father abandoning his family destitute, there is probably an equal story where an imperfect but good man who suddenly got kicked out of the house for rather frivilous reasons except 'she wasn't happy.' And the courts (at least in America) find this sufficient grounds to fiscally rape the man.
> 
> So what incentives are there for men? There is soft talk about 'healthier' and 'more emotionally supportive'. As a married man, I know the incentives are there. Frankly, marriage gives men a sense of purpose that they need.
> 
> But I also fully see how fragile that state of affairs and how it is predicated on the whims of one person...


So you would like to force someone to remain married to you?'
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JCD

TeaLeaves4 said:


> So you would like to force someone to remain married to you?'
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What an interesting interpretation...

How about I would prefer that people don't leave marriages for frivilous reasons.

Is unhappiness frivilous? Depends on how unhappy one is. I've seen women who told their husbands they would have sex more if the man earned more money. I've seen a man complain about a wife who is constantly depressed and crying and WON'T go to any counselor PERIOD...and she's halfway out the door.

Tell me, do you think MEN are never unhappy in a marriage?


----------



## FormerSelf

Robert Bly in "Iron John" believes we are in a pendulum effect...that eventually as women reach their power zenith...a real outcry for masculinity in society will return and should hopefully balance out. I see many jobs require skills of relating and multitasking that I feel a large portion of men are not skilled at...hence the rise of the metrosexual male as well as the rise of women in larger roles of leadership. Not saying that women shouldn't be in leadersship...as the 60's DID bring to right some paternal imbalance, but now a few generations since the 60's are revealing the consequences of a large gender/sexual social revolution...which was the dawn of the frigid male. And while I think woman enjoy the freedom and liberty...there is starting to be a realization of what was the cost: "Just F*ck Me! - What Women Want Men to Know About Taking Control in the Bedroom" is an interesting book written from the perspective of modern female wanting back masculinity in their male partners.

Trade jobs are in high demand as many men have drifted away blue collar to computer jobs. Single parent families (and I am NOT judging) often result in fatherless sons...and boys need male mentoring...it is vital for them to have a mediator to help initiate and guide them into manhood...(which is why lot of men take their insecurity to their wives)...as Wild at Heart says that men always have a question in their brokenness (Do I have what it takes to be a man?)...but if that isn't answered in their young adulthood, then they take it to their wife...which is why men are insecure, controlling, and are highly sensitive to criticism...women in turn feel no connection to their husband...nothing real palpable that speaks to them about security and leadership...and they grow unhappy and discontent. Men need to take the mantle of leadership...and women need to let go...NO not to serve as an invitation to removal of rights, liberties, and whatnot...just a swing back of the pendulum a bit where men are stepping into their masculinity...not having to tone who THEY ARE down because it has been diminished on a near propagandic-scale...and women has brought their bitterness to their sons. There is nothing more emasculating than a mother who coddles her boy..trains him to deny the rite of his fathers (because of a past hurt). Men need that rite of passage. If we do not get that...we will never actualize, never become...always acutely aware of failing, aloof towards relationships, afraid to be decisive, frigid during moments of decision...or equally bad, over-compensating for his self-perceived lack. Men who do not actualize and man-up...have relationships where the wife leaves...or they leave themselves because they are constantly on the hunt of filling the void.


----------



## Anubis

Running to bed, and don't have time for the video (24 min), but from the comments I'm assuming its another woman wondering why men are not lining up to enter in to what has become a very raw deal for them for many of the reasons already touched upon and more. 

The short answer is that is women are reaping the results of the cultural, social and legal changes of the last 50 years, and shouldn't be surprised that men have caught on to how lopsided and risky the situation now is for them. They are making intelligent and logical decisions risk/reward/cost/benefit decisions in avoiding marriage.

I suspect that this discussion will largely divide up along gender lines. We can debate all we want, but it's actions in aggregate that will count and societal change doesn't happen in a vacuum. If women as group don't like the situation, they are free to push for change, but as it is I don't think they will lobby for removing the imbalances and biases that favor them at the expense of men. 

Obviously, at the personal level, my own experiences color my position on the matter. I will be actively encouraging my son to avoid or delay marriage as long as possible when he gets older in large part because of the normal parental desire to protect ones children and see them become happy and successful. Sad? perhaps. But I feel I would be failing him to do other wise. Most women will be quick to attack me for doing this, but slow to ask "how did it come to this?"


----------



## JCD

Anubis, I run into the same question. Knowing what I know now, and seeing things like 'Sweet Sixteen' and other trash t.v. influencing girls today, would I advice him to marry?

Men without families' are essentially playing around until they die unless they find some grand dream or vision to give their life purpose.

But...the emotional and fiscal devastation of being cut from your family is sufficient to make one pause and it a crap shoot based totally on the character of one party.

For my daughters, it's easy. Tell them to have some get away money for the short term. In the long term, the courts will protect them pretty darn well, so all she needs to worry about is a runner.

The boy...I cannot envision getting married today without a prenup. I don't have one and I don't miss one. But frankly, any divorce without adultery, abuse or addiction SHOULD be painful and difficult.

I say this because my marriage was painful and difficult FOR YEARS on both our parts. And frankly, we can't blame all our unhappiness on the other person. BUT...we got through it. If we cut the cord easily, that would have screwed things up even more.

So a woman (Or man) should have to think very hard. "Am I really unhappy enough to only get 30% of family assets?" If the answer is yes, by all means, get that divorce!

Unfortunately, the courts probably wouldn't uphold such a document.


----------



## john_lord_b3

JCD said:


> I think this is a trifle backwards. The whole point of the 60's was women started to seriously reject their traditional roles as housewives and mothers. They worked very hard to break into the work place. It was an entire political movement.
> 
> Now, there was also a simultaneous rejection of male roles at the time as a number of young men questioned (and rejected) their military responsibilities as well as fathering a lot of bastards, getting worked into a drug culture which made them unemployable, and other 'mind freeing' exercises.
> 
> Prior to that, divorce had to be for cause: adultery abuse etc. I do not think men pushed to make divorce easier. I think it was generally the brainchild of women's rights advocates.
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't seem to be a bill designed to address the problem of walk away husbands...(oh...sorry WOMEN get to 'walk away' if they are unhappy. If a man is unhappy, he's a 'deadbeat'. Language is important particularly when used pejoratively). It seems to have been designed to deal with unhappy marriages...and look who made it their hallmark? The same gender who institutes 70% of divorces.


Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women: Christina Hoff Sommers: 9780684801568: Amazon.com: Books

Mr. JCD, have you read this book? It's a good one.. we can't paint women's rights advocates with the same brush..


----------



## Kobo

Great thread going back to the roots of the Men's Clubhouse. I have 2 daughters so the question of what I am going to advise my son doesn't really apply. I have told my brother (13 years younger) and brother in law to think diligently before marrying. I've pointed out the 50% divorce rate, the 70% started by women, The increasing infidelity rates of women, the number of paternity issues (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) . The game is rigged my friend. Young guys can either play along by the current female leaning rules or they can adapt and change the dynamic. Does that mean stay single until you're of the age where women have had their children, raised them, walked away and are now ready to live life like a woman instead of a mother? Does that mean move to a country where your skill set is still valued in a male dominated society? who knows but I think most men can agree that the current setup is unsustainable.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said: "Tell me, do you think MEN are never unhappy in a marriage?"

So you clearly think that women just up and run, but men don't? You think that men are better, more loyal, more willing to work through marriage issues than women? You think that men don't cheat, get lazy, or stop working on the marriage? Or that they don't just up and walk out the door? Just because most divorces are initiated by women, you assume the women are just too ready to give up easily on marriage?

But men aren't.

Men are perfect husbands who get shafted at every turn. They stick it out forever, never cheat, never neglect their wives, never develop addictions, never ignore their kids, never spend most of their time on personal endeavors....nope...they are the perfect ones who are the real victims of marriage.

Right.


----------



## FormerSelf

I can attest to the fact that men have done a lot of damage...especially in my life...bio-father alcoholic and deadbeat...step-father alcoholic. Created lots of pain in my life...and echoes into a lot of what had been missing in my male development. And while I didn't repeat the behavior of alcoholism...I also swore off being everything that they were...severing myself from the rite of fathers...and I was conditioned to seek a codependent relationship (as was my childhood arrangement) and so I ended up marrying an addict personality...and was powerless top set boundaries for fear of ever becoming like my father. It was a safety zone for my chaos background wife...but a breeding ground of resentment on her part as well. My upbringing didn't allow me to contend with masculinity...saw it only as destructive...not understanding its protective nature and a vital function to male integrity. Too bad WWII led men to drinking and abusive....'cos it had trickled down and now (at least in U.S.) there is much male confusion and female resentment.


----------



## Kobo

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD said: "Tell me, do you think MEN are never unhappy in a marriage?"
> 
> So you clearly think that women just up and run, but men don't? You think that men are better, more loyal, more willing to work through marriage issues than women? You think that men don't cheat, get lazy, or stop working on the marriage? Or that they don't just up and walk out the door? Just because most divorces are initiated by women, you assume the women are just too ready to give up easily on marriage?
> 
> But men aren't.
> 
> Men are perfect husbands who get shafted at every turn. They stick it out forever, never cheat, never neglect their wives, never develop addictions, never ignore their kids, never spend most of their time on personal endeavors....nope...they are the perfect ones who are the real victims of marriage.
> 
> Right.


I don't think he said that at all. When you frame your post in those terms it makes discussing this subject with you pointless.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

JCD said:


> Asking everyone to watch a half hour vid is probably a lot to ask.
> 
> A quick summary is this:
> 
> Men are not stepping up to the plate for marriage for many reasons.
> 
> One: That it is a fiscal sucker bet if things go south...and 70% of divorces are started by women, not by abuse or infidelity, but because of a lack of happiness. So you can have your kids ripped from you, shoved out of your house, have half your stuff taken and have your role as a man destroyed (more on that later) by a woman who is going through depression or entitlement issues.
> 
> Two: Male roles are not natural. Womens' are. Every woman is a mother or potential mother so they always have a 'purpose'. Men need to create their own purposes and have as defender, breadwinner, builder and father. Recent changes in society in the workforce (making work much less 'male' places), the denigration of the military, more women outstripping men in earning and the arbitrary and anti male divorce laws all combine to degrade those roles. So men see far less 'return' on their investment in work and home life.
> 
> Three: Cultural depicitions and respect for men and maleness has diminished precipitously.
> 
> So why would men marry in this climate?


I think it is just part of a larger uncertainty that many men have about their place in society. Society seems to be communicating that women are independent and men are optional. This comes across in career and raising families. Nothing wrong with women being independent, and there are many good and great things that have come from that.

But that leaves some men to wonder how they are needed. The old social contracts have been destabilized or out right negated. That creates uncertainty for all on what is expected from men in relationships.

Add to it that laws and policies have not completely caught up with how things are now, and many young people now not wanting to make the mistakes that their parents made with divorcing, The result is not surprising - people are cautious about getting married, with men perhaps being a bit more cautious.


----------



## treyvion

Kobo said:


> Great thread going back to the roots of the Men's Clubhouse. I have 2 daughters so the question of what I am going to advise my son doesn't really apply. I have told my brother (13 years younger) and brother in law to think diligently before marrying. I've pointed out the 50% divorce rate, the 70% started by women, The increasing infidelity rates of women, the number of paternity issues (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) . The game is rigged my friend. Young guys can either play along by the current female leaning rules or they can adapt and change the dynamic. Does that mean stay single until you're of the age where women have had their children, raised them, walked away and are now ready to live life like a woman instead of a mother? Does that mean move to a country where your skill set is still valued in a male dominated society? who knows but I think most men can agree that the current setup is unsustainable.


That's putting it lightly. I really have a problem where a male is bashed for being a man. Where masculinity is stripped, ridiculed and they leave a shell of a man whose less "threatening" and more effiminanent. 

I'm confident the rise in "ED" cases are due to the overcorrection and power of feminism. How the hell in god's holy earth is it right at all? 

Men have to adapt. Play by the womans rules and you will lose.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD said: "Tell me, do you think MEN are never unhappy in a marriage?"
> 
> So you clearly think that women just up and run, but men don't? You think that men are better, more loyal, more willing to work through marriage issues than women? You think that men don't cheat, get lazy, or stop working on the marriage? Or that they don't just up and walk out the door? Just because most divorces are initiated by women, you assume the women are just too ready to give up easily on marriage?
> 
> But men aren't.
> 
> Men are perfect husbands who get shafted at every turn. They stick it out forever, never cheat, never neglect their wives, never develop addictions, never ignore their kids, never spend most of their time on personal endeavors....nope...they are the perfect ones who are the real victims of marriage.
> 
> Right.


There are nearly perfect husbands, and these are the ones who get cheated on.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD said: "Tell me, do you think MEN are never unhappy in a marriage?"
> 
> So you clearly think that women just up and run, but men don't? You think that men are better, more loyal, more willing to work through marriage issues than women? You think that men don't cheat, get lazy, or stop working on the marriage? Or that they don't just up and walk out the door? Just because most divorces are initiated by women, you assume the women are just too ready to give up easily on marriage?


Should we be surprised that you skipped over JCD's statement that he simply didn't want people to leave their marriages for frivolous reasons?

We're talking about no-fault divorce. One of the main consequences of no-fault divorce is that frivolous divorce has exploded. A recent AARP survey on the causes of divorce only had 16% claiming infidelity as the main cause for their divorce. 16% also claimed abuse as the main cause, although the category included emotional and psychological abuse, which to many people means your spouse said something harsh to you one time. So serious abuse is somewhere below 16% of respondents as their main reason for divorcing.

We know, from other surveys, that women cheat at pretty much the same rate as men. I really don't think that the argument that women are forced into filing for divorce by their cad husbands really holds much water.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD said: "Tell me, do you think MEN are never unhappy in a marriage?"
> 
> So you clearly think that women just up and run, but men don't? You think that men are better, more loyal, more willing to work through marriage issues than women? You think that men don't cheat, get lazy, or stop working on the marriage? Or that they don't just up and walk out the door? Just because most divorces are initiated by women, you assume the women are just too ready to give up easily on marriage?
> 
> But men aren't.
> 
> Men are perfect husbands who get shafted at every turn. They stick it out forever, never cheat, never neglect their wives, never develop addictions, never ignore their kids, never spend most of their time on personal endeavors....nope...they are the perfect ones who are the real victims of marriage.
> 
> Right.


Well...you beat merry hell out of that straw man. Now y'all gits ta clean up this mess or y'all'll feel the back of mah hand, Nadine. 

Suggesting men are slightly more content in marriage (perhaps they get a better deal...or have lower expectations) by no means indicates I am attributing sainthood to them.

If women are so unhappy with the entire institution of marriage as indicated by divorce stats, why do they TEND to push the men into it? I have read the same whiny articles you have and the only women who seem unhappier than married women....are single women...though they write 20 page articles about how okay they are living with their cats....really...they are....and they barely remember what's his name who was her last chance...

I would not advocate anyone stay married in an abuse (though emotional gets squishy) addiction or infidelity. Is that what most women are getting divorced for?


----------



## RandomDude

What's this?

Meh, marriage, de facto, same sh-t, spouse still entitled after a few years living together to take half your assets... oh nvm me, just woke up and off to work I go. Hi ho, hi ho...


----------



## Viseral

I love Girl Writes What. She's one of the most articulate and educated people out there on the topic of changing gender roles. 

She was recently invited to speak with Warren Farrell, author and former director of the National Organization for Women, who then became a strong advocate for mens rights.

Definitely recommend her videos on YouTube.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD said: "Tell me, do you think MEN are never unhappy in a marriage?"
> 
> So you clearly think that women just up and run, but men don't? You think that men are better, more loyal, more willing to work through marriage issues than women? You think that men don't cheat, get lazy, or stop working on the marriage? Or that they don't just up and walk out the door? Just because most divorces are initiated by women, you assume the women are just too ready to give up easily on marriage?
> 
> But men aren't.
> 
> Men are perfect husbands who get shafted at every turn. They stick it out forever, never cheat, never neglect their wives, never develop addictions, never ignore their kids, never spend most of their time on personal endeavors....nope...they are the perfect ones who are the real victims of marriage.
> 
> Right.


No, but there is a difference. Cultural attitudes have given women a sense of entitlement. It's called "empowering." Men who up and leave are still seen for what they are: POS dead beats. Women who do that are seen as liberating themselves from an oppressive and unhappy marriage (since women are still oppressed), and she's now "finding herself."

Women who want a divorce use the same rhetoric over and over again. I am exempting women who divorce for very obvious and legitimate reasons: abuse, infidelity, and serious neglect. 

Eat, Stray errr Pray, (Self) Love


----------



## JCD

PreRaphaelite said:


> No, but there is a difference. Cultural attitudes have given women a sense of entitlement. It's called "empowering." Men who up and leave are still seen for what they are: POS dead beats. Women who do that are seen as liberating themselves from an oppressive and unhappy marriage (since women are still oppressed), and she's now "finding herself."
> 
> Women who want a divorce use the same rhetoric over and over again. I am exempting women who divorce for very obvious and legitimate reasons: abuse, infidelity, and serious neglect.
> 
> Eat, Stray errr Pray, (Self) Love


Um...no.

I was reading a book on Middle Age Peasant Revolts. Now, of course, they got hijacked and used for political purposes by some asshats, BUT the problems they faced were real. No one _tricked_ them into revolting. It was the product of some very bad stuff happening in their lives.

So, the problems that the Women's Movement addressed (and in some ways overreacted to) were real...and they have probably been hijacked by some asshats.

HOWEVER (and this is the uncomfortable bit for women) the MALE complaints are real too...and their supposed leadership has shown little give on the issue since they resist ANY pushback on female rights, seeing rights as a zero sum game.

So I won't dismiss female complaints...and I would ask the same courtesy from my XX Sisters on TAM.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Tall Average Guy said:


> But that leaves some men to wonder how they are needed. Th*e old social contracts have been destabilized or out right negated. That creates uncertainty for all on what is expected from men in relationships.*


This^^^ is my opinion on what was said in the vid.
What is being said in the vid is not new to me. I have looked at some Western societies and seen it at work.

But to a great extent, men have to own their share of blame.
Women are _supposed_ to advocate for their rights. Women speak their minds, and don't care who is offended. That too, is their rights, ie ; free speech.

Men on the other hand allowed themselves to be muzzled, always afraid of giving their opinion or shaking the status quo.
They want to be " politically correct" out of a fear of being painted as misogynistic or some other term.
Then, some of the men who do speak out are extreme in their views. But they too, have that freedom of speech.

Another thing that I see being deliberately done is saying that there is no difference between men and women and that men and women are the same.

Lol,
A woman's body produces eggs, which can be fertilized _within_ her body , and gestation takes place _within_ her body.
_A man's body only produces sperm._
A man can grow breasts, surgically implant a vagina, _but he cannot bear children._

How can he fully understand the way a woman feels psychologically, during PMS , menses or pregnancy, if he has never felt it?
Lol.

The pendulum have swung too far, and it will swing back. It would be interesting to see where it finally stops.


----------



## Viseral

Good comments gentlemen! 😊


----------



## john_lord_b3

Viseral said:


> I love Girl Writes What. She's one of the most articulate and educated people out there on the topic of changing gender roles.
> 
> She was recently invited to speak with Warren Farrell, author and former director of the National Organization for Women, who then became a strong advocate for mens rights.
> 
> Definitely recommend her videos on YouTube.


I have visited her (Karen Straughan)'s website. Now I am overwhelmed by so many materials to read. Thank you for the pointers.:smthumbup:


----------



## Viseral

john_lord_b3 said:


> I have visited her (Karen Straughan)'s website. Now I am overwhelmed by so many materials to read. Thank you for the pointers.:smthumbup:


Also, check out this outstanding and well done series on feminism and changing gender roles:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/showthread.php?t=86593


----------



## john_lord_b3

eh, Mr. Visceral, thank you for the link.. but I still have this two books (Who Stole Feminism by Christina Hoff Sommers and The Flipside of Feminism by Suzanne Venker) which I need to re-read a few more times, so that I could understand Karen Straughan's views better..


----------



## Kaboom

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but I think it's relevant to this discussion- Has anyone noticed that nearly every single romantic comedy (movies and TV) in the last 15 years paints the men as:

Juvenile/boyish
Refuses to "grow up"
Bumbling through life
Has an okay job but it's dead end only because he has zero ambition
Is always with his man-child friends
Dumb, no social skills, Completely hopeless, until he meets:

The woman:
Successful
Independent, has her own place, savings, etc.
Grown up
Smart, sassy, clever
Can't find a good man because they are all man-children..

So she meets this guy, a bond forms, and then she spends the entire movie changing him into a smarter, presentable, grown up...

Teaching us:
All men are man-children
All men can't do anything without a smart, successful, and independent woman to teach him, correct him, change him.
All women are not only innocent, but now are responsible for:

Working, paying for everything, bearing children, raising children by themselves, and now responsible for nurturing their own man-child into a real man. 

And in the end, how do they portray that real man?
-He gives up all his friends
-He gives up all his hobbies
-He sells all his "childish" belongings, refurnishes his house/apt, 
-Stops being funny/telling jokes, 
-Stops going out. 
-Stops drinking, smoking, or any other habit that his new woman doesn't like
-Stops resisting change, becomes a "nice guy"

All for "love"

That's not love. We all know the crap out of hollywood is unrealistic, but face it, we're a TV generation, have been for several generations, and people subconsciously absorb the values we see from TV, movies. I don't think it's intentional- hollywood writers are just lazy and when they find a formula that works, they stick with it until it stops working. They usually spend several years trying to keep it on life support even after it no longer works, until the next big thing comes along.

The other thing is reality TV.. could the women on these shows possibly paint women in general as worse monsters? I'd be surprised. 

In response to the OP- I think that both of those things I mention combine. I won't ever marry again, and the reason is simply: experience.

It's not worth the gamble. Divorce is probably an 80-90% surety. Am I willing to gamble half my life savings, years of my life, and emotional wreckage on a horse that is most likely going to lose? It's not some magical "find the right person" crap.. I know a lot of hopeless romantics want to cling to that notion, but the reality of it is that we all loved someone once, and we all thought they were "the one", and we were all wrong. Mabye a couple of exceptions to that rule, but damned if that rule isn't pretty accurate.. In the end it always turns out that people change, people grow apart, and people grow tired of each other. You know what they say: 'familiarity breeds contempt'.. and it's true.

Most young guys today look at all the above and back off.. why on earth would any rational man make that investment. Then factor in the sex denial, downtalking, etc.. makes a mans head spin.

I have no doubt many people will hate what I've written, but a large part of it is truth, at least, truth from some mens points of view.


----------



## treyvion

john_lord_b3 said:


> eh, Mr. Visceral, thank you for the link.. but I still have this two books (Who Stole Feminism by Christina Hoff Sommers and The Flipside of Feminism by Suzanne Venker) which I need to re-read a few more times, so that I could understand Karen Straughan's views better..


Feminism forces men to be stronger on their position and their roles, and this is one positive that should be encouraged for men.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Thanks, JCD. I read part of that some time ago. I came to the same conclusions as many men here. I was wondering what folks thought about that. Happy to see it put out there for everyone to consider, no matter what their point of view. Again, thank you.


----------



## Viseral

Kaboom said:


> I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but I think it's relevant to this discussion- Has anyone noticed that nearly every single romantic comedy (movies and TV) in the last 15 years paints the men as:
> 
> Juvenile/boyish
> Refuses to "grow up"
> Bumbling through life
> Has an okay job but it's dead end only because he has zero ambition
> Is always with his man-child friends
> Dumb, no social skills, Completely hopeless, until he meets:
> 
> The woman:
> Successful
> Independent, has her own place, savings, etc.
> Grown up
> Smart, sassy, clever
> Can't find a good man because they are all man-children..
> 
> So she meets this guy, a bond forms, and then she spends the entire movie changing him into a smarter, presentable, grown up...
> 
> Teaching us:
> All men are man-children
> All men can't do anything without a smart, successful, and independent woman to teach him, correct him, change him.
> All women are not only innocent, but now are responsible for:
> 
> Working, paying for everything, bearing children, raising children by themselves, and now responsible for nurturing their own man-child into a real man.
> 
> And in the end, how do they portray that real man?
> -He gives up all his friends
> -He gives up all his hobbies
> -He sells all his "childish" belongings, refurnishes his house/apt,
> -Stops being funny/telling jokes,
> -Stops going out.
> -Stops drinking, smoking, or any other habit that his new woman doesn't like
> -Stops resisting change, becomes a "nice guy".


Yeah, I was reminiscing today about growing up in the 80's and back then it seemed like it was a lot more acceptable to be masculine. Something has really changed over the past 25 years, and interestingly the timing lines up perfectly with 3rd wave feminism which started in the early 1990's. 

Even the music back then was more masculine and male sexuality wasn't shamed like it is today. Van Halen, AC/DC, Motley Crue; it was all about sex, drugs, rock n roll, and kicking a$$. I bet if the songs Hot for Teacher or Seventeen were re-released today hordes of angry political correctness nazi's would storm Washington with flaming torches and pitch forks.

Don't even get me started on how every single TV commercial out there portrays the modern male as some kind of useless moronic dolt in constant need of his smart responsible know-it-all wife....


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kaboom...about movies...how about we stop watching stuff that makes us cringe (including watching commercials about it or reading about it) and purposely LOOK for movies and TV or other entertainment that reflects our own thougths and feelings?

We are not victims of the media. No one forces anyone to watch. Stop watching, stop talking about it, and start patronizing TV channels and movie studios that put out stuff you can stand behind.

One of my favorite romantic comedies was My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Good girl from huge Greek family meets good man who is totally into her. They get married. The end.

No drama, no breaking up and getting back together, nothing but strong attraction between two healthy, well-adjusted adults who come together, get married, and have babies. My kinda movie.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Many comedies: Fat, slovenly nerd manages to charm hot woman that everyone knows wouldn't give him the time of day, but we never see fat, slovenly woman hook up with hot guy. What does that teach us? Only women have to keep their appearance up, men need only be charming and/or funny. They don't even have to treat her well and she will still be sexually attracted to him. Don't see any guys here b$tching about that movie double standard. Since someone wanted to bring up movie double standards.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Viseral

lifeistooshort said:


> Many comedies: Fat, slovenly nerd manages to charm hot woman that everyone knows wouldn't give him the time of day, but we never see fat, slovenly woman hook up with hot guy. What does that teach us? Only women have to keep their appearance up, men need only be charming and/or funny. They don't even have to treat her well and she will still be sexually attracted to him. Don't see any guys here b$tching about that movie double standard. Since someone wanted to bring up movie double standards.....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's cause women are usually attracted to power and money, which nerdy slovenly men often have. Men don't really care about a woman's wealth, as long as she's hot. Its all about what's best for making babies. Human nature....


----------



## TiggyBlue

Viseral said:


> That's cause women are usually attracted to power and money, which nerdy slovenly men often have. Men don't really care about a woman's wealth, as long as she's hot. Its all about what's best for making babies. Human nature....


So shouldn't we be attracted to the slovenly men on the screen? :scratchhead:

You have very different taste in men than me.


----------



## Viseral

TiggyBlue said:


> So shouldn't we be attracted to the slovenly men on the screen? :scratchhead:
> 
> You have very different taste in men than me.


Well, I'm sure power, money, and good looks, peppered with alpha-ness would be ideal, but two out'a three ain't bad.

There's some pretty ugly dudes out there with some smokin hot ladies...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Actually, men DO complain about that (slovenly men with hot wives in TV), because it isn't reality.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually, men DO complain about that (slovenly men with hot wives in TV), because it isn't reality.


Touche.....gets their hopes up I imagine.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TiggyBlue

Viseral said:


> Well, I'm sure power, money, and good looks, peppered with alpha-ness would be ideal, but two out'a three ain't bad.
> 
> There's some pretty ugly dudes out there with some smokin hot ladies...


Especially if they enter a brothel. A few women going for men with money isn't really a reflection on what other women find attractive, I wish movies would acknowledge that sometimes.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Viseral said:


> That's cause women are usually attracted to power and money, which nerdy slovenly men often have. Men don't really care about a woman's wealth, as long as she's hot. Its all about what's best for making babies. Human nature....



Common male misconception.....women are attracted to wealth and power, to some degree, but not sexually. That's why men that attract a woman predominantly based on money and power will eventually get cut off or relegated to duty sex, because we're sexually attracted to hot. And the nerds on screen are generally not wealthy and powerful; think all movies starting Kevin James and Seth Rogen
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

TiggyBlue said:


> Especially if they enter a brothel. A few women going for men with money isn't really a reflection on what other women find attractive, I wish movies would acknowledge that sometimes.



Yep, and on top of that men with money are allowed to be shallow and get the best looking woman their money can buy, but if she goes with him for his money she's a gold digger. She's somehow supposed to rise above and love him for who he is, but we all know how much thought he put into what kind of woman she is. Moral of the story: if you choose partner based on shallow criteria, don't be shocked or upset when you get a shallow partner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Viseral

lifeistooshort said:


> Common male misconception.....women are attracted to wealth and power, to some degree, but not sexually. That's why men that attract a woman predominantly based on money and power will eventually get cut off or relegated to duty sex, because we're sexually attracted to hot. And the nerds on screen are generally not wealthy and powerful; think all movies starting Kevin James and Seth Rogen
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'll give ya that, women are innately attracted to dominant male alpha qualities.....which usually goes hand in hand with wealth and power...


----------



## lifeistooshort

Viseral said:


> I'll give ya that, women are innately attracted to dominant male alpha qualities.....which usually goes hand in hand with wealth and power...



Well cmon; hot, money, and power? Who doesn't want that? Men included......but given the choice I'm glad I married man with a job that I'm really sexually attracted to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Enginerd

lifeistooshort said:


> Many comedies: Fat, slovenly nerd manages to charm hot woman that everyone knows wouldn't give him the time of day, but we never see fat, slovenly woman hook up with hot guy. What does that teach us? Only women have to keep their appearance up, men need only be charming and/or funny. They don't even have to treat her well and she will still be sexually attracted to him. Don't see any guys here b$tching about that movie double standard. Since someone wanted to bring up movie double standards.....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't pay for Hollywood's predictable formula movies as they make me want to hurl. Anyway, your example is about giving the average guy some false hope. Most guys realize hot women are typically attracted to large wallets or attractive men, but they like to dream about the possibility of landing a hot women anyway. It's a really stupid fantasy that seems to sell. In this case we are suppose to believe the attractive female lowered her standards to be with the irresistable frumpy male. She's basically portrayed as someone who can look past the males poor physical features. In other words she is not portrayed as a shallow person and I don't see how this is a negative for women. The man is still portrayed as a lucky loser. Male traits always seem to be portrayed as negative and it doesn't seem to matter which formula is used to write the script. 

Who would buy a movie where a hot man hooks up with a frumpy woman anyway? 

Hot Men? No.
Frumpy Men? No 
Hot women? No
Frumpy women? Possibly

So the market is clearly limited for your movie. If it would sell Hollywood would make it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Well if there's a hot guy I would probably, don't really care what the women looks like personally, Keanu Reeves was never really hired for his acting ability.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Enginerd said:


> I don't pay for Hollywood's predictable formula movies as they make me want to hurl. Anyway, your example is about giving the average guy some false hope. Most guys realize hot women are typically attracted to large wallets or attractive men, but they like to dream about the possibility of landing a hot women anyway. It's a really stupid fantasy that seems to sell. In this case we are suppose to believe the attractive female lowered her standards to be with the irresistable frumpy male. She's basically portrayed as someone who can look past the males poor physical features. In other words she is not portrayed as a shallow person and I don't see how this is a negative for women. The man is still portrayed as a lucky loser. Male traits always seem to be portrayed as negative and it doesn't seem to matter which formula is used to write the script.
> 
> Who would buy a movie where a hot man hooks up with a frumpy woman anyway?
> 
> Hot Men? No.
> Frumpy Men? No
> Hot women? No
> Frumpy women? Possibly
> 
> So the market is clearly limited for your movie. If it would sell Hollywood would make it.


Oh, I never said I wanted said movie. I don't care for frumpy in either sex. Just pointing out the double standard. I like hot men-sue me 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PreRaphaelite

JCD said:


> Um...no.
> 
> I was reading a book on Middle Age Peasant Revolts. Now, of course, they got hijacked and used for political purposes by some asshats, BUT the problems they faced were real. No one _tricked_ them into revolting. It was the product of some very bad stuff happening in their lives.
> 
> So, the problems that the Women's Movement addressed (and in some ways overreacted to) were real...and they have probably been hijacked by some asshats.
> 
> HOWEVER (and this is the uncomfortable bit for women) the MALE complaints are real too...and their supposed leadership has shown little give on the issue since they resist ANY pushback on female rights, seeing rights as a zero sum game.
> 
> So I won't dismiss female complaints...and I would ask the same courtesy from my XX Sisters on TAM.


Ummm no? So there is no sense of entitlement on the part of many women today. Very well, glad you don't see any. I'll stand corrected.

And... comparing women of the Middle Ages to now is kind of a stretch. Not only was life utterly different then, and having children was one of the very few ways that life could be sustained and some security gained, but both men and women of the peasant class had it pretty hard then. The way women are treated in Game of Thrones is based on some reality, but it's also fiction.

Not dismissing female complaints isn't what we're talking about here. It's the development of a certain trends which aren't just "hijacking" but an adjustment of feminist demands to an environment in which economic power and prestige trump everything else. So "empowering" and "independence from male domination" fit very easily into a socio-economic order that is almost entirely based on power. It plays very well.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

The problem I have with the discussion and where I think the woman in the video is right is in her claim that men have traditionally defined their masculinity in terms of roles. That's not to say that women haven't or shouldn't, but there is a difference. A woman can always have the role of mother and despite whatever flack she may get today for being a SAHM, that gives her a place.

The problem I have with the present situation is that 'becoming a man' has been narrowed down to a very few possibilities, many of which are over-the-top macho, be it physical and sexual prowess or money-power-success. I would say that in previous times you could be admired as a man simply for pursuing something that you loved the most, whether it was being a scientist, an artist, doing everything you could to bring your family up in life, being the finest carpenter in the whole town, or pursuing a dream. 

Education WAS considered to be a virtue at one time rather than just a means to an end (money), and educated men had a sense of pride about the way they had cultivated themselves as individuals.

It's not because of feminism but other things that have pretty much devalued that kind of ethic. But there is a truth in what the video suggests: the role of husband and father isn't fulfilling anymore, less and less men see themselves in that role, and the lack of other fulfilling roles for men is a major problem that leads to a lot of apathy, immaturity, and anti-social behavior on the part of men.


----------



## Kaboom

Faithful Wife said:


> Kaboom...about movies...how about we stop watching stuff that makes us cringe (including watching commercials about it or reading about it) and purposely LOOK for movies and TV or other entertainment that reflects our own thougths and feelings?
> 
> We are not victims of the media. No one forces anyone to watch. Stop watching, stop talking about it, and start patronizing TV channels and movie studios that put out stuff you can stand behind.
> 
> One of my favorite romantic comedies was My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
> 
> Good girl from huge Greek family meets good man who is totally into her. They get married. The end.
> 
> No drama, no breaking up and getting back together, nothing but strong attraction between two healthy, well-adjusted adults who come together, get married, and have babies. My kinda movie.


While I actually watch very little TV, my wife watches a lot. I get snippets of just about everything on TV, as well as getting sucked into "spending time" with her in front of it. If it were up to me, I'd shut off the cable and watch netflix only, and my netflix queue? Watched items include mostly science channel stuff like the morgan freeman and hawkins universe series.

TV could have been the ultimate educational and entertainment tool, and instead, we've turned it into an idiot box, spoon feeding us our social morals and points of view on the world. Wasn't it the TV that sold us into attacking Iraq, which later turned out to be a bunch of well propagandized lies? 

But, my point in responding to you is simply that yes, *I* can turn it off, and willingly. I glaze over when watching it, thinking about science or music or art, while humbly serving my wife's needs to "spend time together" in front of it (notice how I put that in quotes more than once to point out the obvious flaws in that logic). BUT, and here's where we disagree- while I stop, the majority of the country is virtually brainwashed into watching 6+ hours a day. And it's ALL propaganda:

Everything from law & order SVU, where violent depictions of child rape and other equally shocking crimes are painted as justification for law enforcement to violate just about every civil right people have, because they know the perp is guilty, lulling everyday americans into subconsciously believing that violating civil rights at whimsy is perfectly okay. Even the show "cops" practices wholesale abuse on 'entrapment', never once letting you know that most of those people got off because the police violated the law, but it's good ratings material, right?

The only thing they are really accomplishing is created a fear society where everyone locks their doors, hides their children, and we enact wholly insane laws like stand-your-ground, where if someone even looks at you funny, you can shoot them in the face.

Then we have reality tv, which has less to do with reality than unicorns and leprechauns.

Nope, I don't watch that crap, and I see it for what it is, but the majority of americans? They are hooked. Blind. Sheep. I can't change that. I found out long ago that when people believe something, nothing changes it, regardless of logical deductions.


----------



## PHTlump

Kaboom said:


> The only thing they are really accomplishing is created a fear society where everyone locks their doors, hides their children, and we enact wholly insane laws like stand-your-ground, where if someone even looks at you funny, you can shoot them in the face.


Tell that to George Zimmerman.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> Kaboom...about movies...how about we stop watching stuff that makes us cringe (including watching commercials about it or reading about it) and purposely LOOK for movies and TV or other entertainment that reflects our own thougths and feelings?


That's easier said than done. Just try finding a movie positively depicting a traditional marriage. Even a movie put out by an evangelical Christian church, like Fireproof, falls well short of the traditional, Biblical standard for marriage.

Fireproof depicts a woman whose husband won't submit to her, so she withholds sex, threatens divorce, and starts putting the moves on a hunky doctor. Eventually, her husband finds religion, submits to his wife, and everything works out great. But even if he hadn't, the wife had Dr. Hunky as her plan B. That's not really the kind of thing I would expect a church to distribute. But, we live in strange times.

If a Christian can't even rely on a church to put out entertainment consistent with his values, how can we expect Hollywood to do so? I guess there's Youtube. But, the signal to noise ratio is very low.


----------



## Kaboom

PHTlump said:


> Tell that to George Zimmerman.


Zimmerman was only arrested after several weeks, and a national outrage / online petition, regardless that the evidence suggested all along that he stalked a minor and killed him for no good reason.

And even in that case, the outcome is undecided. I will be surprised if he gets more than probation.

And for every Zimmerman who dances on the line and tests such laws, there's dozens of people who have gotten away scott free with unnecessary deadly force in other incidents.

These laws have proven to be bad social policy, yet more and more states are adopting them, mostly because of the NRA's lobbying powers, not because of social good.


----------



## Caribbean Man

PHTlump said:


> Fireproof depicts a woman whose husband won't submit to her, so she withholds sex, threatens divorce, and starts putting the moves on a hunky doctor. Eventually, her husband finds religion, submits to his wife, and everything works out great. But even if he hadn't, the wife had Dr. Hunky as her plan B. That's not really the kind of thing I would expect a church to distribute. *But, we live in strange times.*


:iagree:

_"..Turning and turning in a widening gyre,
The falcon cannot hear the falconer.
Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold,
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.."_

"The Second Coming." William Butler Yates.


----------



## PHTlump

Kaboom said:


> Zimmerman was only arrested after several weeks, and a national outrage / online petition, regardless that the evidence suggested all along that he stalked a minor and killed him for no good reason.


Well, if Zimmerman stalked Martin and killed him in cold blood, he did a pretty lousy job of it by letting Martin assault him.



> These laws have proven to be bad social policy, ...


How's that?


----------



## Woodchuck

*My upbringing didn't allow me to contend with masculinity...saw it only as destructive...not understanding its protective nature and a vital function to male integrity. Too bad WWII led men to drinking and abusive....'cos it had trickled down and now (at least in U.S.) there is much male confusion and female resentment*

What a crock....Here is where those guys were coming from...

As I type this I sit next to my 96 yo father, who was a volunteer in the Pacific training for the invasion of the home island of Japan when Truman dropped the bomb......

A 28 year old farm boy who was drafted, pulled away from his job and young wife, to risk everything to save the entire world from being over run and raped.....

WWII may have produced a lot of damaged men, (My dad is not one of them)...but this damage was caused by their willingness to sacrifice their all for others....

My role model of masculinity was that a man should be willing to sacrifice his all for his wife and family. 

I can't remember when my dad wasn't working 2 jobs...Sober, honest to the extreme, hard working, faithful, honorable in all dealings, slow to anger, willing to stand and fight when pushed to the limit, putting his family above his own wants and desires....Always willing to help and support his own.........

A man who KNEW what his values were, and refused to acknowledge his limitations....

My dad is now a wealthy man, but he spent the first 25 years of his life plowing behind a team of mules in the hard sacrabble rocky clay soil of the Missouri boot heel....Picture Gary Cooper in "Sargent York" and you have a good picture of my dad....

A man who married late in life because of financial reasons, and then had to leave his wife to save the world from its self....

A man who believed "till death do we part" and lived it for 57 years.....

This is precisely the type of man who now has little place in our culture because of the feminizing of the "Ideal male" image......

The Ideal male today is best depicted by Christian Bale in "American Psycho"....A slick stylish "Metrosexual" type.....With absolutely no values.....

the modern prototypical male was developed by a society that felt uncomfortable in the company of real men, and set out to change the publics perception of what a man should be......

Female resentment stems from finding themselves on a level playing field at last, and finding that they are expected to "man up"......

I am now comfortably retired, living with my wife of 47 years. I have always tried to live my life by my fathers principals, and when hard pressed for a direction, always found the answer by asking myself "What would he do"...I always found the right direction.....

I am a self made man, having become very successful with little formal education, or family money...I never asked myself why people were instinctively drawn to me for leadership, but now know it was because I reflected the values my father instilled in me. If I said I would do a job, people KNEW it would get done...

Masculinity has almost become a dirty world in todays culture...It is depicted by knuckle dragging idiots like "Tim the tool man Taylor" but is the characteristic you most want in the person who has your back when the chips are down.....

The woodchuck


----------



## tulsy

About the video in the youtube link....She's right on a number of valid points. Men are portrayed as incompetent goofs and women are successful and "got it together" individuals. In the media, there is no longer anything noble or respectable about being a man.

Looking around this forum, I can see that many men have been through hell in their relationships and have learned the hard way what happens after the breakdown of a marriage. More often than not, it's not just the emotional turmoil you have to deal with, it's the financial raping you receive, both immediately and for years to come.

I just think that the current marriage contract is a joke in today's society. It rarely ever favors a man, especially when it doesn't work out. It's almost crazy to sign one...I mean, there is an awfully good chance it's not going to work out, which means there is an awfully good chance that you will loose a lot of money on top of getting your hopes, heart and dreams smashed.

Is it any wonder why women still want to get married these days? No doubt because even if it doesn't work out, she will often be better off financially than she was before she was married. It's often in their best interest...can the same be said for men? Not at all.


----------



## treyvion

tulsy said:


> About the video in the youtube link....She's right on a number of valid points. Men are portrayed as incompetent goofs and women are successful and "got it together" individuals. In the media, there is no longer anything noble or respectable about being a man.
> 
> Looking around this forum, I can see that many men have been through hell in their relationships and have learned the hard way what happens after the breakdown of a marriage. More often than not, it's not just the emotional turmoil you have to deal with, it's the financial raping you receive, both immediately and for years to come.
> 
> I just think that the current marriage contract is a joke in today's society. It rarely ever favors a man, especially when it doesn't work out. It's almost crazy to sign one...I mean, there is an awfully good chance it's not going to work out, which means there is an awfully good chance that you will loose a lot of money on top of getting your hopes, heart and dreams smashed.
> 
> Is it any wonder why women still want to get married these days? No doubt because even if it doesn't work out, she will often be better off financially than she was before she was married. It's often in their best interest...can the same be said for men? Not at all.


You can start your marriage, take excellent care of your wife and family, and OM and friends are looking at you like your the crazy one, when you cause consequences for her cheating on you. It's almost like it's expected and he has to take it.


----------



## treyvion

Woodchuck said:


> *My upbringing didn't allow me to contend with masculinity...saw it only as destructive...not understanding its protective nature and a vital function to male integrity. Too bad WWII led men to drinking and abusive....'cos it had trickled down and now (at least in U.S.) there is much male confusion and female resentment*
> 
> What a crock....Here is where those guys were coming from...
> 
> As I type this I sit next to my 96 yo father, who was a volunteer in the Pacific training for the invasion of the home island of Japan when Truman dropped the bomb......
> 
> A 28 year old farm boy who was drafted, pulled away from his job and young wife, to risk everything to save the entire world from being over run and raped.....
> 
> WWII may have produced a lot of damaged men, (My dad is not one of them)...but this damage was caused by their willingness to sacrifice their all for others....
> 
> My role model of masculinity was that a man should be willing to sacrifice his all for his wife and family.
> 
> I can't remember when my dad wasn't working 2 jobs...Sober, honest to the extreme, hard working, faithful, honorable in all dealings, slow to anger, willing to stand and fight when pushed to the limit, putting his family above his own wants and desires....Always willing to help and support his own.........
> 
> A man who KNEW what his values were, and refused to acknowledge his limitations....
> 
> My dad is now a wealthy man, but he spent the first 25 years of his life plowing behind a team of mules in the hard sacrabble rocky clay soil of the Missouri boot heel....Picture Gary Cooper in "Sargent York" and you have a good picture of my dad....
> 
> A man who married late in life because of financial reasons, and then had to leave his wife to save the world from its self....
> 
> A man who believed "till death do we part" and lived it for 57 years.....
> 
> This is precisely the type of man who now has little place in our culture because of the feminizing of the "Ideal male" image......
> 
> The Ideal male today is best depicted by Christian Bale in "American Psycho"....A slick stylish "Metrosexual" type.....With absolutely no values.....
> 
> the modern prototypical male was developed by a society that felt uncomfortable in the company of real men, and set out to change the publics perception of what a man should be......
> 
> Female resentment stems from finding themselves on a level playing field at last, and finding that they are expected to "man up"......
> 
> I am now comfortably retired, living with my wife of 47 years. I have always tried to live my life by my fathers principals, and when hard pressed for a direction, always found the answer by asking myself "What would he do"...I always found the right direction.....
> 
> I am a self made man, having become very successful with little formal education, or family money...I never asked myself why people were instinctively drawn to me for leadership, but now know it was because I reflected the values my father instilled in me. If I said I would do a job, people KNEW it would get done...
> 
> Masculinity has almost become a dirty world in todays culture...It is depicted by knuckle dragging idiots like "Tim the tool man Taylor" but is the characteristic you most want in the person who has your back when the chips are down.....
> 
> The woodchuck


My problem with these depictions and destruction of roles... Ok, so wife "jacks" the dominant physical person position in the house... So husband is stripped and balls tucked, ok - so what happens if someone is trying to break into the house, or someone wants to assault them on the street? What then?


----------



## RandomDude

Heh, found this:



> The Ideal Aussie Man
> 
> In different societies people have different standards of what is considered brave, attractive, fascinating or sexy in a man....
> 
> *Female Point of View*
> He never thinks about his penis, it¹s just there by accident. He has stumbled on his career, it¹s not something he embarked on deliberately. When he is not working he devotes his entire time to his emotional co-person, preferably a woman, and her needs (but only when she needs him).
> 
> He does not depend on the woman for his happiness but he cannot be happy without her. He does not need her to depend on him except in those things in which she depends on him because they happen to be the little things she does not have time to do on her own (shopping, cooking, paying bills, making love).
> 
> He has a relationship with her due to all the interests they have in common: her hobbies, her career, her family, her parties, her car, her weekends, her vagina. He can get an erection at will but only if the woman really wants it.
> 
> *Male Point of View*
> He never thinks about women, women just flock to him because of what he exudes. He does not worry about his wardrobe as all his things were bought for him by women. When he does worry he defies convention and prefers to wear t-shirts, shorts and joggers, and ****** what the world thinks.
> 
> All his women are either models or TV hostesses or pretty virgins or talented actresses on the verge of giving up their careers for him or beautiful young doctors with amnesia.
> 
> He¹s individualistic and different and he¹s going to have an ice cold beer because he¹s being himself. Even if it is eleven am and boiling hot outside. And take twenty years to pay off the mortgage. ****** what the world thinks.
> 
> He drives a small two door sports car with a very large engine. He can get an erection at will but only if the woman really, really wants it.


So I guess masculinity hasn't died in Australia yet... lol
If you can even call it that, depends on culture I guess haha


----------



## solvency7

interesting topic, for the last couple of years,we swapped our roles, she worked i was at home, the only benefit..literally the only benefit was seeing the kids grow and spending time with them,beyond that nothing, she loses respect for you,she gets begrudgent. Her folks start giving you grief, you have less sex, you start worrying about cleaning,washing,get complained at about cleaning and how the kids are going down hill,also you got no standing ground,if it all falls flat you have nothing to fall back on,no money no job and you got to doss round someones house,no way lol

The way it works is..man always works,
the woman stays at home and maybe works some hours

experience has told me,the other way is not a road to venture down,if any of your wives suggest it, say no straight out, ive loved spending time with our kids,but the relationship suffers..

needless to say ive found a fulltime job again,starting next week.


----------



## JCD

PHTlump said:


> That's easier said than done. Just try finding a movie positively depicting a traditional marriage. Even a movie put out by an evangelical Christian church, like Fireproof, falls well short of the traditional, Biblical standard for marriage.
> 
> Fireproof depicts a woman whose husband won't submit to her, so she withholds sex, threatens divorce, and starts putting the moves on a hunky doctor. Eventually, her husband finds religion, submits to his wife, and everything works out great. But even if he hadn't, the wife had Dr. Hunky as her plan B. That's not really the kind of thing I would expect a church to distribute. But, we live in strange times.
> 
> If a Christian can't even rely on a church to put out entertainment consistent with his values, how can we expect Hollywood to do so? I guess there's Youtube. But, the signal to noise ratio is very low.


Honestly, that story demanded and in fact strongly implied that the wife slept with the doctor. I say implied because it wouldn't sell to the church ladies to have her be morally and egregiously wrong. Not to mention that most men would not accept the hero so well as a cuckold.


----------



## JCD

PreRaphaelite said:


> Ummm no? So there is no sense of entitlement on the part of many women today. Very well, glad you don't see any. I'll stand corrected.
> 
> And... comparing women of the Middle Ages to now is kind of a stretch. Not only was life utterly different then, and having children was one of the very few ways that life could be sustained and some security gained, but both men and women of the peasant class had it pretty hard then. The way women are treated in Game of Thrones is based on some reality, but it's also fiction.
> 
> Not dismissing female complaints isn't what we're talking about here. It's the development of a certain trends which aren't just "hijacking" but an adjustment of feminist demands to an environment in which economic power and prestige trump everything else. So "empowering" and "independence from male domination" fit very easily into a socio-economic order that is almost entirely based on power. It plays very well.


Oh, there is no question that women have overreached and that their agenda has been hijacked and super charged.

What I was sayings is women weren't 'tricked' into this. They had legitimate grievances...just like the peasants.

But MEN also have legitimate greivances with how things have gone.

Feminism...at least certain strains, do push strongly for total female independence...and while they are twisting themselves into alpha men, they wonder why, twelve years later, there is not a pack of eligable men standing in line for them.

But to 'fix' society, women will have to adjust...and it's not just women's rights. It is children's rights which are being used to bludgeon men into servitude. So far, the so called leaders of 'women' have not shown any give and are actually pushing to make the problem worse.

To address the long winded post of the WWII guy (my posts are thorough....yours are long winded  ) what he forgets in his analysis is that mommie also had her list of obligations: she needed to put out on demand, she wasn't really allowed to let her feminine moods impinge on his life, she needed to keep the best house she possibly could, she had to put up with his drinking and possible (in wartime probable) infidelities with a stiff upper lip,and never ever speak disparagingly of him. Divorce was TOTALLY off the table...for both sides. SHE also gave HER all. 

Men would happily sign up for that deal. Is that what they get today? Not really.


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> To address the long winded post of the WWII guy (my posts are thorough....yours are long winded  ) what he forgets in his analysis is that mommie also had her list of obligations: she needed to put out on demand, she wasn't really allowed to let her feminine moods impinge on his life, she needed to keep the best house she possibly could, she had to put up with his drinking and possible (in wartime probable) infidelities with a stiff upper lip,and never ever speak disparagingly of him. Divorce was TOTALLY off the table...for both sides. SHE also gave HER all.
> 
> Men would happily sign up for that deal. Is that what they get today? Not really.


 I think there is many who would sign up for someone who keeps the house clean, puts up with drinking and infidelity and never speaks disparagingly of there spouse (as well as not letting their mood impact their life), sounds like a good deal for many men and women.
Question for me is who would sign up to be that spouse?


----------



## JCD

TiggyBlue said:


> I think there is many who would sign up for someone who keeps the house clean, puts up with drinking and infidelity and never speaks disparagingly of there spouse (as well as not letting their mood impact their life), sounds like a good deal for many men and women.
> Question for me is who would sign up to be that spouse?


Probably the same ones who were told "you are now signing up to work like a slave for 40-80 hours a day until you die, and as an added bonus, if there is a national need, we are sticking you on a little boat in the Pacific so that some Japanese submarine can take potshots at you. You are expected to be emotionally closed off and accept any amount of abuse stoically. Oh, and you WILL like it..."

Some called 'lowered expectations' on both sides.


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> Probably the same ones who were told "you are now signing up to work like a slave for 40-80 hours a day until you die, and as an added bonus, if there is a national need, we are sticking you on a little boat in the Pacific so that some Japanese submarine can take potshots at you. You are expected to be emotionally closed off and accept any amount of abuse stoically. Oh, and you WILL like it..."
> 
> Some called 'lowered expectations' on both sides.


I'm totally confused :scratchhead:


----------



## JCD

Neither side got a great deal. But they got a realistic one
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> Neither side got a great deal. But they got a realistic one
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well realistically if you came from working class plenty of women were working their *ss off too, not everyone could afford to have a sahm (and hard labor jobs not at a desk).
Even some men who did have great jobs would p!ss it away at the pub so family still had nothing to eat and trained the dog to steal food from the market (my great grandad).
The war effected everyone (on the front line men).
Infidelity occurred with both genders, plenty of women where cheating especially during ww1/ww2.

Realistically now both gender's are teaching their daughter/son
to save their *ss and not stay/put themselves in a position that could effect them negatively, we both see and understand the pitfalls of our own gender for getting into marriage/relationship better than the other gender (and plenty off each gender will dismiss the pitfalls of the other gender when comes too marriage).
Personally (don't know if it comes from living in a city) I don't know many women wanting to get married, I'm not sure how long it will be until both gender's start boycotting marriage.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> But MEN also have legitimate greivances with how things have gone.
> 
> Feminism...at least certain strains, do push strongly for total female independence...and while they are twisting themselves into alpha men, they wonder why, twelve years later, there is not a pack of eligable men standing in line for them.
> 
> But to 'fix' society, women will have to adjust...and it's not just women's rights. It is children's rights which are being used to bludgeon men into servitude. So far, the so called leaders of 'women' have not shown any give and are actually pushing to make the problem worse.


Seems to me that if you do not want an independent woman, then you should just refuse to date us or marry us. How hard is that? 

I guess I don't quite understand the problem?

I get that you guys don't like mass media portrayals of men, but as far as I can tell mass media makes everyone look bad. You think Kim Kardashian, Snooki or Paris Hilton, etc, are great role models for women? My solution is to just turn all that crap off.

As for marriage, well, if you don't want it, then don't do it. No?


----------



## Viseral

What'd be nice is equal rights AND equal responsibilities. Women currently enjoy the traditional benefits of marriage as well as the benefits of 50 years of feminist law making. The pendulum has swung too far and now it's men who get the short end of the stick when it comes to the outcome of divorce.

Dead beat dads who've never married actually have more rights than men who marry then divorce. At least the dead beat dads dont have to pay alimony. White collar men are in prison with murderers for not being able to afford their alimony and child support payments.

How many women are in prison for not being able to pay alimony and/or child support?


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Seems to me that if you do not want an independent woman, then you should just refuse to date us or marry us. How hard is that?
> 
> I guess I don't quite understand the problem?
> 
> I get that you guys don't like mass media portrayals of men, but as far as I can tell mass media makes everyone look bad. You think Kim Kardashian, Snooki or Paris Hilton, etc, are great role models for women? My solution is to just turn all that crap off.
> 
> As for marriage, well, if you don't want it, then don't do it. No?


It goes quite beyond that. Men have been marginalized and their 'male' behavior has been semi criminalized or treated in school with drugs because their mostly female teachers just refuse to deal with boys as boys.

Male ROLES have either been taken away or dismissed. A woman almost NEVER runs into that problem. Look at that waste of space Jenny McCarthy. She was one of the worst women I have ever seen. And yet one baby later, and she's reinvented herself as St. Mom. Women always have a role. Women are always welcome. Consider how incredibly psychologically devastating it is to a woman who is infertile. While such a role binds, it is also a nice soft cushion. That uncertainty that drives women to drugs and depression is the male everyday lot.

Anecdote. I was speaking to a woman friend who was in the same field. I asked her what she would do if her career didn't take off. "Oh...I guess I'll just get married."

That, in a nutshell is the difference between the sexes.


----------



## Kaboom

Catherine..
Where to start?

I'm all about independent women, go get an education, make a life for yourself. Please! Call me a sperm donor and disrespect me, that's fine too. 

But, let's be honest. The "independent woman" is frankly a rare species. The majority of women aren't as you describe, nor are the men in their lives. 

The majority of women have taken your cue- They treat themselves as an equal, they lavish in their newfound freedoms of self. They are independent of mind. They expect their men to treat them as such too- everything from sharing the household duties equally, and in many cases, expect the man to do even more. Men now do their share of dishes, cooking, laundry, and taking care of the kids.

But where are the women? Most are unlike you. Most didn't go get that education and career. Most are not like you. Most are uneducated, lazy, unmotivated, and insecure financially and emotionally. But one thing they did inherit- your lust for equality, and your outlook on men. 

Forget that we (men) help out equally with the house. Most women see themselves as deserving. They don't need to help out as much around the house, because they are independent! Their mothers, or grandmothers were hausfrau's, and damned if these women don't deserve to be treated with respect and dignity and showered with praise and rewarded for.. wait, for what?

For being lazy? Unmotivated? Working part time, if at all? Rewarded for sitting in front of FaceBook all day, posting stupid images of those stupid e-cards about how witty women are and how stupid men just try to take advantage of them?

These same women, who honestly do much less than "equal" in every aspect of their lives, also have a way-overblown sense of entitlement. How many of them feel that they deserve to cheat on their men, divorce them and "take them to the cleaners". 

What my grandpappy did to your grandma 70 years ago bears zero importance on how you or I should act or think about anything today. Man or woman, you have choices. You choose to have a career and make your own life, well that's fantastic. Same boat as if I do the same. If I choose to sit on my ass and get fat and post on FB all day and become dependent on you? Well, I get zilch when you finally get rid of me, right? But reverse that.. and you get it all. There's no fairness in that.

Don't even pretend to argue that most women don't honestly believe that they deserve it either. They did nothing to deserve it- their ancestors did. And they are taking advantage of their ancestors fights and rewards. Most women think this way, and most women take advantage of it. 

I've lost count of how man good, honest men have gone down the tubes because of a vindictive woman they made the mistake of marrying or having kids with. I only know ONE guy who divorced where the Xwife treats him like a human and doesn't clean him out. She still gets child support, but it's an agreed amount outside of the court, to what he can afford, and more importantly, for them both to be able to attend to the needs of their kids in a realistic and fair manner. How many divorces you see like that? Not many, I'd wager.


----------



## TiggyBlue

The previous post is as relevant as saying most men are selfish, lazy dead beat dads who don't pull their weight in a relationship leave a situation and their children when life get stressful (have seen that happen quite alot).
Both are poor and negative reflections on their gender and it's unfair to tar others with the same brush.
To try to paint the majority either gender in such a bad light just comes across as bitter IMO.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> There are a few things that have not been considered in the discussion.
> 
> *The evolution of the economy. *The movement away from industrial manual labor to skills and education based labor is not due to feminism but evolution of the economy.
> 
> Economic evolution governed the rise of industry and the fall of an agrarian-based economy and it governs the rise of the technically-based economy and the fall of industrial-based one.
> 
> Change favors those who are prepared and flexible. Women happened to come into the work force at the cusp of the changes and filled a void.
> 
> The unprecedented economic growth over the last 40years is in part due to the increased numbers of people working, generating income and paying taxes. Many of those new workers are women.
> 
> Is that not of some value? Do we need to go back to the times were women's roles were restricted to supporting her husband and having kids? And give up all of the profits we enjoy?
> 
> *The devaluation of the people who support behind the lines.* To name a few - During this recession, 40% of American households were sustained by a working women.
> 
> During WWII, women had essential roles. They worked the factories to keep the ecomomy pumping and providing impliments for men on the front lines.
> 
> Some of the most effective spy's were women, many of whom lost their lives. They organized and participated in The Resistance. They saved the lives of 10's of thousands of men. Legions of women were cryptologists and code breakers and saved lives by their work.
> 
> *The lack of appreciation for the role a women in a mans success.* I find it strange that men who were supported behind the scenes by their wives think that it is unfair to share the fruits of the labors made possible by that support. That's why the laws on child support and community property.
> 
> Too many men did not honor their obligation to their children and helpmate. It was left to the rest of the hard working citizenry to support his kids and ex.
> 
> If these men appreciated and valued their wives in their lives and success, there would be no need for laws to force the issue.
> 
> Men look for a wife to is devoted and desires him. That makes it possible for him to go out and conquer worlds or that is what we are lead to believe.
> 
> *He enjoys her role as someone to support his feelings of masculinity, to mother his kids, keep a home and act as social secretary, and nurse. that is considered a good wife, no?
> 
> But does he appreciate the support? I'll bet many women who walk away do so because they feel they are taken for granted. Isn't that confirmed when hubby wants to walk out on his bill?*


Very solid ^^^argument Catherine.
Interesting perspective!


----------



## Kaboom

TiggyBlue said:


> The previous post is as relevant as saying most men are selfish, lazy dead beat dads who don't pull their weight in a relationship leave a situation and their children when life get stressful (have seen that happen quite alot).
> Both are poor and negative reflections on their gender and it's unfair to tar others with the same brush.
> To try to paint the majority either gender in such a bad light just comes across as bitter IMO.


True, so then by sake of argument, my post was necessary to properly balance Catherines


----------



## JCD

Catherine, you raise some valid points, let me raise a few more.

Doubling the work force nailed wages to the ground. You can talk about increasing the growth of the economy (mostly due to the infrastructure of everywhere besides America being a bombed out mess) but when suddenly women started working, YES for less money, what did that do to FAMILY wages? There are negative consequences even to good things.

Women feel unappreciated? La Dee Frigging Da! Do you think MEN ever feel unappreciated? Some guy in a cherry picker is hooking up wires AT NIGHT, in the rain in 40 degrees with the wind howling, and he comes home to 'You don't spend enough time with the kids. You need to do more laundry. I need to express myself as a person so outside of the 60 hours you are putting in at work, I need you to take YOUR 'person expressing time' away (HA!) so I can have mine. And by the way, you don't make enough money..." That particular shoe pinches BOTH feet.

Now, perhaps you meant GENERICALLY as a SOCIETY. You know... the same society that nigh canonizes mothers. I recall a story by one of the Greek Philosophers asking about the happiest men in the world and he related some tale about these twins who hitched up a wagon for their mum and RAN it to the Olympic games so she could see the games...and they promptly dropped dead of a heart attack, having the adoration of society for treating their mom so good. Dad? Dead or unmentioned. Just an illustration.

Yeah, I get that there is a bit of imbalance but frankly, is all the dismissiveness toward mom's and wives coming from MEN...or from some of the fellow feminists who think women who 'buy into the patriarchy' are letting their side down?

Yes, the support emotional and physical allows a man to do great things. Guess what? AFTER the divorce, the man continues to do great things. He tends to do better fiscally after a divorce than women do.

Now...most women report that they have 'no regrets' after the divorce...as they find themselves in poverty with kids who do much worse in school and life. So...either there are a HELL OF A LOT of HORRIBLE men out there...or a lot of women are whistling past the graveyard. Maybe both.

Another thing which is missing from your 'appreciation' story is another technological reality: the 'effort' made by women today to keep the family going is a shadow of that of her foremothers. When you start churning butter, beating rugs with a broom, and, you know....COOKING and not just heating things up in a microwave, then I'll start to get a bit more misty eyed...I have done women's work. It requires a bit of organizational magic, but generally doesn't take up THAT much time. Most men have.

BTW, my wife ROCKS. I frequently tell her that I could not bring in as much money as I do if I didn't have her behind me. She allows me to focus on my career. I also told her if she could pull down the same coin as I did, I would take over her job so I could be 'unappreciated'. And as a lot of SAHDs can attest...the only person who is less appreciated than a housewife in the house...is a househusband... 

But bringing down that kind of coin doesn't just magically appear. It requires things like travel, working in bad weather, physical risk, and sometimes even going without a coffee maker! These are jobs that women tend to avoid on the whole.


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> This thread amply illustrates why women need to protect their interest. Men have a tendency to overvalue their labors and undervalue women's.


Without disagreeing over whether some men are selfish, unappreciative babies, I think there is still a legitimate grievance left even after we trim that fact away.

I don't think I've drawn the short end of the stick. --I'm simply tired of seeing the message that men and fathers are unnecessary at best and evil at worst subtly threaded even in children's entertainment.


----------



## Kobo

Awesome thread. IMO Catherine's posts and JCD response is an issue that generally plays out below the surface of all the symptom issues that people in LTRs struggle with. I also don't think its as easy as saying a man doesn't appreciate his wife. I think in the majority of relationships if you ask a man if he appreciates the dinner that gets put on the table or the organization of the housework or any other "domestic" duties completed by his wife he will tell you he appreciates it and truly mean it. If you look at Catherine's post and the instances she mentions where she believes women are under-appreciated and you see that you are fighting against something bigger than just your relationship. You are fighting against a mindset that a woman will be under valued by default in all areas. That's a tough mindset to get around in an LTR where people are going to fall into complacency from time to time. Men often wonder why SAHMs become all mother and no wife. Well the successful kids can demonstrate their value. 

I actually asked my wife to go back to work because she wasn't built for the SAHM role. I saw some of the things that people post about here. Housework not getting done like it used to. The kids were taken care of with plenty of trips to the reading hour at B&N or whatever but the basic stuff started getting left undone or halfway done. Caused plenty of intense discussions  I just started picking up on the fact that she didn't feel that stuff was valuable use of time. She's college educated and had that expectation of having a successful career while growing up. She saw the value with being there for the kids but the housework duties lost their flare. That didn't play well with me so we worked on getting her back into the workforce. Now the person undervaluing her is her male boss(True Story  )


----------



## Viseral

Good discussion.

Technology freed women more than any women's rights movement. Without birth control, washing machines, dishwashers, child day care, and machines to plow the fields both men and women would still be bound to their gender roles.

The privileged liberal white women who started 2nd wave feminism in the 1960's were never oppressed, at least not like the blacks were. 

They were never enslaved or segregated by law. And while women were house bound, men suffered just as much in the fields and the wars and the mines. Oppression has always been across ethnic and class lines, not gender.

But most of western society operates on the myth that western women are "oppressed" by "the patriarchy" and they need to fight more and more to free them from this oppression.

The result is that in family and domestic law women have gained special rights. For example, because of no-fault divorce it's perfectly legal for a woman to cheat on her husband, leave him for another man, take his children, and then have the courts make the man pay her for that through property division, alimony, and child support. 

This is something that men cannot do to women. In fact, with the awards that courts give women, there's now a financial incentive for women to seek divorce, and as a result we see 70% of divorces being initiated by women. The state will be certain to reward immoral behavior.

I believe that most men on here truly love women, we just resent some of the laws that have burned so many men. This is often mis-interpreted as men wanting to go back to the 1950's. It's not that at all, we just want to see equal rights AND equal responsibilities.

We want men to be held accountable for their obligations to women and children, but we also want women to be held accountable for their obligations to men.


----------



## Catherine602

I am a bit sick of the rampant woman bashing on this site. It gets worse and worse every month. Some of the venerable male members who were able to temper the discussion to a reasonable level, rarely post or are gone. 

If this trend continues, the only posters on this site will be bitter, angry men wipping each other up to a froth about the wichery that is woman. Good luck with that. 

This forum is fortunate to have men and women voices to discuss our repective points of view. Men rarely have an outlet to express their pain and unhappiness. This is a great place for that. There is no cause to get carried away though. 

Your wife may have disappointed you but you have daughters and mothers, do you say these evil things to them? Are they lazy, fat, nickel and dime artist? Do the women in your life know how you feel? Do you tell them they are fat and lazy? 

I purposely made my post generalized. If you think it is unfair then read over your posts. If your wife has done you wrong, talk about her. She is not the archetype of all woman. 

And BTW - Where did I say all of these horrible things about men? I think you have to look at yourself to find out from wence they came. It's not me so you have to own it. What came first, the problem women or the problem with women after the relationship with the wife?


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> I am a bit sick of the rampant woman bashing on this site. It gets worse and worse every month. Some of the venerable male members who were able to temper the discussion to a reasonable level, rarely post or are gone.
> 
> If this trend continues, the only posters on this site will be bitter, angry men wipping each other up to a froth about the wichery that is woman. Good luck with that.
> 
> This forum is fortunate to have men and women voices to discuss our repective points of view. Men rarely have an outlet to express their pain and unhappiness. This is a great place for that. There is no cause to get carried away though.
> 
> Your wife may have disappointed you but you have daughters and mothers, do you say these evil things to them? Are they lazy, fat, nickel and dime artist? Do the women in your life know how you feel? Do you tell them they are fat and lazy?
> 
> I purposely made my post generalized. If you think it is unfair then read over your posts. If your wife has done you wrong, talk about her. She is not the archetype of all woman.
> 
> And BTW - Where did I say all of these horrible things about men? I think you have to look at yourself to find out from wence they came. It's not me so you have to own it. What came first, the problem women or the problem with women after the relationship with the wife?



Catherine,

I'm so proud of my wife and daughters most days I could pop. My wife holds a doctorate in her field. I don't. 

You would have to amplify on what 'evil' I have said or where I ever referred to them (Or anybody else) as 'fat' or 'lazy' before I could even begin to elaborate. 

Again, I am simply unhappy with the role of the father being denigrated in our society. This is very, very, very well documented and I *can *elaborate on that....


----------



## Catherine602

Viseral said:


> Good discussion.
> 
> Technology freed women more than any women's rights movement. Without birth control, washing machines, dishwashers, child day care, and machines to plow the fields both men and women would still be bound to their gender roles.
> 
> The privileged liberal white women who started 2nd wave feminism in the 1960's were never oppressed, at least not like the blacks were.
> 
> They were never enslaved or segregated by law. And while women were house bound, men suffered just as much in the fields and the wars and the mines. Oppression has always been across ethnic and class lines, not gender.
> 
> But most of western society operates on the myth that western women are "oppressed" by "the patriarchy" and they need to fight more and more to free them from this oppression.
> 
> The result is that in family and domestic law women have gained special rights. For example, because of no-fault divorce it's perfectly legal for a woman to cheat on her husband, leave him for another man, take his children, and then have the courts make the man pay her for that through property division, alimony, and child support.
> 
> This is something that men cannot do to women. In fact, with the awards that courts give women, there's now a financial incentive for women to seek divorce, and as a result we see 70% of divorces being initiated by women. The state will be certain to reward immoral behavior.
> 
> I believe that most men on here truly love women, we just resent some of the laws that have burned so many men. This is often mis-interpreted as men wanting to go back to the 1950's. It's not that at all, we just want to see equal rights AND equal responsibilities.
> 
> We want men to be held accountable for their obligations to women and children, but we also want women to be held accountable for their obligations to men.


I don't know your story but whatever it is, you need to get it fixed. You can't go through your life with all of this rage and bitterness in you heart. 

If its your wife who hurt you, she is still hurting you if these beliefs are the result of your problems. Accept your role in the problems, and throw off the dust of the relationship and move up and out.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Viseral said:


> Good discussion.
> 
> Technology freed women more than any women's rights movement. Without birth control, washing machines, dishwashers, child day care, and machines to plow the fields both men and women would still be bound to their gender roles.
> 
> The privileged liberal white women who started 2nd wave feminism in the 1960's were never oppressed, at least not like the blacks were.
> 
> They were never enslaved or segregated by law. And while women were house bound, men suffered just as much in the fields and the wars and the mines. Oppression has always been across ethnic and class lines, not gender.
> 
> But most of western society operates on the myth that western women are "oppressed" by "the patriarchy" and they need to fight more and more to free them from this oppression.
> 
> The result is that in family and domestic law women have gained special rights. For example, because of no-fault divorce it's perfectly legal for a woman to cheat on her husband, leave him for another man, take his children, and then have the courts make the man pay her for that through property division, alimony, and child support.
> 
> This is something that men cannot do to women. In fact, with the awards that courts give women, there's now a financial incentive for women to seek divorce, and as a result we see 70% of divorces being initiated by women. The state will be certain to reward immoral behavior.
> 
> I believe that most men on here truly love women, we just resent some of the laws that have burned so many men. This is often mis-interpreted as men wanting to go back to the 1950's. It's not that at all, we just want to see equal rights AND equal responsibilities.
> 
> *We want men to be held accountable for their obligations to women and children, but we also want women to be held accountable for their obligations to men*.


:iagree: I agree with the last sentence especially. Equality for all.


----------



## Catherine602

ocotillo said:


> Catherine,
> 
> I'm so proud of my wife and daughters most days I could pop. My wife holds a doctorate in her field. I don't.
> 
> You would have to amplify on what 'evil' I have said or where I ever referred to them (Or anybody else) as 'fat' or 'lazy' before I could even begin to elaborate.
> 
> Again, I am simply unhappy with the role of the father being denigrated in our society. This is very, very, very well documented and I *can *elaborate on that....


I dont know where ths myth of child support as unfair to men comes from. Men are far more likely to walk away from their children than women by a wide margin. This happened before the statutes for child support were enacted and it happens now.

It may seem unfair for men to pay to raise their kids their after they divorce the mother but it is fair to the children. Children are born with a mother and father.

If kids are being raised by a divorced woman without the father, that is an indictment of the father. No one is preventing men from being a presence in HS kids life. 

It is a choice that is made too often. The stats on the problems kids have with divorce is mainly due to one or both parents not being involved in their lives. Thats who the statutes are for, to protect children. 

One of my cousins has been divorced for 10 years. This year, his oldest boy is was accepted into NYU to study engenering. If it were up to his mother, he would not do so well. She has married twice during 10 years time. 

My cousin has been a constant presence in every aspect of their lives. He has not married because his focus is raising his boys to be happy adults.

That's an example of the involvement of a father that most likely averted potential problems. He worked as hard as was needed to get them to a good place. 

He is a man i respect because he stepped up. He never complained about the lack of fathers rights. Never said a bad word about his wife in my hearing.


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> I dont know where ths myth of child support as unfair to men comes from...


I don't either.

Again, without disagreeing with you; that has nothing to do with what I was 'talking' about.


----------



## Catherine602

Viseral said:


> What'd be nice is equal rights AND equal responsibilities. Women currently enjoy the traditional benefits of marriage as well as the benefits of 50 years of feminist law making. The pendulum has swung too far and now it's men who get the short end of the stick when it comes to the outcome of divorce.
> 
> Dead beat dads who've never married actually have more rights than men who marry then divorce. At least the dead beat dads dont have to pay alimony. White collar men are in prison with murderers for not being able to afford their alimony and child support payments.
> 
> How many women are in prison for not being able to pay alimony and/or child support?


Child support is based on income or ability to pay, not gender. Many women who make more than men pay child support and alimony to their ex. 

That new because women have not been the higher earner in the past.

As far as men going to prison, what circumstances would land a man in jail? He can't work so that defeats the purpose, no. 

His wage is garnished and his tax refund is diverted to his children. Nothing wrong with that, no?


----------



## Viseral

Catherine602 said:


> I don't know your story but whatever it is, you need to get it fixed. You can't go through your life with all of this rage and bitterness in you heart.
> 
> If its your wife who hurt you, she is still hurting you if these beliefs are the result of your problems. Accept your role in the problems, and throw off the dust of the relationship and move up and out.


Actually Catherine, I never once said a bad thing about women. Men and fathers do have legitimate issues with family law and with the portrayal of men in the media.

And to reiterate, most men truly love women. I know I do, it's simply that the current marriage/divorce system strips men of power over their own lives and devalues fatherhood, and we need a voice.

Now, your personal ad hominem affront to me was a convenient way to avoid addressing the real issues that men face.

Perhaps you'd like to help men understand how our current media and legal system values men and fathers?


----------



## Catherine602

ocotillo said:


> I don't either.
> 
> Again, without disagreeing with you; that has nothing to do with what I was 'talking' about.


Ocotillo I quoted your post in error I will remove it. Sorry.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Male ROLES have either been taken away or dismissed. A woman almost NEVER runs into that problem. Look at that waste of space Jenny McCarthy. She was one of the worst women I have ever seen. And yet one baby later, and she's reinvented herself as St. Mom. Women always have a role. Women are always welcome. Consider how incredibly psychologically devastating it is to a woman who is infertile. While such a role binds, it is also a nice soft cushion. That uncertainty that drives women to drugs and depression is the male everyday lot.
> 
> Anecdote. I was speaking to a woman friend who was in the same field. I asked her what she would do if her career didn't take off. "Oh...I guess I'll just get married."
> 
> That, in a nutshell is the difference between the sexes.


Not sure who Jenny McCarthy is or why you consider her to be a "waste of space", but I can't say that I agree that women are always welcome or always have a role. It sure would make life easier, but it just ain't like that. 

Is it moreso than men? Maybe. But it strikes me as odd that you seem to be alternately complaining that men have no role or acceptance and that women are so lucky because we can rely on men to be our providers. Isn't the role of provider one that men seek and revel in? Because it sounds more like you resent and don't want it.

I also wonder about this lament for days gone by when men had more physical, manual labour type jobs. As far as I know, there are still plenty around. I've heard that most men don't want them because they are low status and backbreaking. Where I am, migrant workers have to be imported to pick up that slack. Men and women.

I agree wholeheartedly about the schools though. Crazy bad.


----------



## Viseral

Catherine602 said:


> Child support is based on income or ability to pay, not gender. Many women who make more than men pay child support and alimony to their ex.
> 
> That new because women have not been the higher earner in the past.
> 
> As far as men going to prison, what circumstances would land a man in jail? He can't work so that defeats the purpose, no.
> 
> His wage is garnished and his tax refund is diverted to his children. Nothing wrong with that is their?


The Bradley Amendment in the US dictates that if a person can't pay child support due to job loss or any other legitimate reason, he will be imprisoned. Since courts grant primary child custody to women 9 times out of 10, that means that men are the ones who go to prison.


----------



## Catherine602

Kaboom said:


> Catherine..
> Where to start?
> 
> I'm all about independent women, go get an education, make a life for yourself. Please! Call me a sperm donor and disrespect me, that's fine too.
> 
> But, let's be honest. The "independent woman" is frankly a rare species. The majority of women aren't as you describe, nor are the men in their lives.
> 
> The majority of women have taken your cue- They treat themselves as an equal, they lavish in their newfound freedoms of self. They are independent of mind. They expect their men to treat them as such too- everything from sharing the household duties equally, and in many cases, expect the man to do even more. Men now do their share of dishes, cooking, laundry, and taking care of the kids.
> 
> But where are the women? Most are unlike you. Most didn't go get that education and career. Most are not like you. Most are uneducated, lazy, unmotivated, and insecure financially and emotionally. But one thing they did inherit- your lust for equality, and your outlook on men.​
> Forget that we (men) help out equally with the house. Most women see themselves as deserving. They don't need to help out as much around the house, because they are independent!​ Their mothers, or grandmothers were hausfrau's, and damned if these women don't deserve to be treated with respect and dignity and showered with praise and rewarded for.. wait, for what?
> 
> For being lazy? Unmotivated? Working part time, if at all? Rewarded for sitting in front of FaceBook all day, posting stupid images of those stupid e-cards about how witty women are and how stupid men just try to take advantage of them?​
> These same women, who honestly do much less than "equal" in every aspect of their lives, also have a way-overblown sense of entitlement.​ How many of them feel that they deserve to cheat on their men, divorce them and "take them to the cleaners".
> 
> What my grandpappy did to your grandma 70 years ago bears zero importance on how you or I should act or think about anything today. Man or woman, you have choices. You choose to have a career and make your own life, well that's fantastic. Same boat as if I do the same. If I choose to sit on my ass and get fat and post on FB all day and become dependent on you? Well, I get zilch when you finally get rid of me, right? But reverse that.. and you get it all. There's no fairness in that.​
> Don't even pretend to argue that most women don't honestly believe that they deserve it either.They did nothing to deserve it- their ancestors did. And they are taking advantage of their ancestors fights and rewards. Most women think this way, and most women take advantage of it.​
> I've lost count of how man good, honest men have gone down the tubes because of a vindictive woman they made the mistake of marrying or having kids with.I​ only know ONE guy who divorced where the Xwife treats him like a human and doesn't clean him out. She still gets child support, but it's an agreed amount outside of the court, to what he can afford, and more importantly, for them both to be able to attend to the needs of their kids in a realistic and fair manner. How many divorces you see like that? Not many, I'd wager.​


​
What do you call this? Would you show this to your wife and daughter? What would they say? Do they know how angry you are?


----------



## wilderness

Catherine602 said:


> I dont know where ths myth of child support as unfair to men comes from. Men are far more likely to walk away from their children than women by a wide margin. This happened before the statutes for child support were enacted and it happens now.
> 
> It may seem unfair for men to pay to raise their kids their after they divorce the mother but it is fair to the children. Children are born with a mother and father.
> 
> If kids are being raised by a divorced woman without the father, that is an indictment of the father. No one is preventing men from being a presence in HS kids life.
> 
> It is a choice that is made too often. The stats on the problems kids have with divorce is mainly due to one or both parents not being involved in their lives. Thats who the statutes are for, to protect children.
> 
> One of my cousins has been divorced for 10 years. This year, his oldest boy is was accepted into NYU to study engenering. If it were up to his mother, he would not do so well. She has married twice during 10 years time.
> 
> My cousin has been a constant presence in every aspect of their lives. He has not married because his focus is raising his boys to be happy adults.
> 
> That's an example of the involvement of a father that most likely averted potential problems. He worked as hard as was needed to get them to a good place.
> 
> He is a man i respect because he stepped up. He never complained about the lack of fathers rights. Never said a bad word about his wife in my hearing.


As a man going through a divorce and researching this very issue for the last several years as a consequence, I couldn't possibly disagree more with your post. Before I explain the specifics of why I disagree, please understand that I have read thousands of threads on various forums, researched case law extrensively, and attended many real life court hearings (all this in the name of trying to stay in my daughter's life). In other words, my words come from a place of emperical experience.

First of all, child support. Child support in today's world is almost exclusively something that men pay. When they do, it is paid _directly_ to women, who may literally do whatever they choose with it. *Women are not required to support children with child support.* Women are not required to account for that money at all. Furthermore, it does not count toward their income so they pay no taxes on it. Also, it is not tax deductible for the man. Furthermore, child support awards _commonly _ (most of the time) create a gigantic divergence in standard of living for the mother and the father. _Often_ this results in men not making enough money to afford basic needs like housing and transportation.
BUT men are not eligible for social services, even though women are. No foodstamps for single men in most states. NO housing allowances, daycare help- NONE of that stuff.

Second of all, custody. Women enjoy a ridiculously biased system that grants them every quarter and every opportunity to gain custody. BUT they are not required by any real consequence to allow men to visit their children. The remedies for withheld visitation are expensive, time consuming, difficult, and mostly lacking in punishment to all women but the very worst offenders. As such, parental alienation of fathers has become the norm in today's world. 

Men don't pay child support, lock them up and throw away the key. Take their driver's licenses and ostracize them from society. _EVEN if they don't have the means to pay it._ The state pursues these cases for women- they need not spend any time or resources doing it.

Women withhold visitation, men have to take them to court OVER and OVER and OVER again before anything happens to them. It can take years. And even then, the burden of proof is squarely on the man's shoulders to prove the withheld visitation.


----------



## JCD

Catherine602 said:


> I am a bit sick of the rampant woman bashing on this site. It gets worse and worse every month. Some of the venerable male members who were able to temper the discussion to a reasonable level, rarely post or are gone.
> 
> If this trend continues, the only posters on this site will be bitter, angry men wipping each other up to a froth about the wichery that is woman. Good luck with that.


Okay, I'm not sure where that is directed, but I'll assume it's me. I am the poster who said women's rights is a REAL issue...just as I suggested that some of the leadership has gone off the rails and that not all women agree with the direction so called women leaders are leading them. Is this an example of the bitter visceral hatred that I have for women?

I am trying very hard NOT to make this personal. My wife is pretty good. Wouldn't trade her in for anyone. However, if I failed or I insulted you by the TONE, I apologize. 

I do not apologize to the content. This is a site specific place for men TO complain about male issues....and I think this is a male issue. We don't know where we fit into society anymore and yes, we feel underappreciated. This is REAL. We might be incorrect, but this is our perception.



> This forum is fortunate to have men and women voices to discuss our repective points of view. Men rarely have an outlet to express their pain and unhappiness. This is a great place for that. There is no cause to get carried away though.


Agreed.



> Your wife may have disappointed you but you have daughters and mothers, do you say these evil things to them? Are they lazy, fat, nickel and dime artist? Do the women in your life know how you feel? Do you tell them they are fat and lazy?


Um...Never said that or implied it. Maybe you are talking about someone else after all. SOME women are like that. Most women are not. MOST women I know work VERY HARD because they are fighting that stereotype and know that they have to be better than the men just for scraps of respect. I know many women like that.

...and I have met their opposites who took advantage of laws to get positions which frankly should have gone to more talented men. There are not many like that...but they DO exist and are resented...probably as much as women resent less talented men who have positions of authority over them 



> I purposely made my post generalized. If you think it is unfair then read over your posts. If your wife has done you wrong, talk about her. She is not the archetype of all woman.
> 
> And BTW - Where did I say all of these horrible things about men? I think you have to look at yourself to find out from wence they came. It's not me so you have to own it. What came first, the problem women or the problem with women after the relationship with the wife?


Hmm...have to explain that.



Catherine602 said:


> I dont know where ths myth of child support as unfair to men comes from. Men are far more likely to walk away from their children than women by a wide margin. This happened before the statutes for child support were enacted and it happens now.
> 
> It may seem unfair for men to pay to raise their kids their after they divorce the mother but it is fair to the children. Children are born with a mother and father.


MEN as a generic rule look down on deadbeat fathers. However, let me say this: the financials of divorce is a Gordian Knot. Assume for a moment that wife X cheats on hubby and then goes to court for a divorce. Happens every day here. He is tasked with ALIMONY, child support, HOUSEHOLD MAINTANENCE, paying for her car...maybe paying for her education etc. This can be more than a man can afford and still live. So now he has to work MORE to be half as comfortable as he was before.

He is not allowed a buffet of paying only one or two of those bills. The law demands he pays EVERYTHING and if he is found, they will take it...or put him in jail. So some of these men would happily pay for their children even as they don't want to support the woman who put a knife in his back. But they aren't allowed that option by the logistics of the law.

And yes, some guys are just greedy bastards. Won't deny that a bit.



> If kids are being raised by a divorced woman without the father, that is an indictment of the father. No one is preventing men from being a presence in HS kids life.
> 
> It is a choice that is made too often. The stats on the problems kids have with divorce is mainly due to one or both parents not being involved in their lives. That's who the statutes are for, to protect children.


Blink blink...REALLY? There are tons of horror stories about men getting shafted by their wives about visitation. Some of them are probably true too.  And I do not ascribe that purely to women's evilness. Ex wife has a life too and she's certainly not about to bend over backwards to change HER life to suit his needs. I don't blame her...but that means scheduling conflicts as both spouses are suddenly busier then they ever were and are less ameanable to civil interaction. YOU may not be that way. I may not be that way. But it's still true in a lot of cases.



> One of my cousins has been divorced for 10 years. This year, his oldest boy is was accepted into NYU to study engenering. If it were up to his mother, he would not do so well. She has married twice during 10 years time.
> 
> My cousin has been a constant presence in every aspect of their lives. He has not married because his focus is raising his boys to be happy adults.
> 
> That's an example of the involvement of a father that most likely averted potential problems. He worked as hard as was needed to get them to a good place.
> 
> He is a man i respect because he stepped up. He never complained about the lack of fathers rights. Never said a bad word about his wife in my hearing.


I believe everything you say. I would suggest that you take him out for a drink and ask him what he thinks of the system. Just listen. The fact that he toughed it out is wonderful. I applaud him for his efforts.

But are you defending his lack of rights because your cousin was able to work things out anyway? That is like me pointing to Theodora of Byzantium and saying "Hey...that ex prostitute was able to get to become an Empress. Woman can't have had it so bad..." The individual is not the specific.

But I'm also sure that his ex was amenable. Ask him if he could have done what he did if she was antagonistic.


----------



## TiggyBlue

It's weird to hear women aren't required to pay child support when I know women who do. 
Having a cousin who's ex wanted the children for soul purpose of getting child support, had legal funding (she got no help and foot the legal bills herself) lived in a caravan park and still got custody for 4 years (until child abuse was proven). 
Maybe it depends where you live but it's seems to be seen that it's impossible for women to get shafted by the legal system.


----------



## wilderness

TiggyBlue said:


> It's weird to hear women aren't required to pay child support when I know women who do.
> Having a cousin who's ex wanted the children for soul purpose of getting child support, had legal funding (she got no help and foot the legal bills herself) lived in a caravan park and still got custody for 4 years (until child abuse was proven).
> Maybe it depends where you live but it's seems to be seen that it's impossible for women to get shafted by the legal system.


That's the story that she told you, but I don't believe it. I have NEVER come across a case like this in all of my studies. Not to mention that the story does NOT make sense. First of all, if your cousin's ex had 'legal funding' aka 'means' he would have been court ordered to pay for your cousin's lawyer. That's true everywhere, btw. Next, "who's ex wanted the children for soul purposes of getting child support"- that is a very common line used by women but is rarely true. 

As to the child support, it is very rare for a woman to be ordered to pay it, even more rare for her to pay her fair share (as the courts define men's fair share), and even rarer still to collect it.


----------



## Catherine602

wilderness said:


> As a man going through a divorce and researching this very issue for the last several years as a consequence, I couldn't possibly disagree more with your post. Before I explain the specifics of why I disagree, please understand that I have read thousands of threads on various forums, researched case law extrensively, and attended many real life court hearings (all this in the name of trying to stay in my daughter's life). In other words, my words come from a place of emperical experience.
> 
> First of all, child support. Child support in today's world is almost exclusively something that men pay. When they do, it is paid _directly_ to women, who may literally do whatever they choose with it. *Women are not required to support children with child support.* Women are not required to account for that money at all. Furthermore, it does not count toward their income so they pay no taxes on it. Also, it is not tax deductible for the man. Furthermore, child support awards _commonly _ (most of the time) create a gigantic divergence in standard of living for the mother and the father. _Often_ this results in men not making enough money to afford basic needs like housing and transportation.
> BUT men are not eligible for social services, even though women are. No foodstamps for single men in most states. NO housing allowances, daycare help- NONE of that stuff.
> 
> Second of all, custody. Women enjoy a ridiculously biased system that grants them every quarter and every opportunity to gain custody. BUT they are not required by any real consequence to allow men to visit their children. The remedies for withheld visitation are expensive, time consuming, difficult, and mostly lacking in punishment to all women but the very worst offenders. As such, parental alienation of fathers has become the norm in today's world.
> 
> Men don't pay child support, lock them up and throw away the key. Take their driver's licenses and ostracize them from society. _EVEN if they don't have the means to pay it._ The state pursues these cases for women- they need not spend any time or resources doing it.
> 
> Women withhold visitation, men have to take them to court OVER and OVER and OVER again before anything happens to them. It can take years. And even then, the burden of proof is squarely on the man's shoulders to prove the withheld visitation.


Really, women do that?? Generilize much? 

Actually, the laws are most successful in collecting from deadbeat middle-class and wealthy men who can pay. It is about 68% of the money owed, which about to 10's of millions of dollars. It is a problem.

It's popular to vent hostility on women because men have to pay support to their own kids. Sounds better than admitting that they want to withhold money from their children. 

Would you agree that Child support has nothing to do with mothers and everything to do with the needs of a man children?. 

The costodial parent is paying child support. You are doing something that is common. You give more value to the money the farher gives than what the costodial parent, usually the mother, does. 

The child lives with that parent who has the major responsibility for them. It's not every other w/e. it's day to day, food, clothing, housing entertainment, activities. What is the alternative do you suggest? 

Should the kids suffer because their mother makes less than their father? They have two parents who have responsibility for them. Why would one parent begrudge their own flesh and blood what they need if they are able to do so? 

The child support that the mother supplies is deducted from the amont the father pays. Some monitary credit is given to the costodial parent.

Would you agree that the expenses for raising a child for 12/14 days is more than having than for 2/14 days? Should the child be impoverished for 12/14 days? 

Actually the data show that divorced fathers do better financially than women who become impoverished. If men are so bad off how do you explain that? 

That stat shows that many men don't make sure that their kids avoid poverty even when they have the means. The enforcement of child support statutes is the lest that children deserve.


----------



## wilderness

> It's popular to vent hostility on women because men have to pay support to their own kids. Sounds better than admitting that they want to withhold money from their children.



Men don't pay child support to children, we've already established that. The money goes directly to women. *Women are NOT required to support their children with that money.* Women are not required to account for where they spend the money. Women that don't work are still eligible for social services like housing, daycare, and foodstamps even if they make thousands of dollars a month in child support. Men are not.



> Would you agree that Child support has nothing to do with mothers and everything to do with the needs of a man children?.


No, I wouldn't agree with that. I would say that the _pretense_ is that child support is for children. The reality is that each state receives 100% matching federal funds for each dollar of child support they collect. And since it is MUCH easier to collect from men as opposed to women, and the state's primary objective it to make as much money as possible, the net result is that women are rolling in the child support gravy train. And again, when I use the term 'child support' it is a euphemism and not a true reflection on where this money is practically allocated in the real world.



> The costodial parent is paying child support. You are doing something that is common. You give more value to the money the farher gives than what the costodial parent, usually the mother, does.


I'm not sure what you mean. But I'll guess- are you saying that in some cases the custodial parent pays child support? If yes, that is absolutely true, but ONLY when the custodial parent is a man. It's almost unheard of for this to happen to a woman.



> The child lives with that parent who has the major responsibility for them. It's not every other w/e. it's day to day, food, clothing, housing entertainment, activities. What is the alternative do you suggest?


The most sensible alternative is to end no fault divorce. The party at fault (affair, abuse, etc) loses custody. Failing that, 50/50 in every case would be MUCH better for children. Taking a parent from a child is inhumane and horribly damaging. In a 50/50 custody situation, each parent is required to support the child on their own time so no money need change hands. Of course, the state wouldn't be rolling in matching federal funds if they ever adopted this policy so it's not going to happen any time soon.




> Should the kids suffer because their mother makes less than their father? They have two parents who have responsibility for them. Why would one parent begrudge their own flesh and blood what they need if they are able to do so?


Considering divorce almost always results in more money for the woman (equal or increased SOL) and a drastically reduced standard of living for the man, your argument makes no sense. What happens when the kids are with the father and he can't provide for the children? They suffer.



> The child support that the mother supplies is deducted from the amont the father pays. Some monitary credit is given to the costodial parent.


???



> Would you agree that the expenses for raising a child for 12/14 days is more than having than for 2/14 days? Should the child be impoverished for 12/14 days?


Sure I would agree with that, but it's not relevant. Do you honestly believe men don't want to raise their own children? Because that is FALSE. Why in the world should one parent be cut out of the children's life? The only reason I can think of is that they ruined the marriage through an affair and proven themselves an unfit parent. 



> Actually the data show that divorced fathers do better financially than women who become impoverished. If men are so bad off how do you explain that?


Because 'the data' doesn't count child support and alimony as income for women, and it _does_ count child support and alimony for income of men. And again, women use social services and men do not as they are ineligible for them (but they are also not counted as income for women).



> That stat shows that many men don't make sure that their kids avoid poverty even when they have the means. The enforcement of child support statutes is the lest that children deserve.


This is hogwash. Many men CAN'T pay the ridiculous awards the courts orders without being homeless. Child support enforcement has NOTHING to do with what's best for the kids, it's about making money for the state.
*Again, women are not required to support their children with child support funds.*


----------



## Viseral

Schooled


----------



## Kaboom

Catherine602 said:


> I am a bit sick of the rampant woman bashing on this site. It gets worse and worse every month. Some of the venerable male members who were able to temper the discussion to a reasonable level, rarely post or are gone.
> 
> If this trend continues, the only posters on this site will be bitter, angry men wipping each other up to a froth about the wichery that is woman. Good luck with that.
> 
> This forum is fortunate to have men and women voices to discuss our repective points of view. Men rarely have an outlet to express their pain and unhappiness. This is a great place for that. There is no cause to get carried away though.
> 
> Your wife may have disappointed you but you have daughters and mothers, do you say these evil things to them? Are they lazy, fat, nickel and dime artist? Do the women in your life know how you feel? Do you tell them they are fat and lazy?
> 
> I purposely made my post generalized. If you think it is unfair then read over your posts. If your wife has done you wrong, talk about her. She is not the archetype of all woman.
> 
> And BTW - Where did I say all of these horrible things about men? I think you have to look at yourself to find out from wence they came. It's not me so you have to own it. What came first, the problem women or the problem with women after the relationship with the wife?


passive-aggressive man bashing is still man bashing.


----------



## ozymandias

Catherine602 said:


> If kids are being raised by a divorced woman without the father, that is an indictment of the father. No one is preventing men from being a presence in HS kids life.


This is complete and utter fail. You could not be more wrong.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

wilderness said:


> First of all, child support. Child support in today's world is almost exclusively something that men pay.


That is a product of women more often being granted custody. There are women who do pay child support and that number is growing.



> BUT men are not eligible for social services, even though women are. No foodstamps for single men in most states. NO housing allowances, daycare help- NONE of that stuff.


Is this comparing the eligibility between a single man and a single woman, or a woman with kids. Because a parent with children does have more assistance available than one without.



> Second of all, custody. Women enjoy a ridiculously biased system that grants them every quarter and every opportunity to gain custody. BUT they are not required by any real consequence to allow men to visit their children. The remedies for withheld visitation are expensive, time consuming, difficult, and mostly lacking in punishment to all women but the very worst offenders. *As such, parental alienation of fathers has become the norm in today's world.*


Do you have a cite for it becoming the norm? Because while the problems you note above are real (though changing slowly), most couples work together to give the fathers access.



> Men don't pay child support, lock them up and throw away the key. Take their driver's licenses and ostracize them from society. _EVEN if they don't have the means to pay it._ The state pursues these cases for women- they need not spend any time or resources doing it.


While a terrible policy, this is unfortunately not limited to men.

Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News


----------



## wilderness

Tall Average Guy said:


> That is a product of women more often being granted custody. There are women who do pay child support and that number is growing.


The number of women that pay child support may be growing ever so slightly, but that is due to the availability of information available to today's fathers that fight for custody. The dirty little secret that doesn't get told, however, is that the number of men that are custodial parents that also pay child support (or don't receive child support) is growing just as fast. Also, the child support awards in men's favor are seldom the same percentage that women get.

Let me tell you a disturbing trend that I have observed over the past few months. When I say 'observed', I mean in courtrooms, on divorce threads, in caselaw, etc etc...

1. Man is granted temporary custody because woman walks out (usually do to OM).
2. The child support order is not ruled upon by judge, however. (if the situation was reversed, man would be ordered to pay cs, alimony, the mortgage, all of the bills, and his wife's attorney). Man goes back to court numerous times and judge just simply doesn't make the ruling (judge won't say no, judge will just say "you'll get my ruling in the mail").
3. Eventually the woman figures out she is giving up huge money by not fighting for custody, so she goes for full custody in the trial.
4. Woman gets full custody. Now get this, the reasoning behind her getting custody is that the woman never paid child support! The court considers custody to be a double edged sword- a- where the children reside, b- a child support order.

If this situation happened in reverse the outcry would be from here to China. Basically, the court will use any and every excuse to grant custody to women. Here are some of the more common ones-

1. Status quo.
The woman gets a bogus restraining order which is later found to have predicated on a lie. The court still holds that the status quo was established, regardless of _why_ it was established. Zero consequence to the woman for making a false accusation, and the consequence to her lie is all upon the father's head.
2. Temporary orders. Temporary hearings in most states last all of 5 minutes and many of them don't allow witnesses and/or evidence to be presented. Oftentimes (MOST times, almost EVERY time), stay at home mom's get a rubber stamp temporary order. Then when the trial comes, the excuse is "temporary orders establish a status quo that can't be reversed without overwhelming evidence". So the evidence and witnesses is NEVER practically considered.
3. Mother has a mental health issue that lead to arrests, hospitalization, suicide attempts, etc etc. Judge will delay the trial for months if not years to allow mother to get her stuff together. Once she gets her stuff together, it's "she's addressed her issues." Any man that tried the "I've addressed my issues" tactic would be laughed out of court.

I could post for hours, I could write a book. In the real world, the man has to overwhelmingly destroy the woman in court in order to get custody. He has to win on every point- the GAL (notoriously anti-men, btw), stability, proof of parenting, etc etc...
Now here comes the best part, which I've been getting to in a long winded way. Once the man overcomes *LONG* odds and wins custody or even 50/50, most lawyers advise them not to ask for child support until time has elapsed. Why? Because the tactic of opposing council is to accuse the man of going for custody in order to get paid via child support. And this tactic often works, too!

Then of course, when the man finally asks for cs, the woman will either cry poor and complain that if it was such an issue, why didn't the man ask for it in the first place. The net result is often a token child support order or none at all.

It's that bad out there.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

wilderness said:


> Let me tell you a disturbing trend that I have observed over the past few months. When I say 'observed', I mean in courtrooms, on divorce threads, in caselaw, etc etc...


Sorry, but I need more than this to establish a trend. It may well be, but your posts indicate a bias that could cloud your conclusions. Do you have any studies that point this out?


----------



## janefw

> Now here comes the best part, which I've been getting to in a long winded way. Once the man overcomes LONG odds and wins custody or even 50/50, most lawyers advise them not to ask for child support until time has elapsed. Why? Because the tactic of opposing council is to accuse the man of going for custody in order to get paid via child support. And this tactic often works, too!


Hmm. In 1999, my husband - then a serving member of USAF - obtained custody of his two sons from his first marriage .. in a Texas court, which is not exactly a bastion of liberal law. His EXW turned up to contest. She lived in the US (at the time my H was serving overseas, where I had met him), and had firm family ties in the US, and yet .. somehow .. my h still won custody, even though the judge was fully aware that my H's orders might take us to a new place every 2 years. 

The difference I saw was that my husband fought tooth and nail for his kids. He went the extra mile and more besides. And the judge could see that he would be a good custodial parent. We have raised those kids ever since, and one is now an adult, and the other not far off adulthood. 

We never asked her for a penny, btw. We have raised them on _our _income. Their mom is a stranger to them. Her choice. 

Some fathers don't fight. Some are angry that their wife divorced him and see the kids as being a part of _her _responsibility and even part of _her _problem. And then they complain that they didn't get custody. Well, hello? Other dads do want their kids, and they fight, like my husband did, and they *get *custody. 

Like I said, it should have been a slam dunk for the EXW, but it wasn't. So, dads need to get their ducks in a row when there is a divorce, and they shouldn't give up or back down. They should commit to showing a judge that they are the best custodial parent for those kids.


----------



## wilderness

Tall Average Guy said:


> Sorry, but I need more than this to establish a trend. It may well be, but your posts indicate a bias that could cloud your conclusions. Do you have any studies that point this out?


If you are looking for peer reviewed academic studies, I don't put a lot of stock into those so the answer is no. However, all I've been doing is studying over the past 3 years. That's what you do when you are faced with being managed out of your only daughter's life. What I can do is refer you to your local family courtroom. All you need do is observe some of the temporary hearings and you will quickly see what I mean. 

Watch how many cases specifically use restraining orders as a tool to remove men from the marital home to establish status quo (but it NEVER happens the other way around, or almost never). Watch how many include accusations of domestic violence, then check back in 6 months to find out how those accusations were adjudicated (nearly all of them get thrown out once the custody order is settled, what does that tell you?). Watch some of the pretrial hearings and check out the blatant in your face bias against men. It's astounding to see in person, I can't recommend it enough. 

Next, go to civil court and watch the restraining order hearings. These are even more amazing in their bias. In my jurisdication, women fill out a form where they often allege only 'being afraid of so and so'. The judge reads the form, and without fail, grants the restraining order to every women that asks for one without so much as asking her a question. I have NEVER seen a judge turn a woman down for a restraining order. Not even one time. If you watch long enough, usually there will be a couple of men asking for restraining orders against women. The judge will grill the man, asking him a million questions, and then he/she will _usually_ deny the restraining order. Again, watching this play out in real life is surreal. I guarantee you that the average person doesn't have a clue how horribly biased this is.

Next, try to find a mediator and interview him/or. They will tell you flat out that their job is to get a deal and they are not interested in what's fair or balanced. A lot of them will tell you explicitly that the preferred method of mediation is to simply pressure the man to cave in to unfavorable terms. This works because men usually stand to lose much more in trial than women do. In some cases and in some places, it's possible to get mediator's recommendations. Ask your local court to give you copies of 40-50 and see what they say. Yes, I know that is a small sample size...but coupled with the other evidence, it should be enough to convince anyone that what I'm saying is true.


----------



## janefw

If a mother is not the custodial parent she *is *required to pay child support. That's why the judge in my H's custody court case said in court that he could see that his EXW had requested CS (if she won custody) but he had not requested CS (if he won). That was the point at which my husband got to say "I just want my boys - that's all." If women didn't pay CS, why would the judge have brought it up?


----------



## wilderness

janefw said:


> Hmm. In 1999, my husband - then a serving member of USAF - obtained custody of his two sons from his first marriage .. in a Texas court, which is not exactly a bastion of liberal law. His EXW turned up to contest. She lived in the US (at the time my H was serving overseas, where I had met him), and had firm family ties in the US, and yet .. somehow .. my h still won custody, even though the judge was fully aware that my H's orders might take us to a new place every 2 years.
> 
> The difference I saw was that my husband fought tooth and nail for his kids. He went the extra mile and more besides. And the judge could see that he would be a good custodial parent. We have raised those kids ever since, and one is now an adult, and the other not far off adulthood.
> 
> We never asked her for a penny, btw. We have raised them on _our _income. Their mom is a stranger to them. Her choice.
> 
> Some fathers don't fight. Some are angry that their wife divorced him and see the kids as being a part of _her _responsibility and even part of _her _problem. And then they complain that they didn't get custody. Well, hello? Other dads do want their kids, and they fight, like my husband did, and they *get *custody.
> 
> Like I said, it should have been a slam dunk for the EXW, but it wasn't. So, dads need to get their ducks in a row when there is a divorce, and they shouldn't give up or back down. They should commit to showing a judge that they are the best custodial parent for those kids.




I applaud your husband for fighting for his children. I would have to know more details of the case to find out how he won, but my guess is that he won handily on most points in an avalanche and that is why he ended up with the judgment. Incidentally, Texas is one of the most father friendly states (if not THE most father friendly state), which I believe is a good thing. However, he didn't get child support, which is part and parcel to what I'm talking about. I would strongly encourage your husband _now_ to pursue a child support order. Why? Because the lack of a child support order could at a later time be used as justification for your husbands X to modify custody. Again, the court looks at custody as a double edged sword-
a: where the child(ren) physically reside.
b: who is paying child support

In other words, the court may practically view your husband as 1/2 a parent as he has not secured the child support order. The amount of the order is not important, even 50 bucks a month fully secures your husband as the child's custodial parent.


----------



## wilderness

janefw said:


> If a mother is not the custodial parent she *is *required to pay child support. That's why the judge in my H's custody court case said in court that he could see that his EXW had requested CS (if she won custody) but he had not requested CS (if he won). That was the point at which my husband got to say "I just want my boys - that's all." If women didn't pay CS, why would the judge have brought it up?


What your husband did is what most divorce lawyers would advise him to do, and that is my point. Do you see the problem with a system that allows women to make the argument that "he is just asking for custody in order to get child support", (and this argument actually works, btw) but men can't credibly make the same argument? And when women are the NCP (non custodial parent), in real life they often don't pay child support- and when they do it is usually offset by alimony, anyway. And in many cases, the man pays child support to the woman that is the non custodial parent as well.


----------



## janefw

wilderness said:


> I applaud your husband for fighting for his children. I would have to know more details of the case to find out how he won, but my guess is that he won handily on most points in an avalanche and that is why he ended up with the judgment. Incidentally, Texas is one of the most father friendly states (if not THE most father friendly state), which I believe is a good thing. However, he didn't get child support, which is part and parcel to what I'm talking about. I would strongly encourage your husband _now_ to pursue a child support order. Why? Because the lack of a child support order could at a later time be used as justification for your husbands X to modify custody. Again, the court looks at custody as a double edged sword-
> a: where the child(ren) physically reside.
> b: who is paying child support
> 
> In other words, the court may practically view your husband as 1/2 a parent as he has not secured the child support order. The amount of the order is not important, even 50 bucks a month fully secures your husband as the child's custodial parent.


CS isn't an issue. The boys are 21 and 16 now - far past the age when she could apply for custody. They don't want to know her anyway. 

The reason that he won imo is that he had a great lawyer, and he followed what the lawyer said. The lawyer said to document his then wife's behavior - going out all night, not coming in until early hours drunk, etc. Also he was to document her admissions of adultery. When he had done that, he shipped her back to the U.S. (because he was her sponsor to live in the UK, and he was withdrawing sponsorship prior to divorce). He met me a little while after that, and I helped him to get together the information that the lawyer suggested he get for the custody proceedings. We assembled whole photo albums of my H doing stuff with his boys, and details of trips they were taking and educational events, and the one that went to school - we got his school records for the judge. All in all, we built a picture of how well the boys were doing with dad, and how bonded they were. The EXW I guess did none of this. I wouldn't know. Of course, I wasn't a part of the custody proceedings. We weren't married then, and I was a 'silent' part of my H's and the boys' lives, but I was behind him 100% because I very much wanted to be the mom. That was 1999 so this is of course 14 years later, and we got all that we wanted.  People just need to not give up.


----------



## wilderness

janefw said:


> CS isn't an issue. The boys are 21 and 16 now - far past the age when she could apply for custody. They don't want to know her anyway.
> 
> The reason that he won imo is that he had a great lawyer, and he followed what the lawyer said. The lawyer said to document his then wife's behavior - going out all night, not coming in until early hours drunk, etc. Also he was to document her admissions of adultery. When he had done that, he shipped her back to the U.S. (because he was her sponsor to live in the UK, and he was withdrawing sponsorship prior to divorce). He met me a little while after that, and I helped him to get together the information that the lawyer suggested he get for the custody proceedings. We assembled whole photo albums of my H doing stuff with his boys, and details of trips they were taking and educational events, and the one that went to school - we got his school records for the judge. All in all, we built a picture of how well the boys were doing with dad, and how bonded they were. The EXW I guess did none of this. I wouldn't know. Of course, I wasn't a part of the custody proceedings. We weren't married then, and I was a 'silent' part of my H's and the boys' lives, but I was behind him 100% because I very much wanted to be the mom. That was 1999 so this is of course 14 years later, and we got all that we wanted.  People just need to not give up.


I couldn't agree more on the not giving up part. Personally, I will NEVER give up on my daughter. It is also apparent to me that you've chosen a good man as your husband and a good father. God bless your husband.


----------



## Kaboom

A nightmare:

Someone I know, female. Has two kids. Ex H is in jail for life. She meets a guy, they hit it off.

She works quickly, being the "model" GF. Gets him to propose. She says that she will only marry him if he adopts her kids, because, you know.. they NEED a dad. He haplessly agrees, and does the deed.

The icing on the wedding cake isn't even crusted. The ink on the adoption papers hardly dry, but you know what is dry and crusty? His wife. She goes cold. A few months later she files for divorce. 

In the divorce, she completely cleaned his clock. Of course being the bio-mom, she got full custody, I don't think he even bothered trying, and why would he?

She also got cs, an amount so disturbingly high that it was roughly 80% of his take-home pay after taxes. This isn't a doctor or lawyer who could probably make do with 20%, this is a guy who probably made around $20 or less an hour. The payments rocked his world.

Two months into payments, he couldnt make his car or mortgage payments anymore. What little savings he had left from the divorce didn't prop him up for long. He lost it all. Ended up renting a room in someones house. STILL couldn't keep up with the cs payments, fell behind. She wasted no time in hauling him into court.

In the end, he couldn't pay. Lost his job (nervous breakdown), and now he sits in jail for failure to pay.

The worst part? Her sense of entitlement. She treated him total crap starting the day they married. She talked down about him to me and my W right in front of him, and other friends. She saw it as her absolute right to destroy him in the divorce and cs payments. She honestly believed he owed it to her. Forget the law- morally, he owed her jack-crap.

And worse still? All her girlfriends not only laughed at him when she berated him, but fully supported, encouraged, and assisted her in destroying him. I remember that attitude all too well "men deserve it"- that attitude. When women get together, those true colors come out. I don't know how it came to be that american women are conditioned as such, but I have a big problem with it.

I know a lot of women, and not a few men, think I'm a sexist jerk of a man, but look in the mirror when you wonder why I'm such a jerk at times. I know Catherine wants to say I'm making women pay for what my wife puts me though, but it's hardly just her. I've been around women my whole life. All different ilks from your poor trailer women to your country-club stepford wives; and you all think alike- that men owe you something, everything.

Sure there's an exception to the rule every now and again, but exceptions don't pay child support. Men do.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

wilderness said:


> If you are looking for peer reviewed academic studies, I don't put a lot of stock into those so the answer is no.


Why not? I am not specifically asking for those, although they would certainly be interesting. But any sort of survey done, where they clearly laid out what they looked at, would be useful to figure out what is really going on.



> However, all I've been doing is studying over the past 3 years. That's what you do when you are faced with being managed out of your only daughter's life. What I can do is refer you to your local family courtroom. All you need do is observe some of the temporary hearings and you will quickly see what I mean.


I have noticed that it is human nature to find and remember evidence that supports our point of view, while forgetting or ignoring evidence that contradicts it.

That being said, I appreciate you sharing your personal observations on this. It certainly provides a data point in the discussion.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Kaboom said:


> I know a lot of women, and not a few men, think I'm a sexist jerk of a man, but look in the mirror when you wonder why I'm such a jerk at times. I know Catherine wants to say I'm making women pay for what my wife puts me though, but it's hardly just her. I've been around women my whole life. All different ilks from your poor trailer women to your country-club stepford wives; and you all think alike- that men owe you something, everything.
> 
> Sure there's an exception to the rule every now and again, but exceptions don't pay child support. Men do.


What about the men who drop out an just leave without paying support? Or the guy I know who left his wife and won't do anything with his kids. I saw him at the neighborhood poker game, and he could not be bothered to stop by and see his children to say hello (who were playing in the next yard over). They had to come to him. He is constantly cancelling because his new girlfriend has made other plans. He has chosen her over them.

Look, I get it that there are some terrible women out there. The laws have not caught up to a lot of the facts, and some women use the system. But not all, or even most. To paint all women as evil (and that is what this post does) is no better than painting all men as louses who skip out on their child.

There are very real problems that men have to face. Their position in life and society is much more uncertain than it has been in the past. I struggle to help raise and guide my son in that path. But women are not the enemy, and painting them as such is counter-productive.


----------



## wilderness

Tall Average Guy said:


> Why not? I am not specifically asking for those, although they would certainly be interesting. But any sort of survey done, where they clearly laid out what they looked at, would be useful to figure out what is really going on.


If you understand the system (I'm referring to the divorce system, what is commonly known as the 'divorce industrial complex') it has a lot of power and political clout. As such peer reviewed studies often fit the facts to meet conclusions that support the system's continued expansion. I know it might sound conspiracy theorist minded, but it's really just about following the money. A good example is the widely referenced study showing that women fair worse in divorce than men. The problem with the study (I mentioned this in another post, btw), is that the way income is measured is seriously flawed. Child support paid to women is not included in their income, neither are social services (which men are ineligible for), and child support is not deducted from the men's income. What you are left with is a completely inaccurate portrayal of the standard of living of both sexes.



> I have noticed that it is human nature to find and remember evidence that supports our point of view, while forgetting or ignoring evidence that contradicts it.


I'm aware of the cognitive dissonance argument. The problem with that argument in this case is that:
a- I really had no idea how biased the system was when I was forced into it, so I really didn't start with this point of view
b- It's really hard to spin some of the self evident truths that come with modern day divorce. The biggest one is the advent of false restraining orders used as a tool to gain a custody advantage. Again, I have never in my life seen a judge turn a woman town for a restraining order. Not even once.


----------



## wilderness

Tall Average Guy said:


> Why not? I am not specifically asking for those, although they would certainly be interesting. But any sort of survey done, where they clearly laid out what they looked at, would be useful to figure out what is really going on.


If you understand the system (I'm referring to the divorce system, what is commonly known as the 'divorce industrial complex') it has a lot of power and political clout. As such peer reviewed studies often fit the facts to meet conclusions that support the system's continued expansion. I know it might sound conspiracy theorist minded, but it's really just about following the money. A good example is the widely referenced study showing that women fair worse in divorce than men. The problem with the study (I mentioned this in another post, btw), is that the way income is measured is seriously flawed. Child support paid to women is not included in their income, neither are social services (which men are ineligible for), and child support is not deducted from the men's income. What you are left with is a completely inaccurate portrayal of the standard of living of both sexes.



> I have noticed that it is human nature to find and remember evidence that supports our point of view, while forgetting or ignoring evidence that contradicts it.


I'm aware of the cognitive dissonance argument. The problem with that argument in this case is that:
a- I really had no idea how biased the system was when I was forced into it, so I really didn't start with this point of view
b- It's really hard to spin some of the self evident truths that come with modern day divorce. The biggest one is the advent of false restraining orders used as a tool to gain a custody advantage. Again, I have never in my life seen a judge turn a woman town for a restraining order. Not even once.


----------



## Kaboom

Tall Average Guy said:


> What about the men who drop out an just leave without paying support? Or the guy I know who left his wife and won't do anything with his kids. I saw him at the neighborhood poker game, and he could not be bothered to stop by and see his children to say hello (who were playing in the next yard over). They had to come to him. He is constantly cancelling because his new girlfriend has made other plans. He has chosen her over them.
> 
> Look, I get it that there are some terrible women out there. The laws have not caught up to a lot of the facts, and some women use the system. But not all, or even most. To paint all women as evil (and that is what this post does) is no better than painting all men as louses who skip out on their child.
> 
> There are very real problems that men have to face. Their position in life and society is much more uncertain than it has been in the past. I struggle to help raise and guide my son in that path. But women are not the enemy, and painting them as such is counter-productive.


but you have to admit, either the guy is a complete deadbeat and skips out, or he simply submits and get's taken to the cleaners for everything he has. Like I mentioned way earlier, of all the divorces, I've only ever seen one where the wife took a "nice" approach to custody and child support. The rest took them to the cleaners. Oh, and one chose to be a deadbeat, probably out of the 20 or so I've been witness to.

I guess my point was that divorce towards men is like a multiple choice question where there's only two choices, and they both suck for the man, but not the woman.


----------



## wilderness

It's not women per se that make the modern day divorce lead to parental alienation and financial devastation of fathers, it's all the sharks and vultures that exploit women's weaknesses. When a woman chooses divorce in today's world, there are no shortage of feminist sewing circle friends that serve to rile her up, play on her emotions (strong emotions comes with the package of divorce, so the environment is there) and go for the jugular. They are all telling her how much she 'deserves', the father is never seriously considered, and then the attorneys and mediators step in, supporting her the whole way. Of course we know what happens...the guy becomes enraged that someone he was married to would try to destroy him, and often he tries to destroy her. Then the women comes to believe the children are better off without such an angry man in the picture, anyway.

It really is the perfect storm for disaster.


----------



## Kaboom

there is some truth to that.


----------



## Battle_Cats

Catherine602 said:


> There are a few things that have not been considered in the discussion.
> 
> *The evolution of the economy. *The movement away from industrial manual labor to skills and education based labor is not due to feminism but evolution of the economy.
> 
> Economic evolution governed the rise of industry and the fall of an agrarian-based economy and it governs the rise of the technically-based economy and the fall of industrial-based one.
> 
> Change favors those who are prepared and flexible. Women happened to come into the work force at the cusp of the changes and filled a void.
> 
> The unprecedented economic growth over the last 40years is in part due to the increased numbers of people working, generating income and paying taxes. Many of those new workers are women.


An interestingly self serving view of the "economy." What "flexibility" have women demonstrated that men lack? I've heard this a lot but no woman has, as of yet, qualified "flexibility" with a definition.

If anything, men have done in the workplace what they have in the home: created machines to do the "work" and make life easier. 

If anything, I have seen NO FLEXIBILITY offered by women but lots of flexibility DEMANDED from the employer.

As for "unprecedented growth" of the economy, let me remind you that it is well documented that income for middle class workers has stagnated or declined since the 70s. The only part of the economy that can honestly demonstrate "unprecedented growth" is consumption and has we have learned in the west, that has mostly happened on credit. 




Catherine602 said:


> Is that not of some value? Do we need to go back to the times were women's roles were restricted to supporting her husband and having kids? And give up all of the profits we enjoy?


Disingenuous. Plenty of women worked. People misinterpret the June Cleaver SAHM as being the defacto standard. People forget that the Wards were UPPER middle class to moderately rich in comparison.

In cases where average men worked and women stayed home with the kids, there simply was no other choice. Most labor was physical and there was no such thing as daycare. What were people gonna do, keep the kids in cages? As a result, most work women performed were home based.



Catherine602 said:


> *The devaluation of the people who support behind the lines.* To name a few - During this recession, 40% of American households were sustained by a working women.


See, here's that disingenuousness. Yes, a large percentage of homes were sustained by women because a large percentage of women worked government or tax funded jobs that were more stable while their husbands LOST their jobs. As well, FEMINISTS successfully had Obama's "shovel ready" stimulus redirected towards females.



Catherine602 said:


> During WWII, women had essential roles. They worked the factories to keep the ecomomy pumping and providing impliments for men on the front lines.
> 
> Some of the most effective spy's were women, many of whom lost their lives. They organized and participated in The Resistance. They saved the lives of 10's of thousands of men. Legions of women were cryptologists and code breakers and saved lives by their work.


Right. And how many men died? How many men had body parts blown off? How many men were tortured?

Just like work in the home, women supported the war effort doing the jobs that INSULATED them from the terror and brutality men were forced to face. Yes, women did code breaking and Rosie did her riveting because the men were needed for more important jobs. Anyone can push a mop. 




Catherine602 said:


> *The lack of appreciation for the role a women in a mans success.* I find it strange that men who were supported behind the scenes by their wives think that it is unfair to share the fruits of the labors made possible by that support. That's why the laws on child support and community property.


Funny how behind every great man is a great women but behind every bad man is a feminist shouting, "Males are bad!"

You want to take the credit for every successful man? Then step up to the plate and take responsibility for the bad ones too. Somebody raised them to be like that and we all know what the custody statistics look like so we know it likely wasn't the father.





Catherine602 said:


> Too many men did not honor their obligation to their children and helpmate. It was left to the rest of the hard working citizenry to support his kids and ex.
> 
> If these men appreciated and valued their wives in their lives and success, there would be no need for laws to force the issue.


Baloney. What started us down this road was women's demands for "support" so she didn't have to work.





Catherine602 said:


> Men look for a wife to is devoted and desires him. That makes it possible for him to go out and conquer worlds or that is what we are lead to believe.
> 
> He enjoys her role as someone to support his feelings of masculinity, to mother his kids, keep a home and act as social secretary, and nurse. that is considered a good wife, no?
> 
> But does he appreciate the support? I'll bet many women who walk away do so because they feel they are taken for granted. Isn't that confirmed when hubby wants to walk out on his bill?


I see, so when hubby puts food in her mouth, a roof over her head and clothes on her back, it is his DUTY and is fair but when wifey wants to leave, there is a bill due?

How about this, if women think they are owed something for raising the kids, simply sign the kids over to the father and walk away. I find it interesting how many women fight tooth and nail to drive fathers out of their children's lives or to interfere with custody only to then complain that his is behind on his "support." What a crock.


Someone mentioned that this has been going on since the sixties. This is actually incorrect. Second wave feminism got a start in the sixties and seemed "different" because it was more radicalized, more vitriolic and more overtly hostile to men. The truth is, feminism had been around since the 1800s and was hitting its stride in the early 1900s.

As an example of how things change but stay the same, here as some quotes from nearly a hundred years ago. Do they seem any different than what we see today?

These are from a collection at The Unknown History of Misandry:

►1904 – Anonymous Gentlewoman (USA)

As society is made, it is almost impossible for a man to go the right way about his relations with woman. The system prescribes a certain attitude. It is the attitude of crawl, salaam, obsequiousness and second fiddle. If you depart from it by a hair’s breadth your woman become suspicious of you. If you advise other men to depart from it you get a bad name. *Women stand up for women’s rights and are made the subject of applause, bouquets and illuminated addresses. The man who dares come out strong for men’s rights does not breathe. Men do not want him. They are like canaries in cages, afraid to go out lest the cat get them.* Peace at any price is man’s rule of life. Abroad he will swagger and bluster, and bully. “Nemo me impune lacessit!” he roars. At home his watchword is ‘‘Blessed are the meek.” Abroad he frowns and breathes fire; at home he is plain, unvarnished “him.” Abroad he struts, at home he slinks. Abroad he is very wise, at home he is a little child.— Gentlewoman.” 


►1912 – Mrs. C. H. Hughston, Suffrage leader

Many an American husband turns over every penny he makes to the woman he marries, receiving back from her a meager allowance for carfare and lunches. Perhaps she runs up extra bills; if she does, he struggles meekly to pay them, and consoles himself with the fact that Mary and the girls look ‘better’n any body in town.’ He breaks down from overwork in his early maturity, and nobody has anything but pity for his family.


►1916 – Agnes McHugh – Chicago attorney

A man jury will not convict a woman murderer in this county, if the prosecutor is a man. I think this leniency may be traced to the chivalry latent in every man. The jurors see two or three big strong men sitting at the prosecutors’ table, and subconsciously feel that these fierce prosecutors are attacking the frail, pretty woman in the prisoner’s chair. Their instinct is to defend her. Perhaps their pity would not be stirred so profoundly if a woman was in the prosecutor’s chair. I believe the leniency of juries with feminine slayers is responsible for the wave of ‘affinity crimes’ sweeping Chicago. The woman criminal will receive justice only when there’s a woman in court to prosecute her. We demand justice for women — not maudlin sympathy or leniency.

►1919 – Dorothy Dix, journalist, “the world’s most highly paid woman writer”

Among my acquaintances is a piteous old man, who is dying of a broken heart because his wife has alienated the affections of his only child from him.
This father belongs in the ranks of those who earn their bread by the sweat of their brows. Life has been hard to him, but the one rose that has bloomed along his arid pathway has seen his little daughter, and he has found no toil too hard to keep her soft and safe, no sacrifices too great to make to give her a fine education.
While the girl was little she was a joy to him as she cuddled in his arms and pressed her rosy little cheek to his worn one, but as she has grown older her mother has weaned her away from her father and taught her to look with contempt upon him, so that now she treats him with coldness and neglect, and pays him not so much attention as she would to a faithful old workhorse.
And it has turned the father’s world to dust and ashes.
One would think that a woman who turns her children against their father and robs him of their love must be a fiend incarnate. She would be if she committed the crime deliberately, but she does it without realizing what a terrible thing she is doing, or how far-reaching and disastrous are its consequences.
For many other women are guilty of this same offense. Occasionally a mother weans her children away from their father through a morbid jealousy. She wants to be all in all to them. She cannot bear for them to love anyone else, not even their father, as well as they love her. She is filled with torturing fear that they may even prefer their father to her, as children often do if left to follow unhampered their own impulses.

►1927 – Fannie Hurst, writer

Married women “have become parasites and consumers instead of producers, taking no share in their husbands’ burdens, and are worse chattels than their grandmothers,” Miss Hurst said. “The vast army of women seeking divorce are mainly after easy alimony from men they have ceased to love – surely one of the most despicable forms of barter that can exchange human hands.”

►1927 – Elsie Marlowe, journalist

Sally thinks she’s a dear, sweet home girl. She’s not. She’s the meanest kind of a slacker and cheat. She let a man build his faith on her. She went with him into a Going Business. She tied up all he had to give of youth and ambition and love. And then, because she was too stingy of soul to do her share, she took her children and left him bankrupt of faith or hope. Some day Sally is going to hear how Ed is “carrying on” and she’s going to be perfectly furious and divorce him and feel frightfully abused if he won’t give her alimony. Would you give an absconding cashier heavy alimony? For that’s what Sally is!

►1928 – Faith Baldwin, novelist

“The rising tide of divorce has brought us a new industry, the ultimate refinement of golddigging, the perfection of blackmail within the law—marriage for alimony,” said Faith Baldwin, the well-known writer. “Women who do not want husbands or children have found a joker in our marriage laws by which they can establish themselves comfortably for life; free, respectable, rich, safe—without personal cost or sacrifice.
There are thousands and thousands of women who are being supported by men to whom they are no longer wives. There is no doubt that this business of alimony is getting to be a serious menace, it may be ail right when a man has plenty of money. To pay a former wife a few thousand dollars in alimony may mean nothing to him. But, on the other hand, just consider how many men are forced to pay alimony who cannot afford it. You will find in the majority of cases that there is no good reason why they should pay it, either. The women are well able to take care of themselves. If they did not lack pride and self-respect, they would not accept money from men who no longer mean anything to them.”

►1929 – Dorothy Dix, journalist, “the world’s most highly paid woman writer”

I often wonder that the modern woman does not perceive that she is killing the goose that lays the golden egg by her attitude toward men. By which I mean to say that it is women themselves who are destroying the things that they value most in life. It is women’s hands that are tearing to tatters the chiffons of romance and sentiment and idealism in which men have always clothed them. It is women who are stifling tenderness and slaying chivalry in the hearts of men. It is women who are doing away with all the graces and sweetnesses that made charm in the relationship between men and women and that incidentally lured men into matrimony.
For women are making men afraid of them and what they will do to them and that makes men cold and cautious in dealing with the fair sex. Even Romeo watches his step and counts the calories in his sweet talk when he keeps a date with Juliet nowadays.
Women don’t like this. They complain bitterly that there are no impassioned lovers. They say that young men are so afraid they may compromise themselves by their attentions to a girl that ten minutes alter meeting her they serve notice on her that they have no intention of marrying and that even one’s fiance’s letters read like a communication about the state of the stock market instead of being an outpouring of burning affection. …
Worse still, women are keeping men from marrying by demanding so much alimony that it makes matrimony not only a gamble in happiness but the most risky financial speculation they can engage in.
Under the present laws a man can marry a girl who makes no effort in any way to be a good wife. She can refuse to keep house, refuse to bear children She can be lazy, extravagant, high-tempered, nagging and make his life a torment to him, yet she can force him to support her as long as he lives. And, such being the case, it is not strange that prudent men are shying of more and more from the altar.

►1931 – Ruth Brown Reed, writer

“The alimony racket has become the great woman’s industry. A sobbing pretty woman before the court — and what chance has the husband? In many cases the amount of alimony is so large in proportion to the man’s earnings that it completely nullifies any chance of happiness or of another marriage. And why – one cannot help but ask – should a divorced man be denied the right to a normal family life?”


Lastly, more to the OP's post, Dr. Helen Smith has recently written a book called the Men on Strike:

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1594036756

"American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?

*As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. *Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry."


----------



## Malcolm38

Since I'm not a woman, I can't speak to the true female experience. But as a guy, I do know that marriage seems less and less appealing. You are able to find sex and companionship without having to get married in 2013 fairly easily. 

Once my divorce is final, I'll pass on the financial jeopardy of future legal entanglements. Whatever anyone else does hopefully will work for them.


----------



## Battle_Cats

Trenton said:


> Strange this. Did you not marry for love? I mean, was marriage only appealing to you because you thought you'd have ease of access to your lady's vagina, legs, breasts, and butt?



Right. Because women certainly don't marry for the money. I wonder what she's demanding from him for alimony or CS (backdoor alimony)? Something tells me the "charge" is for "services" rendered. Men pay. One way or the other, men pay. So lets not pretend _he_ was the only one with expectations.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Kaboom said:


> A nightmare:
> 
> Someone I know, female. Has two kids. Ex H is in jail for life. She meets a guy, they hit it off.
> 
> She works quickly, being the "model" GF. Gets him to propose. She says that she will only marry him if he adopts her kids, because, you know.. they NEED a dad. He haplessly agrees, and does the deed.
> 
> The icing on the wedding cake isn't even crusted. The ink on the adoption papers hardly dry, but you know what is dry and crusty? His wife. She goes cold. A few months later she files for divorce.
> 
> In the divorce, she completely cleaned his clock. Of course being the bio-mom, she got full custody, I don't think he even bothered trying, and why would he?
> 
> She also got cs, an amount so disturbingly high that it was roughly 80% of his take-home pay after taxes. This isn't a doctor or lawyer who could probably make do with 20%, this is a guy who probably made around $20 or less an hour. The payments rocked his world.
> 
> Two months into payments, he couldnt make his car or mortgage payments anymore. What little savings he had left from the divorce didn't prop him up for long. He lost it all. Ended up renting a room in someones house. STILL couldn't keep up with the cs payments, fell behind. She wasted no time in hauling him into court.
> 
> In the end, he couldn't pay. Lost his job (nervous breakdown), and now he sits in jail for failure to pay.
> 
> The worst part? Her sense of entitlement. She treated him total crap starting the day they married. She talked down about him to me and my W right in front of him, and other friends. She saw it as her absolute right to destroy him in the divorce and cs payments. She honestly believed he owed it to her. Forget the law- morally, he owed her jack-crap.
> 
> *And worse still? All her girlfriends not only laughed at him when she berated him, but fully supported, encouraged, and assisted her in destroying him. I remember that attitude all too well "men deserve it"- that attitude. When women get together, those true colors come out. I don't know how it came to be that american women are conditioned as such, but I have a big problem with it.*
> 
> I know a lot of women, and not a few men, think I'm a sexist jerk of a man, but look in the mirror when you wonder why I'm such a jerk at times. I know Catherine wants to say I'm making women pay for what my wife puts me though, but it's hardly just her. *I've been around women my whole life. All different ilks from your poor trailer women to your country-club stepford wives; and you all think alike- that men owe you something, everything.*
> 
> Sure there's an exception to the rule every now and again, but exceptions don't pay child support. Men do.


:scratchhead::scratchhead: OMG this is for real? I feel sorry for this guy. This is a sad story indeed.

But still, not fair to blame _all_ women for the viciousness of some.

Maybe the system in your country is rigged against men, for whatever reasons.

So fight the system, don't fight the women themselves. At least don't lump the good ones with the evil ones. Some women actually feel sympathy for their menfolk. (some doesn't though)

Logical, right?


----------



## mineforever

Battle_Cats said:


> Right. Because women certainly don't marry for the money. I wonder what she's demanding from him for alimony or CS (backdoor alimony)? Something tells me the "charge" is for "services" rendered. Men pay. One way or the other, men pay. So lets not pretend _he_ was the only one with expectations.


Now lets be fair...times are changing not all of us women need or want a man's money ....some of just want them for their body! ... I just couldn't resist......never could understand my counterparts wanting to be dependant on another person.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Battle_Cats

Trenton said:


> I love how American society is considered anti-male.
> 
> Please. If you believe this (man or woman) wear a t-shirt that says it so you can be avoided by any rational thinking person.
> 
> Educate yourselves and stop being ignorant.
> 
> As women continue to hatch their plan to take over the world as helpless men are robbed of money. Women currently hold 4 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions and 4.5 percent of Fortune 1000 CEO positions.
> 
> Yet, women out school men.
> 
> "Department of Education statistics show that men, whatever their race or socioeconomic group, are less likely than women to get bachelor's degrees — and among those who do, fewer complete their degrees in four or five years. Men also get worse grades than women."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Women...such lazy, money sucking biatches who won't put out.
> 
> Washington Female CEOs Earn $600,000 Less Than Male Lobby Peers - Bloomberg
> 
> Strange that they're hit hardest by poverty isn't it? So are children.
> 
> U.S. Women Hit Hardest by Poverty, Says Census Report - The Daily Beast
> 
> Even if you were to say women deserved this fate somehow, your thoughts dictating a belief that men keep paying out is missed in the reality of the statistics. If that were the case, women would be rising in finances rather than the opposite.
> 
> *"Three out of four women said they would not wed someone without a job, and 65 percent would feel uncomfortable tying the knot if they themselves were jobless.
> 
> But more than 91 percent of single women said they would marry for love over money."*
> 
> Keep your assumptions and personal experiences about the gross inequality entrusted to women.
> 
> Give me some damn good facts that show me that society has tilted in a woman's favor and men are suffering financially.



First of all, it should be fairly obvious that the number of CEOs in the world (male or female) is miniscule. Pointing out that the majority of CEOs are male is deceitful unless you are also prepared to point of the majority of poor are also male. Secondly, if women are out learning men then why don't *they* start a company of their own? Why is it necessary that companies started by men be handed over to women?

Women are hit hardest by poverty? Okay. I'll take that at face value. So, since men are the majority of suicides and the majority of homeless and the majority of drug addicted and the majority sufferers of mental illness and the majority victims of physical violence and the majority of workplaces deaths (~93%) to the point where they have statistically shorter lifespan, then I guess men are hardest hit by life?

Look, this isn't about who has it worse, this is about women recognizing their own behavior and the fact that every man on the planet isn't a CEO sipping pina coladas on a million dollar yacht anchored in the Bahamas.

Lots of men get a raw deal and are tired of exactly that attitude brought up by you and Catherine02 where the moment men talk about what affects them and how they feel, we have to immediately hear the chorus of 'What about the wimmins! We have it worse!"

If controlling 80% of the wealth of the nation, living longer, consuming the majority of healthcare and social services, getting special legal protections and privileges, and having 100% of reproductive rights is having it worse, then please, by all means, sign me up for some of that suffering.


----------



## Battle_Cats

Trenton said:


> Hey Battle Cats, can you please provide stats, links and something besides your own text to back up your outlandish facts and figures. Thanks!


No. If you already think they are "outlandish" then it is unlikely you are willing to look at the proof which makes me unwilling to put in the effort to provide it.

Edit: I will make one revision: women control ~65% of the wealth of the country not 80%. The 80% number is household spending.


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> I love how American society is considered anti-male.


Trenton,

I don't think American society is anti-male. 

At the same time though, looking up at the upper tiers of society and noticing that they are dominated by men is not a complete picture. If we look down at the very lowest tiers of society we'll notice that they are also dominated by men.

Men make up the majority of prison populations. Men receive stiffer sentences for the same crimes. Men commit suicide at a rate many times higher than women. Men make up the majority of the homeless. We didn't even dignify the transient element of society with the term 'homeless' until we noticed that an increasing number of them were women. Before that, we used terms like, 'hobo' and 'bum.' Workplace fatalities in America are measured in the thousands for men and in the hundreds for women. This goes on and on. In many ways, both overt and subtle, men seem to be expendable. 

I don't have any sons, but all of these things would weigh on my mind if I did.


----------



## wilderness

Battle_Cats said:


> No. If you already think they are "outlandish" then it is unlikely you are willing to look at the proof which makes me unwilling to put in the effort to provide it.


Your 'proof' proves nothing. Please comment on the following facts:

1. Men are not eligible for most social services (even single men with children). Social services are not factored into women's incomes so 'poor' when it refers to women is a relative term.
2. Child support (and usually alimony, but not always) are not counted as income for women. So 'poor' when it refers to women is a relative term.
3. Child support and alimony are not deducted from men's incomes when determining 'poor'. So 'not poor' when it comes to men is a relative term.


----------



## Battle_Cats

Trenton said:


> Right. So you are a lazy Battle Cat.
> 
> You are wrong. I'd comb through everything you posted simply to find inconsistencies. I would check your sources and then check the sources that were strewn underneath your sources. I'd read every word and compare it to any other data I could find before I came to any conclusion.
> 
> Now if all that checked out. I would decide your argument had some legitimacy. As it stands now, you're just a drowning swimmer trying hard not to go under the continuing waves of your own very limited, over utilized and boring perspective.


meh... you can do all the same to disprove my claim. If you say I'm wrong, prove it. 


I will throw one out for the benefit of other readers:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_revised11.pdf

Table 1. Fatal occupational injuries, comparison of 2011 preliminary and updated, selected characteristics

Men: 4,308
Women: 385


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> What color men make up the majority of prison populations vs. what color men make up the majority of upper tier populations in our society, octillo?...


With deep respect, Trenton, I think you are conflating a demographic trend that exists even in homogenous populations with ethnicity.


----------



## wilderness

What in the world makes you think American society is not antimale? It couldn't possibly be any more antimale. 

Advertisting is antimale.
Popculture is antimale.
The criminal justice system is incredibly antimale (please comment on restraining orders which are a total violation of due process rights and almost exclusively used by women in divorce).
Schools are antimale.
Divorce is ridiculously antimale.
Politics are antimale.

Women are a protected class in our society.


----------



## Malcolm38

Trenton said:


> Strange this. Did you not marry for love? I mean, was marriage only appealing to you because you thought you'd have ease of access to your lady's vagina, legs, breasts, and butt?


Oh it was love, until I was slept around on and cuckholded for 10 years. But thanks for the snark.


----------



## Battle_Cats

Trenton said:


> *What color men make up the majority of prison populations vs. what color men make up the majority of upper tier populations in our society, octillo?* Is it possible you are limiting the vast reality of what is going on here?
> 
> Everything you are talking about is a problem within itself, with bigger problems surrounding each.
> 
> American society is not anti-male unless you are a male who is a different color than white.



Oh here comes this old sod. Because a certain demographic suffers disproportionally does not mean no problems exist elsewhere.

If you really want to go here, go back and see where the black incarceration rate started climbing: in the sixties with the introduction of welfare for black women that resulted in men being driven out of their children's lives that then resulted in those children seeking father figures IN GANGS.




Trenton said:


> I have two sons who are mixed (hispanic/mutt white). I worry about them less than I do my daughter. Why is this?


Because you've already shown your anti-male bias (you even call them mutts). If you were really concerned, you'd have learned that your sons are more likely to experience crime, physical violence, and run ins with police or even incarceration than your daughter is.




Trenton said:


> It's not because any of them will be offered different opportunities for education or support or told they are better than or worse than the other. It's not because I would advocate less for my daughter than I would my sons as I regularly advocate for and support both equally in every aspect of their lives.


Yeah, so? Maybe YOU do that but YOU are not the entirety of the society in which they will live and under whose bureaucratic systems they will be subjected.



Trenton said:


> Could it be that my daughter is more likely to be raped?


Maybe.




Trenton said:


> Physically abused?


Wrong. DV is 50/50 however, men are a majority of victims of random physical violence.




Trenton said:


> Begin abusing her body as a way to feel more attractive and fit mainstream ideals?


Oh really? Males don't abuse their body through drugs? Alcohol? as a means of escaping negative self image? Males don't abuse steroids to get strong? Men don't worry about ideals of strength? Bravery? Physical views (hairloss, muscle tone, HEIGHT)?




Trenton said:


> Will have to be able to bi-pass stereotypes in order to achieve things she is equally capable of achieving?


Above you said that society isn't anti-male if you're a white male. Methinks you should check the foundations of your own sterotyping behavior.


[


Trenton said:


> Even given a loving, supportive family that will never and has never abused her? More likely to become pregnant and physically, financially and emotionally responsible for the child's upbringing?


Her body, her choice. If a man has no say in reproductive choice then why is he expected to pay? 



Trenton said:


> Let's get real here though. There is a different world awaiting them based on gender. I won't pretend differently.


You're right but very obviously, the only differences you demonstrate any concern for are those that affect your daughter. Your sons, not so much apparently.


----------



## TiggyBlue

To be fair with rape statistics only a small percentage of women actually report a rape (same with domestic violence), the can well be said for men (plus there is a social stigma for men).
The statistics for rape and domestic abuse only comes from reported ones only, it is possible for the statistics to be skewed.


----------



## Battle_Cats

Trenton said:


> Obviously but you are trying to say that because they are all male that the differences and disparity between Caucasian men and men from different cultural backgrounds is not relevant to this conversation? It absolutely is relevant because if we take men and women alone we will see very different conclusions than if we break it down.
> 
> When it is all broken down the question remains, overall, who remains at the top?
> 
> What's your best guess?
> 
> Now what's your best guess at the majority of posts that claim the *Poor me I am a man* syndrome on the TAM message boards?
> 
> Now do you see my point?


Are "privileged" white men over represented at the top in China? In Africa? In South America? Or are they mostly a majority representation where their race is a majority?

Should Christians start screaming bigotry at the ratio of Jews at the top leadership positions of Israel?

White men are are a majority at the top because this is a majority white country. Secondly, this is a majority male built society. Again, you brought the CEO thing up so let's talk about who the people were that BUILT those companies. Are you saying men are obliged to build something up and then hand it over just because?


And I'm asking again because you still haven't answered, if women are getting the majority degrees and better grades, then how come they aren't building companies like crazy? Where is the female Google or Facebook or Apple or Ford? Certainly no one is stopping them. So where are they?

How come Sheryl Sandberg brags about her intelligence and her educational pedigree and her skills yet still had to depend on a slacker COLLEGE DROPOUT WHITE MALE to make her rich?


It is very apparent that in your mind, it has never occurred to you that whatever "benefit" you think men have might just have been EARNED.


----------



## Battle_Cats

TiggyBlue said:


> To be fair with rape statistics only a small percentage of women actually report a rape (same with domestic violence), the can well be said for men (plus there is a social stigma for men).
> The statistics for rape and domestic abuse only comes from reported ones only, it is possible for the statistics to be skewed.


They certainly can be skewed BUT, "guesstimating" the number of unreported rapes just skews the statistics in the other direction.


----------



## Battle_Cats

Trenton said:


> I don't know Battle Cats. It must be because women are stupider even if able to achieve and spending all their time working on collectively milking men for all they are worth, no?
> 
> :rofl:


The tactic of your response is called a reframe. It is essentially an attempt to not concede a point by changing the subject.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Battle_Cats said:


> They certainly can be skewed BUT, "guesstimating" the number of unreported rapes just skews the statistics in the other direction.


I wasn't guesstimating at all I was saying that the statistics of reported rapes or violence could possibly be a poor reflection on the actual statistics, we won't ever know the actual statistics for either gender.


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> Obviously but you are trying to say that because they are all male that the differences and disparity between Caucasian men and men from different cultural backgrounds is not relevant to this conversation?


First of all, a technical distinction. The concept of 'Race' was based on phrenology, not skin color. 'Caucasian' did not and never has meant, 'White person.' It was inclusive of the people in all of Arabia, all of India, all of Spain, all of Greece, all of Armenia, all of Turkey, etc. The term has been kept alive and morphed into its present form by people with an agenda. Anthropologists rejected it as unscientific more that 60 years ago.

The reason I'm pointing this out is that although I'm not decrepitly old, I'm still old enough to remember a sign at the entrance to Ocean City that said, "White Gentiles Only", so understandably I'm coming from a, 'Betwixt and between' perspective here. Skin color means very little to me. 



Trenton said:


> When it is all broken down the question remains, overall, who remains at the top?


Men overwhelmingly dominate the top tiers of society. To argue with that would be to argue with reality. Men overwhelmingly dominate the lower tiers of society too. Which extreme are we going to choose as typical of the male condition? The reality is most men (Like most women) fall somewhere in the middle. But increasingly, men are unhappy at the utterly irrelevant assumption that the former observation somehow applies to them personally and that there is a resultant privilege and obligation arising from it. 




Trenton said:


> Now what's your best guess at the majority of posts that claim the *Poor me I am a man* syndrome on the TAM message boards?
> 
> Now do you see my point?


I do see your point. Like I said earlier to Catherine, I do think there is still a legitimate grievance even after we trim trim away the conditions to which this observation applies. Being told you are the source of all evil because of your gender and skin color really does get old after awhile.


----------



## JCD

Wow. This has gone very far afield.

As the OP, I am happy to concede that racism is a problem in this country.

However, while it is AN ax one can grind on, it is frankly one I am uninterested in sharpening and would thank the posters to not continue to threadjack.

This site is one about MARRIAGE...and other games that the genders play with one another. As such, I focused on gender roles, not racial ones.

Now, to speak to something relevant that Trenton posted earlier: Men spent the last 5,000 defining their roles: provider, protector, progenitor (or penis), and even dare I say 'possessor'? (to go with the alliterative theme)

These have sufficed for men for centuries. And for those who take umbrage at the 'possessor' theme, well...men (and women) paid good coin in resources, time and emotion to 'buy' the personhood of their spouse. Shah Jahan, who built the Taj Majal, didn't just think of Mutaz Mahal as 'old number three'... To want to possess something is to value it. There are positives to the word as well as negatives.

Well, women have stated that they really don't need a protector anymore in the safe SAFE artificial Western world and they can provide for themselves just fine. They don't want to owe anything so possession is straight out. In some very real ways, women have decided to marry the State, not the men.

Now a man, shorn of these other roles is a penis. And if he is a problematic penis and not a perfect penis, he is replaceable. EASILY replaceable if the 70% divorce stats started by women is any indication. (How is it that these oh so educated women who supposedly know the stats are choosing such a difficult course as divorce? Have men suddenly become THAT disagreeable...or have women become that much more difficult to please? These are not mutually exclusive, btw)

So men have defined themselves, thank you very much. Women generally aren't valuing these roles like they once did.

And I think that saying 'women have their own problems' is irrelevant. Men don't feel valued as a group. Men have legal hurdles which are difficult to surmount. A woman with very little proof can make things difficult to see his children and he is left spending thousands to try to remedy this situation.

This isn't the norm, I hope. But the bad actors make men question the value of marriage for themselves.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> I love how American society is considered anti-male.
> 
> Please. If you believe this (man or woman) wear a t-shirt that says it so you can be avoided by any rational thinking person.
> 
> Educate yourselves and stop being ignorant.
> 
> As women continue to hatch their plan to take over the world as helpless men are robbed of money. Women currently hold 4 percent of Fortune 500 CEO positions and 4.5 percent of Fortune 1000 CEO positions.
> 
> Yet, women out school men.
> 
> "Department of Education statistics show that men, whatever their race or socioeconomic group, are less likely than women to get bachelor's degrees — and among those who do, fewer complete their degrees in four or five years. Men also get worse grades than women."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
> 
> Women...such lazy, money sucking biatches who won't put out.
> 
> Washington Female CEOs Earn $600,000 Less Than Male Lobby Peers - Bloomberg
> 
> Strange that they're hit hardest by poverty isn't it? So are children.
> 
> U.S. Women Hit Hardest by Poverty, Says Census Report - The Daily Beast
> 
> Even if you were to say women deserved this fate somehow, your thoughts dictating a belief that men keep paying out is missed in the reality of the statistics. If that were the case, women would be rising in finances rather than the opposite.
> 
> *"Three out of four women said they would not wed someone without a job, and 65 percent would feel uncomfortable tying the knot if they themselves were jobless.
> 
> But more than 91 percent of single women said they would marry for love over money."*
> 
> Keep your assumptions and personal experiences about the gross inequality entrusted to women.
> 
> Give me some damn good facts that show me that society has tilted in a woman's favor and men are suffering financially.


Sorry, but this post really bugs me. Even though factually, it certainly comes across as sure you may have some problems, but since women have more, you are not allowed to complain. Apparently perception as reality is only allowed sometimes.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> I'm not pretending. I seriously feel sorry for those who marry for money or sex. I believe we agree in that marriage is not meant for them at all.
> 
> If you want marriage to go backwards and have it as a social contract for finance, power or sex. Great! But don't pretend that marriage for love doesn't happen, can't happen or shouldn't happen. It does. Just not for those who are marrying for sex or money.


I don't think that is what he was saying. Rather, many do marry for love, only to find that upon divorce, it becomes about money. It is difficult to not wonder if that was the goal all along, even if that is a jaded view.


----------



## Kobo

This has become an excellent thread to show a young man thinking about getting married. Know the thought processes you are up against...

Men going into marriages need to understand that its a different ballgame after the princess for a day fantasy and societal obligations have been fulfilled on the wedding day and in the delivery room. They really need to know what they're at risk of losing if their partner decides they're not nice enough.


----------



## Deejo

Haven't been around for a while.

Everyone should watch "Girl Says What?" She's very sharp.

I am divorced. I see my kids every other weekend ... I could fight that, but in the long run, I'd actually be hurting them financially. I have come to terms with how it is, and adjusted my life accordingly.

I can only snicker at folks who post about whether or not a man has his ass handed to him in a divorce when they are neither a man, nor divorced.

So, on topic.

There is a core point, and distinction in this discussion that my very dear friend Trenton brought up ... if in-elegantly, but no less true.
Men need to parse the rhetoric, expectations and gender crap for themselves and quite simply decide who it is they want to be and how they intend to conduct themselves. 

And importantly?

F*ck anyone that doesn't like it.

Choose. Lead ... yourself and others; and hold accountable, yourself and others.

I did not believe that I would ever want to marry again. I saw no up-side.

I'm with someone now who keeps making the up-side clear, every day. The more we talk, the more we interact, the more we share.

It's always easy to do the cost-benefit analysis in a dispassionate way, especially after you've been harmed.

But ... we are not dispassionate by default.

Me? I'm very passionate, about lots of things.

Being sure of the things that you want in your life, and then meeting someone that truly and willingly wants to share them with you ... throws dispassionate right out the window.

I know now, more than any other time in my life what my role is and how I feel about marriage. I thought about them, and I decided. 

And that ... is pretty much all you need to be sure of, in order to deal with the joys, triumphs, adversity and disappointments that are bound to occur, regardless if you conduct your life as a 'me' or a 'we'.


----------



## JCD

Kobo said:


> This has become an excellent thread to show a young man thinking about getting married. Know the thought processes you are up against...
> 
> Men going into marriages need to understand that its a different ballgame after the princess for a day fantasy and societal obligations have been fulfilled on the wedding day and in the delivery room. They really need to know what they're at risk of losing if their partner decides they're not nice enough.


While I've used a bit of hyperbole (problematic penis vs. perfect penis) I sincerely doubt that most women are cold blooded and ruthless when they go into matrimony. I think most women go into the relationship with a lot of hope.


Now...to go against Trenton's assertion...how many homeless men get married? Are they ALL unlovable? So I believe that 91% of women are willing to marry 'for love'...as long as a specific basic lifestyle is maintained. I strongly doubt that faced with a rich man they hated and a homeless man they loved...most women wouldn't look for a third choice...(mostly lovable and with a job)

But back to the topic at hand.

The system can rape a man without 'evil women' or an anti-male man hating court system.

Allow me to use the example of braces. Ex wife has Tina and Tina has crooked teeth. Mom is already strapped. As with so many moms, her work, child support, and whatever spousal support she gets...well...like everyone else, she's living paycheck to paycheck.

Now, Tina doesn't NEED braces. She is not lacerating the inside of her mouth with her distended chompers. She isn't gnawing off the tongue of her boyfriend. They are just...not perfect.

But mom is guilty. She's seen the lifestyle, psychological and relationship hit that Tina's taken from the divorce...the one MOM sought (damn his socks! KIDDING ladies!). So she wants to make it up to Tina and drops some cash to make a motion. After all, _shouldn't_ dad care about his kids teeth?

Well...yes and no. She's got the same teeth he had. The same teeth his mom had. They work...and dad is ALSO living paycheck to paycheck. This has been no picnic for HIM either.

How does mom see it? She has the kid (the one she asked for) and she has a job. What the hell is HE doing? Sitting around. He can either work harder or get another job for his darling daughter.

Since the courts don't want to pay for braces and THEY don't pay a cost, the judge is likely award this to her. Idle hands are the devil's playground after all. It's for the *CHILDREN!*

No one asked the father what he wants to do with his money. No one asked if this would inconvenience him. No one cares if he wants another job. 'The children' are a cudgel used to justify any number of fiscal atrocities. One only needs to read about some celebrity divorce where Mom is asking for $10,000 PER MONTH for her kids...each!

Blink blink. Really?

Because...here is the thing. DAD was thrown out! In his mind, he is MEETING his obligations! The court asked for X. He is paying X. Now the woman who tossed him aside wants more. Any woman who divorces her husband and DOESN'T think it strongly risks affecting the bonds of affection and responsibility a man feels for them is frankly an idiot. So being treated as a constant well of cash by a woman who doesn't care about him...well...sorry lassie. Your husband might be an ATM. Your ex? Not so much.

This isn't evil on her part. His resentment is also natural. But the courts are far more likely to be forcibly applied against him than they are her.


----------



## Kobo

JCD said:


> While I've used a bit of hyperbole (problematic penis vs. perfect penis) I sincerely doubt that most women are cold blooded and ruthless when they go into matrimony. I think most women go into the relationship with a lot of hope.


Yes, probably a lot of unrealistic hope of what a long term marriage will be like. Which can turn into insurmountable resentment which turns into a broke husband.


----------



## JCD

Trenton said:


> Really? How annoying that I want to bring facts and figures into it? If a thread is portraying women overall as destroying masculinity and their roles in today's society, I'd really like this same thread to look at the bigger picture for both genders rather than spend so much time indulging in their own woes. And that is what this thread is really about. Angry men.
> 
> P.S. Most of the posts on this thread really bug me.


Okay...how about this? You bring up all these stats about how much more horrible divorce is for women than for men.

Well...I can solve 70% of these woes. Stop hurting yourselves. The wounds are self inflicted.

And frankly, the implication you are making is that there ARE no legitimate beefs. Just a bunch of angry men.

And lastly...this is the MALE clubhouse. We are allowed to indulge our woes here. That was the whole point in it's creation.


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> Really? How annoying that I want to bring facts and figures into it? If a thread is portraying women overall as destroying masculinity and their roles in today's society, I'd really like this same thread to look at the bigger picture for both genders rather than spend so much time indulging in their own woes. And that is what this thread is really about.


Does this need to be a male vs. female thing? We've gotten to where we are together as a society. Men and women have not done this apart from each other and men have in fact been willing participants in the devaluation of fatherhood from day one.

I jumped into this thread because as someone who has followed this trend, I see a lot of it even in children's entertainment.

One of the best early examples that I've pointed out before is Disney's adaptation of the Peter Pan story; specifically in what it has to say about mothers and fathers.

What does the story say about mothers? A mother is, "_..the most wonderful person in the word_ ", "_..the angel voice that bids you good night_ ", "_..another word for divine_". 



What does the story say about fathers? Explicitly, it doesn't say much because nobody in the story is pining for lack of a father. Implicitly, it says quite a bit.

In the story's real world, Mr. Darling angrily bellows that Wendy should grow up, put aside the fantasies of childhood, move out of the nursery and start behaving more like an adult. In the story's magical world, Captain Hook wages an outright war on children of a faraway land who never grow up. The two characters are very obviously alter egos of each other because not only do their aims coincide, but they share the exact same voice.


What kind of a message is that? We can say that slipping an idealogical spitball under the radar of most people is harmless, but I'm not so sure.


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> Lament about your woes and direct them at the right targets. Don't feed me some dumb lines about all women over and over again and expect me to eat it and I won't expect men to either.


If this is directed at me, I'm afraid I'm lost. I've confined my comments to observations about men and the places in society they typically hold, both high and low. The idea that this was somehow inflicted upon them by women is just plain silly.



Trenton said:


> Ocotillo, what about Finding Nemo? A much more recent story then your example of Peter Pan.
> 
> If I am to believe that men's roles in society are currently at risk like no time before, then why is it I can name a very pro father Disney movie and you are describing a book that was first written in the early 1900's?


There are certainly exceptions. The Peter Pan adaptation was actually so bad that it set the stage for the 1991 movie Hook to go the opposite direction with a very positive message about fathers.


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> Ocotillo, what about Finding Nemo? A much more recent story then your example of Peter Pan.
> 
> If I am to believe that men's roles in society are currently at risk like no time before, then why is it I can name a very pro father Disney movie and you are describing a book that was first written in the early 1900's?


Yes, the story about the fretful, timid father who is brought out of his fearfulness by a forgetful female fish. Tremendous male role model right there.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Nah, JCD. I recognize you're a more logical thinking man which is why your stance on this issue is a wee bit scary for me.


You didn't watch one moment of the video JCD posted in the opener, did you?

You'd love the messenger, and hate the message, I'd bet a nickel on it. She's a smart lady.


----------



## Kobo

Trenton said:


> So father's are damned if they do, damned if they don't? By you?
> 
> The story was actually about a Dad who had to adapt to being the sole nurturer after losing all of his family besides his son and it was about his journey from trying to keep his son safe to recognizing that his son and himself were stronger than he thought.
> 
> The forgetful fish was just funny.
> 
> So you see Nemo as timid and Captain Hook as overbearing.
> 
> I guess there needs to be an in-between, strangely, most men are which is also why they don't make interesting characters in Disney flicks.


I didn't say anything about captain hook. I've never read/watched peter pan to completion so my opinion of his character in the story would be incomplete. Nemo wasn't Timid, his father was and would have never followed through with searching for his son if he wasn't pushed along by the female lead in the story.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Deejo said:


> You didn't watch one moment of the video JCD posted in the opener, did you?
> 
> You'd love the messenger, and hate the message, I'd bet a nickel on it. She's a smart lady.


I have my reservations.. I went to her blogspot..and if what she said here :

Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go? - YouTube

is true, then how come you Americanos male are still marrying to this day? I am not debating you sir, I just want to hear your perspectives. Thank you.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> Really? How annoying that I want to bring facts and figures into it? If a thread is portraying women overall as destroying masculinity and their roles in today's society, I'd really like this same thread to look at the bigger picture for both genders rather than spend so much time indulging in their own woes. And that is what this thread is really about. Angry men.
> 
> P.S. Most of the posts on this thread really bug me.


I am annoyed at your attempt to shut down men voicing their concerns because women have it harder. I am not even arguing that they don't. But that does not mean men can't look at the now and the future and see issues that they are concerned about for them. But apparently, they should just shut up, sit down and be grateful it is not worse. I disagree.

As far as what you want to see, start that thread. I think it would be great. This one was posted to discuss issues that some men have (just as some other threads are directed to issues that some women have). Yes, some of the men are angry. But others are not. But we do see a changing world and are trying to figure out how to best navigate it for ourselves and our children.


----------



## JCD

Trenton said:


> Nah, JCD. I recognize you're a more logical thinking man which is why your stance on this issue is a wee bit scary for me.


Since you seem to be taking the stance that the male concerns portrayed here are overinflated or nonexistent, then finding what you consider a SENSIBLE male who sees the same issues means that you either have to dismiss him as a crank as well or actually give some credence to these issues.

And you refuse to give it any credence...so he must be a crank too. Which is scary. Now there are NO sensible men. Certainly YOU can't be wrong...


----------



## Deejo

john_lord_b3 said:


> I have my reservations.. I went to her blogspot..and if what she said here :
> 
> Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go? - YouTube
> 
> is true, then how come you Americanos male are still marrying to this day? I am not debating you sir, I just want to hear your perspectives. Thank you.


Because a good many think quite simplistically, that's what they are supposed to do. Usually when they are young, and relatively inexperienced with women. Biological imperatives and all ... Yeah, men have them too.

Others go into it eyes wide open, informed or otherwise.

Marriage isn't going away any time soon. But ... if the numbers are correct, and from an anecdotal or fact based perspective, not many people are going to argue that's the case ... it's heyday and it's necessity have passed. Barely Half of U.S. Adults Are Married – A Record Low | Pew Social & Demographic Trends

I find all of the other 'noise' introduced to the subject such as race, rape, gender and poverty to be nothing more than obfuscation.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with what men think of the prospect of marriage.

And given that we are on a marriage site, seems quite obvious that even while men or women may question whether it's worth it ... all it takes is that one person to shift your thinking based upon how they align in your life, and you have new and exciting ideas. It's what makes us human. Sometimes it serves us well, other times ... your mileage may vary.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Deejo said:


> Because a good many think quite simplistically, that's what they are supposed to do. Usually when they are young, and relatively inexperienced with women. Biological imperatives and all ... Yeah, men have them too.
> 
> Others go into it eyes wide open, informed or otherwise.
> 
> Marriage isn't going away any time soon. But ... if the numbers are correct, and from an anecdotal or fact based perspective, not many people are going to argue that's the case ... it's heyday and it's necessity have passed. Barely Half of U.S. Adults Are Married – A Record Low | Pew Social & Demographic Trends
> 
> I find all of the other 'noise' introduced to the subject such as race, rape, gender and poverty to be nothing more than obfuscation.
> 
> It's got absolutely nothing to do with what men think of the prospect of marriage.
> 
> And given that we are on a marriage site, seems quite obvious that even while men or women may question whether it's worth it ... all it takes is that one person to shift your thinking based upon how they align in your life, and you have new and exciting ideas. It's what makes us human. Sometimes it serves us well, other times ... your mileage may vary.


Thank you sir. I came to the webpage you linked above and found these quotes: 



> Public opinion about marriage echoes the declining prevalence of marriage. In a 2010 Pew Research Center survey, about four-in-ten Americans (39%) said they agree that marriage as an institution is becoming obsolete. Back in the 70s, only 28% agreed with that premise.11
> 
> Younger generations are more likely than those ages 50 and older to hold the view that marriage is becoming obsolete. Some 44% of blacks say marriage is becoming obsolete, compared with 36% of whites. Adults with college degrees (27%) are much less likely than those with a high school diploma or less (45%) to agree that marriage is becoming obsolete.


So yes, based on these figures, indeed marriage is on the decline. Thank you for the enlightenment.

Do you have any advice or further analysis on how to stop or reverse this trend?


----------



## Deejo

john_lord_b3 said:


> Thank you sir. I came to the webpage you linked above and found these quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> So yes, based on these figures, indeed marriage is on the decline. Thank you for the enlightenment.
> 
> Do you have any advice or further analysis on how to stop or reverse this trend?


Honestly? No.

We have more access to resources then at any time in history. We have more financial freedom. Either gender can get along just fine in this life, financially and otherwise, completely on their own.

We live longer ... 

How to stop or reverse the trend?

Good marriages are rare. The kind of marriage that can be held up and admired is something that everyone, instinctively and intuitively recognizes.

We know what a good marriage looks like. We know what we are supposed to do to be a good and loving partner.

We know what feeds a marriage, and what undermines it.

But unless both people in the union share all that knowledge above and are both openly and equally committed to living it ... or correcting it if it goes off-course; then the marriage is at risk ... always.

Some of us learn that the hard way.

Marrying the right person is most certainly not an easy feat. Staying married, to the right person, is even more challenging, despite knowing what the right things to do are.

We're people, often we are far better at doing the wrong thing, suffering the consequences and then wondering why in the world we chose the wrong thing in the first place.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I feel like it's cheapened by its use here. No doubt.


And you're a sassy lady ...


----------



## Deejo

You think it's bad here? You should take these guys for a spin.

MGTOW.COM - Men Going Their Own Way


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I will always tell my children to marry for love, always.


I think we need to do better than that. We presume that love solves problems. It doesn't. Quite the opposite. If the equation is out of balance, love perpetuates problems. It tends to make you carry on, and hope for better, or accept behavior and treatment that one simply shouldn't tolerate.

Love isn't enough. But it isn't a bad place to start. 

That ... and of course women not being all crazy would go a long way too.


----------



## Runs like Dog

What on earth does anyone mean by 'today's society'? Which one, there's about a hundred in the US.


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> Nah, JCD. I recognize you're a more logical thinking man which is why your stance on this issue is a wee bit scary for me.


Why so Trenton?

Let me flesh it out a little bit: It is human nature to desire a sense of self worth. It is human nature to honestly feel that your contribution to a relationship (Like marriage) is both unique and valued. When those things don't exist people languish.

I suppose it's easy to fold one's arms and say that self worth comes entirely from within and as such, should require no external validation, but I think that attitude fails to account for the differences men and women have experienced in their respective social evolution.

One of the revelations of the human genome project was the fact that we all have many more female ancestors than we do male. 

This reflects a more primitive reality that we hardly see anymore, except in isolated cases like Colorado City, AZ where a polygamous Mormon sect flourished until fairly recently. In polygamous cultures, there is nothing more useless and more unwanted than an adolescent male. In Colorado City, young boys were turned out of the community and sent off on their own as soon as they got old enough to take a serious interest in girls. The only possible way they would ever be welcomed back is after they had made their way in the world and returned as a man with the material means to support a polygamous household. 

Strictly from an anthropological perspective how many primitive cultures have strong parallels to this in the form of elaborate rites of passage into manhood? How many of these rites took the form of tests of strength, bravery, endurance of extreme pain, ability to provide, etc.? 

I'd argue that it is not accident or coincidence that these rites occur in completely unconnected human cultures around the world. For whatever reason, men seem to be strongly inclined to gauge their self worth through what they are able to accomplish externally. From a female perspective, this may seem superficial or even childish, but we're all carrying different sorts of baggage in our primal minds that probably had their place at one time and served a useful purpose. 

This is one of the things I think we're up against today when we look at shifting societal expectations and gender roles in marriage. What unique thing does a man contribute to a marriage anymore? What does he provide for the relationship that is not easily duplicated or replaced?

Personally, I think the father's contribution to parenting is one thing that is both unique and important, which is why it pisses me off to see the message that it is not embedded into children's entertainment.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

ocotillo said:


> This is one of the things I think we're up against today when we look at shifting societal expectations and gender roles in marriage. *What unique thing does a man contribute to a marriage anymore? * What does he provide for the relationship that is not easily duplicated or replaced?


This is an excellent point for consideration and thought. To some degree, I wonder if this is due to feedback. We as a society have worked to support single parent households, which are predominately single mothers. Part of that is trying to help them succeed, and noting what a great job they do. Great so far, as assisting this segment of the population is definitely a good thing. 

But is there a danger that in doing so, we have unintentionally sent the message that not only can it be done without a father, but that a father is not even necessary? A message that boys and girls have picked up and acted upon? How do we best balance supporting single mothers (as we should) while also not denigrating or dismissing what a father can add? I don't know that I have an answer, but it is something I do think we need to address.


----------



## JCD

Tall Average Guy said:


> This is an excellent point for consideration and thought. To some degree, I wonder if this is due to feedback. We as a society have worked to support single parent households, which are predominately single mothers. Part of that is trying to help them succeed, and noting what a great job they do. Great so far, as assisting this segment of the population is definitely a good thing.
> 
> But is there a danger that in doing so, we have unintentionally sent the message that not only can it be done without a father, but that a father is not even necessary? A message that boys and girls have picked up and acted upon? How do we best balance supporting single mothers (as we should) while also not denigrating or dismissing what a father can add? I don't know that I have an answer, but it is something I do think we need to address.


As an irrelevant and humorous aside, I recall a Chris Rock sketch where he talked about Parents.

Not work safe, but here:

Chris Rock on Parents


----------



## Kaboom

Boy did this thread take a few crazy turns. I like it!


----------



## Runs like Dog

Well we tried turning men into girls. That didn't work, so what's next?


----------



## Catherine602

TAG nailed it. 

What does this video mean to you? Rock does not mention parents once in the video. 

It's not what you've been cognitively primed to see. The assumption is that the mother is the irresponsible party in the lives of her children. What of the father?

I wouldn't show this video as an indictment of women. I'd be ashamed of what it really shows - a comic who accepts his and other men's weaknesses. The men who unload 50% of their responsibility on women. 

When you hear people demonizing a bad mother, do you ever ask where is the father. Not who has custody or how often the father is mandated by the court see the child or how much child support he is forking over. 

If he is not taking up the slack when the kids are not getting their needs met by the mother then he is as responsible for ruining the child's life as the mother. 

This is what Chis Rock's routine would have been if his vision of fatherhood were not whorped: " you out at the club and you got two kids?! I hope thier father's more responsible that you. The fathers at the club down the street?! What is wrong with parents these days! 

What it really shows is the problem with our perception of the importance of fathers. fathers are not given enough credit for the impact they have on a child's life. The perception is changing but it has not kept up with reality. 

My experience from divorced father that I know is that they love their kids very much and are intimately involved in thieir lives. From what I read here, it is true for the overwhelming majority of men. 

However, language is important, it shapes expectations. This video does not acknowledge the role of the father. He is ignored. 

We have to be consistent. Either fathers are important in a child's life or not. If yes then they are important in good and bad outcomes. Fathers will continue to be dismissed if they just want the accolades.


----------



## JCD

Frankly, I picked the clip more for the two main points:

Women raising kids alone is dumb. Much of that obligation is self imposed. I wonder at all these monsters women are marrying.

The Big Piece of Chicken and how some women resent even that amount of recognition.

As you correctly noted a dad spending all his time at the track is equally negligent.


----------



## treyvion

JCD said:


> Frankly, I picked the clip more for the two main points:
> 
> Women raising kids alone is dumb. Much of that obligation is self imposed. I wonder at all these monsters women are marrying.
> 
> The Big Piece of Chicken and how some women resent even that amount of recognition.
> 
> As you correctly noted a dad spending all his time at the track is equally negligent.


With the fathers not being in the picture. About half the time it was the males fault for not wanting to be there and the other half of the time it was the females fault for never wanting a man in there, pushing him away or giving him such a minimal and demeaning role he chooses to leave.

Before I got into situations that brought me to sites like this I would have never known, I always blamed the man.


----------



## Deejo

Yesterday I was treated to several very interesting insights at a graduation party. 

There was the couple with the 3 little girls who daddy got into the lake with, played with, while mom simply crowed from her chair "Did you put more sun-block on the kids?" To which she rolled her eyes and went off on a tangent about all of the things daddy 'doesn't' do. She was also miffed when the kids were throwing rocks in the water and carped "Don't throw rocks!" Dad had been watching them and smiling.

Also got the story of the girl that had met the guy who fell head over heels in love with her, bought her the house she loved, bought her a new truck, were talking of marriage after he got a new business venture of the ground which had him away for 10 months. Apparently she felt financially strapped, and alone ... and had an affair. She did the right thing ... and told her fiance. Upon which he had all her things removed from the home, changed the locks and took back the truck, as it was in his name. Leaving her with exactly ... nothing. And she was horrified by his behavior.

And lastly my GF's sister, who is and has been happily married for nearing 20 years. She acknowledged that she CAN'T speak freely about how much she loves and admires her husband because whenever it comes to discussions of marriage and husbands when in a group if it isn't about husband-bashing, nobody wants to hear it.

No doubt the latter is alive and well on both sides, all the more the shame; but I kept thinking yesterday, "Holy sh!t. I'm in a real-life TAM bubble."

I banned them ...


----------



## treyvion

Deejo said:


> Yesterday I was treated to several very interesting insights at a graduation party.
> 
> There was the couple with the 3 little girls who daddy got into the lake with, played with, while mom simply crowed from her chair "Did you put more sun-block on the kids?" To which she rolled her eyes and went off on a tangent about all of the things daddy 'doesn't' do. She was also miffed when the kids were throwing rocks in the water and carped "Don't throw rocks!" Dad had been watching them and smiling.
> 
> Also got the story of the girl that had met the guy who fell head over heels in love with her, bought her the house she loved, bought her a new truck, were talking of marriage after he got a new business venture of the ground which had him away for 10 months. Apparently she felt financially strapped, and alone ... and had an affair. She did the right thing ... and told her fiance. Upon which he had all her things removed from the home, changed the locks and took back the truck, as it was in his name. Leaving her with exactly ... nothing. And she was horrified by his behavior.
> 
> And lastly my GF's sister, who is and has been happily married for nearing 20 years. She acknowledged that she CAN'T speak freely about how much she loves and admires her husband because whenever it comes to discussions of marriage and husbands when in a group if it isn't about husband-bashing, nobody wants to hear it.
> 
> No doubt the latter is alive and well on both sides, all the more the shame; but I kept thinking yesterday, "Holy sh!t. I'm in a real-life TAM bubble."
> 
> I banned them ...


She's in the wrong group?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

treyvion said:


> She's in the wrong group?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Still comes down to who you are. Does she feel bad about being in a great marriage with a man whom she admires? No. Does she feel likes she's grand-standing when other women are talking about how they hate their lives and hold their husbands to account? Yes.

He's gone often, for weeks or months. He works for a band. People give her sh!t about that. As if he's probably cheating on her and she's blissfully ignorant.
No ... she's smart, confident, and is a good wife with a strong marriage. 

A powerful group mentality when it comes to relationships is; "We're not happy, 'til you're not happy."
Hell you see it even here on the boards all the time. At any given moment you can check the numbers of readers on the Coping with Infidelity forum, vs. the Long Term Success in Marriage forum. 

When people ask me how things are going with my girlfriend, my response is, "Great. I'm in love with her. She's a great woman." 
And they usually look shocked. 

I'm a big believer in making husbands and fathers relevant, and respected instead of an afterthought, punching-bag or a punch-line.

Being relevant and worthy of respect starts in-house. Want your wife, kids, and co-workers to respect you?
Then you'd better damn well respect yourself and conduct yourself with integrity.

Once you have that and own it, all of the other stuff just becomes peripheral 'noise'.

I imagine the whole 'man child' thing is actually going to get worse before it gets better.
And we can't decide who and what we are supposed to be, based upon what the fairer sex thinks we are supposed to be.
It isn't up to them, nor should it be.


----------



## treyvion

Deejo said:


> Still comes down to who you are. Does she feel bad about being in a great marriage with a man whom she admires? No. Does she feel likes she's grand-standing when other women are talking about how they hate their lives and hold their husbands to account? Yes.
> 
> He's gone often, for weeks or months. He works for a band. People give her sh!t about that. As if he's probably cheating on her and she's blissfully ignorant.
> No ... she's smart, confident, and is a good wife with a strong marriage.


She's probably being honest and not trying to hurt anyones feelings, but she's happy and thinks the world of her husband.



Deejo said:


> A powerful group mentality when it comes to relationships is; "We're not happy, 'til you're not happy."
> Hell you see it even here on the boards all the time. At any given moment you can check the numbers of readers on the Coping with Infidelity forum, vs. the Long Term Success in Marriage forum.


The empowerment comes from the numbers. So as long as any one of the members of the group has "problems" with their spouse, the bashing will continue. Usually the one like the happy wife, will not speak up because the group is not going to like to hear that, or she will be minimized by the group.



Deejo said:


> When people ask me how things are going with my girlfriend, my response is, "Great. I'm in love with her. She's a great woman."
> And they usually look shocked.
> 
> I'm a big believer in making husbands and fathers relevant, and respected instead of an afterthought, punching-bag or a punch-line.
> 
> Being relevant and worthy of respect starts in-house. Want your wife, kids, and co-workers to respect you?
> Then you'd better damn well respect yourself and conduct yourself with integrity.


You can act with respect, integrity and a good moral compass. It doesn't mean the group you are interacting with has to treat you with any respect or feed you with any kindness. They may be even harder on you for being dignified. But i do think you do it for yourself.



Deejo said:


> Once you have that and own it, all of the other stuff just becomes peripheral 'noise'.
> 
> I imagine the whole 'man child' thing is actually going to get worse before it gets better.
> And we can't decide who and what we are supposed to be, based upon what the fairer sex thinks we are supposed to be.
> It isn't up to them, nor should it be.


It's up to us. What we are and what we are willing to take. I know one thing. If my woman decides I'm going to be sexless, then I'm going to be sexless unless I step outside of the relationship. That's a fact.


----------



## Deejo

treyvion said:


> If my woman decides I'm going to be sexless, then I'm going to be sexless unless I step outside of the relationship. That's a fact.


For exactly as long as you are willing to tolerate it. Another fact.
My tolerance has dropped by a factor of 10 since my marriage ended.

Women don't shut off access to sex without giving off a host of signals. Whether or not we hear and see them and know how, or choose to respond is another matter. 

Suffer through a sexless marriage once? Live and learn. Suffer through another drop in sexual response in a LTR and accept it? You get what you deserve.


----------



## Starstarfish

I realize as always, I'm a dozen pages behind the discussion, but just to note ...



> Men have been marginalized and their 'male' behavior has been semi criminalized or treated in school with drugs because their mostly female teachers just refuse to deal with boys as boys.


I'm a female. I had difficulties socializing in school - I was chunky, I was a nerd (I'm still a nerd), and the total Springer-esque nature of my family life made me ripe for harassment. So I kept to myself, and I didn't have many friends. By fourth grade, I learned to deal with this reality by developing a caustic, biting sense of humor, complete with self-depreciating and maudlin jokes. This wasn't seen as normal or appropriate, obviously, there was something deeply wrong with me - so they demanded I see the school counselor, and implied I need Ritalin and long-term therapy. Thankfully, my mother opted for neither. When my social problems continued into high school, later the suggestion was Zoloft. Obviously, if they could just get me on -something- I'd magically stop being a fat nerd and everyone would suddenly love me. 

But - males aren't the only ones being preyed upon by the "ADHD Witchfinder General" these days. There's a whole problem there - up to and including this idea that any differences in personality or behavior beyond some pre-set "norm" are things that automatically need to be stomped out with Soma *cough* I mean Ritalin, or whatever the latest drug is. 

Are male adolescents more likely to be put on Ritalin? Studies say yes. Meanwhile, female adolescents are more likely to be prescribed antidepressants. The conclusion - male or female we are over-medicating our children. Just that we have different expected gender behaviors for girls and boys, and thus, different expectations of what behaviors need to be controlled. I'm thinking we are doing a disservice to everyone. Is being on Zoloft as a 12 year old girl better or worse than being on Ritalin as a 12 year old boy? I have no idea, and given how infrequently the long-terms effects of such things are really studied, I'm guessing the drug companies nor the government could really answer it either. 

I have idea what the solution to all of this is, but I think to really solve it, we need to look at it that children male and female are at a disadvantage because of all of this - rather than approach it from an anti-male, nut-bashing man hating female teacher perspective.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Starstarfish said:


> I realize as always, I'm a dozen pages behind the discussion, but just to note ...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a female. I had difficulties socializing in school - I was chunky, I was a nerd (I'm still a nerd), and the total Springer-esque nature of my family life made me ripe for harassment. So I kept to myself, and I didn't have many friends. *By fourth grade, I learned to deal with this reality by developing a caustic, biting sense of humor, complete with self-depreciating and maudlin jokes. This wasn't seen as normal or appropriate, obviously, there was something deeply wrong with me - so they demanded I see the school counselor, and implied I need Ritalin and long-term therapy. Thankfully, my mother opted for neither*. When my social problems continued into high school, later the suggestion was Zoloft. Obviously, if they could just get me on -something- I'd magically stop being a fat nerd and everyone would suddenly love me.
> 
> But - males aren't the only ones being preyed upon by the "ADHD Witchfinder General" these days. There's a whole problem there - up to and including this idea that any differences in personality or behavior beyond some pre-set "norm" are things that automatically need to be stomped out with Soma *cough* I mean Ritalin, or whatever the latest drug is.
> 
> Are male adolescents more likely to be put on Ritalin? Studies say yes. Meanwhile, female adolescents are more likely to be prescribed antidepressants. The conclusion - male or female we are over-medicating our children. Just that we have different expected gender behaviors for girls and boys, and thus, different expectations of what behaviors need to be controlled. I'm thinking we are doing a disservice to everyone. Is being on Zoloft as a 12 year old girl better or worse than being on Ritalin as a 12 year old boy? *I have no idea, and given how infrequently the long-terms effects of such things are really studied, I'm guessing the drug companies nor the government could really answer it either*.
> 
> I have idea what the solution to all of this is, *but I think to really solve it, we need to look at it that children male and female are at a disadvantage because of all of this* - rather than approach it from an anti-male, nut-bashing man hating female teacher perspective.


:iagree: I agree... why must everything be solved with drugs? chemicals? Long term effects unknown? Yikes... we're not lab rats! Must we trust the drug companies?!?

And if there actually exist sexist teachers like you describe, they shouldn't be teachers at all..


----------



## unbelievable

If a wife has a good man and kid has a good father, neither will usually have much need for a politician or a government program. This is why men are systematically and deliberately marginalized in our society. Self sufficient people are not easily controlled and they have little interest in alleged rescuers. They do not fear and they aren't for sale. My Grandmother found far more security in her scrawny 8th grade educated but hard-working husband of 74 years than she ever could with all government programs combined.


----------



## Catherine602

JCD said:


> Frankly, I picked the clip more for the two main points:
> 
> Women raising kids alone is dumb. Much of that obligation is self imposed. I wonder at all these monsters women are marrying.
> 
> *The Big Piece of Chicken *and how some women resent even that amount of recognition.
> 
> As you correctly noted a dad spending all his time at the track is equally negligent.


That routine is funny.

Much of Chris Rock's humor is to voice the male angst. 

Comics are like books - some should be tasted, some devoured, but only a few should be chewed and digested thoroughly. (Sir Francis Bacon). 

Rock is very funny but not among the greats. He lacks the insight to get past the biases that beset us like really great comedians. 

What he dosen't seem to get is that one gender cannot possibly be responsible for all of the problems in a relationship. Its black and white thinking and there is no communicating with a person who thinks like this. 

You are wrong so I am right or you are right and I am wrong. There are other permutations.


----------



## Catherine602

Trenton said:


> Right. Or not.
> 
> Let me tell you a story about a troll who lived under a bridge...


He hit his head on a low beam, fell down an embankment, and spent the night in a stinking ditch. He revived himself and composed bad poetry and got banned.


----------



## Convection

Deejo said:


> For exactly as long as you are willing to tolerate it. Another fact.
> My tolerance has dropped by a factor of 10 since my marriage ended.
> 
> Women don't shut off access to sex without giving off a host of signals. Whether or not we hear and see them and know how, or choose to respond is another matter.
> 
> Suffer through a sexless marriage once? Live and learn. Suffer through another drop in sexual response in a LTR and accept it? You get what you deserve.


Truth. Wisdom. 

Deejo ... don't leave this board.


----------



## Catherine602

Kobo said:


> This has become an excellent thread to show a young man thinking about getting married. Know the thought processes you are up against...
> 
> Men going into marriages need to understand that its a different ballgame after the princess for a day fantasy and societal obligations have been fulfilled on the wedding day and in the delivery room. They really need to know what they're at risk of losing if their partner decides they're not nice enough.


You can tell them that and I am certain many older jaded men have tried to warn young men about the evil of women. You'll be no more successful than the generation before you influenced you decision making. 

Every generation goes their own way. If we were controlled by the previous generation, society would stagnate. 

The young people who are getting into LTR now are dealing with a completly different world than yours. You can't take away their youthful sense of optimism and chance at a happy long term relationship because yours turned sour. 

You had your chance and now it's their chance. Maybe they will get it right, who knows. But they don't need the previous generations trying to poison their future with their hopelessness and lack of vision.


----------



## treyvion

Catherine602 said:


> You can tell them that and I am certain many older jaded men have tried to warn young men about the evil of women. You'll be no mare successful than the generation before you influenced you decision making.
> 
> Every generation goes their own way. If we were controlled by the previous generation society would stagnate.
> 
> The young people who are getting into LTR are dealing with a completly different world than yours. You can't take away their youthful sense of optimism and chance at a happy long term relationship because you are unhappy.
> 
> You had your chance and now it is their chance. Maybe they will get it right, who knows. But they don't need the previous generations trying to poison their future with their hopelessness and lack of vision.


One of the ones I heard growing up is that:

There are women who like to marry soldiers. They tend to live near Army bases, and they marry the men for the benefits and the life insurance. That these same individuals will attempt to hook you into activities which were certain to get you killed or injured.

I thought it was preposterous as a young man, but now I sadly realize it is an exact truth. As a young man, you are excited to explore the world and the possibilities, so it's exciting to get lured in and and close to trapped - until learned your lesson. 

It's not like you try to go learning those lessons either, you feel like your just living.


----------



## Catherine602

treyvion said:


> One of the ones I heard growing up is that:
> 
> There are women who like to marry soldiers. They tend to live near Army bases, and they marry the men for the benefits and the life insurance. That these same individuals will attempt to hook you into activities which were certain to get you killed or injured.
> 
> I thought it was preposterous as a young man, but now I sadly realize it is an exact truth. As a young man, you are excited to explore the world and the possibilities, so it's exciting to get lured in and and close to trapped - until learned your lesson.
> 
> It's not like you try to go learning those lessons either, you feel like your just living.


Reading this makes me sad for you. You have completely lost faith in yourself with these feelings about women. 

Do you know what you are giving up by descending into this morass of hopelessness? Relationships with wonderful people who will know you, accept you and love you. Share your dreams and be with you when you are dissapointed.

Your vision of women sounds awful. If I were a man, I would stay away from them altogether. Do you really think that women are incapable of loving a man, good at man trapping and resource draining, and baby making? 

What do you intend to do, become a monk? If not then you need to work on being optimistic about the future. Decent loving women are not difficult to find by a man with the same attributes and who has a good picker. 

If your picker bends towards crazy women then forge a strait one. Don't blame crazy women, they can't help themselves neither can you help them. Blame your corkscrew picker. 

It's all under your control, if you don't give it away. That's what you are doing with all the negativity.


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> You can tell them that and I am certain many older jaded men have tried to warn young men about the evil of women. You'll be no more successful than the generation before you influenced you decision making.
> 
> Every generation goes their own way. If we were controlled by the previous generation, society would stagnate.
> 
> The young people who are getting into LTR now are dealing with a completly different world than yours. You can't take away their youthful sense of optimism and chance at a happy long term relationship because yours turned sour.
> 
> You had your chance and now it's their chance. Maybe they will get it right, who knows. But they don't need the previous generations trying to poison their future with their hopelessness and lack of vision.


I agree, but think we end up in a full circle back to the statistic that started this thread. Despite youthful exuberance and optimism, interest in marriage among young men is at a record low in this country. There is not a corresponding drop among young women.

I think blaming women for this is reflexive and wrong, but at the same time, it does beg the question as to what has changed and why this is so.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Catherine602 said:


> Reading this makes me sad for you. You have completely lost faith in yourself with these feelings about women.
> 
> Do you know what you are giving up by descending into this morass of hopelessness? Relationships with wonderful people who will know you, accept you and love you. Share your dreams and be with you when you are dissapointed.
> 
> Your vision of women sounds awful. If I were a man, I would stay away from them altogether. Do you really think that women are incapable of loving a man, good at man trapping and resource draining, and baby making?
> 
> What do you intend to do, become a monk? If not then you need to work on being optimistic about the future. Decent loving women are not difficult to find by a man with the same attributes and who has a good picker.
> 
> If your picker bends towards crazy women then forge a strait one. Don't blame crazy women, they can't help themselves neither can you help them. Blame your corkscrew picker.
> 
> It's all under your control, if you don't give it away. That's what you are doing with all the negativity.


Scrolled through a lot of these pages but your post makes the most sense to me. I see a lot of men in truly awful relationships. My wife's brothers comes to mind. Their wives treated them like four year olds. I'll admit that one was slacking career wise but the other was really successful.

Before I married my wife both my sister in laws sat her down and told her that they were "concerned" because they felt she was getting into pattern of doing what I say. This wasn't the case, my wife just generally values my opinion and insight. 

What am I saying? It all depends on who you choose to marry. I know that not everybody shows their true colors before the wedding day, but if you find out you married satan, no point in staying for financial reasons or the kids.

One of my brother in laws wised up. He divorced his wife moved to Europe and found the love of his life. The other...well he is still being emotionally abused.

There is hope. Somebody out there is exactly what you're looking for. Actually there are lots of people out there that are exactly what you're looking for.


----------



## hambone

ocotillo said:


> I agree, but think we end up in a full circle back to the statistic that started this thread. Despite youthful exuberance and optimism, interest in marriage among young men is at a record low in this country. There is not a corresponding drop among young women.
> 
> I think blaming women for this is reflexive and wrong, but at the same time, it does beg the question as to what has changed and why this is so.


Girls do have a much stronger drive to be princess for a day. They will jump through hoops, morph themselves into whatever it takes to get the guy to marry them. 

Once they are married and had a baby.... She can divorce him... and he loses all rights and benefits of marriage... except financially supporting that ex-wife and child.

Marriage is a very dangerous proposition for men...


----------



## Viseral

Catherine602 said:


> Reading this makes me sad for you. You have completely lost faith in yourself with these feelings about women.
> 
> Do you know what you are giving up by descending into this morass of hopelessness? Relationships with wonderful people who will know you, accept you and love you. Share your dreams and be with you when you are dissapointed.
> 
> Your vision of women sounds awful. If I were a man, I would stay away from them altogether. Do you really think that women are incapable of loving a man, good at man trapping and resource draining, and baby making?
> 
> What do you intend to do, become a monk? If not then you need to work on being optimistic about the future. Decent loving women are not difficult to find by a man with the same attributes and who has a good picker.
> 
> If your picker bends towards crazy women then forge a strait one. Don't blame crazy women, they can't help themselves neither can you help them. Blame your corkscrew picker.
> 
> It's all under your control, if you don't give it away. That's what you are doing with all the negativity.


I don't blame women, I blame the laws that govern marriage and divorce. 

My heart tells me to love and cherish my woman with reckless abandon. My head tells me to run from the legality of marriage like it's the plague.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Reading the posts on this thread brings a question to my mind.
Men are loosing interests in marriage , women are more likely to initiate divorce , divorce rates are skyrocketing and generally in Western societies , people are sceptical about the institution of marriage.

My question is has this egalitarian model of marriage really been the best thing for every single marriage?
Is it that we are allowing way too much of " new wave " constructivism to dictate what makes MY marriage a happy one?
Should we really be redefining gender roles in marriage , or should people simply take responsibility for their own happiness and function in the roles that they are most comfortable with?

I suspect there is some sort of covert social engineering taking place.
Exploitation of human vulnerabilities.
Too many people are unhappy vis-à-vis our ancestors.
I think that we may have thrown out the baby along with the dirty bath water.
Marriage is supposed to be fulfilling and beautiful.


----------



## Catherine602

ocotillo said:


> I agree, but think we end up in a full circle back to the statistic that started this thread. Despite youthful exuberance and optimism, interest in marriage among young men is at a record low in this country. There is not a corresponding drop among young women.
> 
> I think blaming women for this is reflexive and wrong, but at the same time, it does beg the question as to what has changed and why this is so.


Who says there is not a corresponding drop among young women? Women are more career oriented and, according to what I read, feel marriage is a bad deal for them. 

That's strange, right? Each gender resist taking the plunge but can't resist the longing for a special connection and the lure of having a family.


----------



## treyvion

Catherine602 said:


> Reading this makes me sad for you. You have completely lost faith in yourself with these feelings about women.
> 
> Do you know what you are giving up by descending into this morass of hopelessness? Relationships with wonderful people who will know you, accept you and love you. Share your dreams and be with you when you are dissapointed.
> 
> Your vision of women sounds awful. If I were a man, I would stay away from them altogether. Do you really think that women are incapable of loving a man, good at man trapping and resource draining, and baby making?
> 
> What do you intend to do, become a monk? If not then you need to work on being optimistic about the future. Decent loving women are not difficult to find by a man with the same attributes and who has a good picker.
> 
> If your picker bends towards crazy women then forge a strait one. Don't blame crazy women, they can't help themselves neither can you help them. Blame your corkscrew picker.
> 
> It's all under your control, if you don't give it away. That's what you are doing with all the negativity.


I don't blame all women, but it's quite a bit more than a few... I was wise enough going into it to realize you can't blame all women or even most, but it's a huge percentage doing these things. I know it depends on where you look. I know that part, and make sure others know that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> Who says there is not a corresponding drop among young women? Women are more career oriented and, according to what I read, feel marriage is a bad deal for them.
> 
> *That's strange, right? Each gender resist taking the plunge but can't resist the longing for a special connection and the lure of having a family.*


But why does that dream seem so elusive, even after they have found that " special someone 
" and gotten married?
It is natural for humans to reproduce after its kind, and select the best partner to do so.
Why instead of " happily ever after" divorce now seems to be the default setting?


----------



## treyvion

ReformedHubby said:


> Scrolled through a lot of these pages but your post makes the most sense to me. I see a lot of men in truly awful relationships. My wife's brothers comes to mind. Their wives treated them like four year olds. I'll admit that one was slacking career wise but the other was really successful.
> 
> Before I married my wife both my sister in laws sat her down and told her that they were "concerned" because they felt she was getting into pattern of doing what I say. This wasn't the case, my wife just generally values my opinion and insight.
> 
> What am I saying? It all depends on who you choose to marry. I know that not everybody shows their true colors before the wedding day, but if you find out you married satan, no point in staying for financial reasons or the kids.
> 
> One of my brother in laws wised up. He divorced his wife moved to Europe and found the love of his life. The other...well he is still being emotionally abused.
> 
> There is hope. Somebody out there is exactly what you're looking for. Actually there are lots of people out there that are exactly what you're looking for.


Basically being tied to someone who demeans and devalues you, limits you in life, STEALS a good percentage of life from you... When you realize their are relationship partners who will ADD life to you, ADD to your value and they don't feel like it costs them anything, actually they are happy to do it - you wonder what the hell are you doing?


----------



## treyvion

Caribbean Man said:


> But why does that dream seem so elusive, even after they have found that " special someone " and gotten married?
> Why instead of " happily ever after" divorce now seems to be the default setting?


Many people may have chased an elusive Hollywood dream, superficial values and motives on both sides, and then they have to go through tought stuff...


----------



## Catherine602

ReformedHubby said:


> Scrolled through a lot of these pages but your post makes the most sense to me. I see a lot of men in truly awful relationships. My wife's brothers comes to mind. Their wives treated them like four year olds. I'll admit that one was slacking career wise but the other was really successful.
> 
> Before I married my wife both my sister in laws sat her down and told her that they were "concerned" because they felt she was getting into pattern of doing what I say. This wasn't the case, my wife just generally values my opinion and insight.
> 
> What am I saying? It all depends on who you choose to marry. I know that not everybody shows their true colors before the wedding day, but if you find out you married satan, no point in staying for financial reasons or the kids.
> 
> One of my brother in laws wised up. He divorced his wife moved to Europe and found the love of his life. The other...well he is still being emotionally abused.
> 
> There is hope. Somebody out there is exactly what you're looking for. Actually there are lots of people out there that are exactly what you're looking for.


Have you ever noticed that a persons behavior in each relationship is different depending on the personality and ego strength of their partner? 

I agree with you that picking the right person is important but there seems to be another factor. Once you pick the right person you have to be the right person.

There are clearly some people who are beyond relationship redemption. There are others who behave badly but are basically good people. They are redeemable if they are motivated. 

I think 90% of conflict between men and women would be solved if we accepted our respective differences. We may not ever be able to understand them without becoming the opposite gender for a day. 

Accepting means that you don't expect men to think like woman or women like men. Most of all, you behave in a sensitive and understanding manner. Casting derision at maleness or femaleness is counterproductive. 

Each gender has some degree of awareness of gender differences. But the area we fall down is the acceptance. What I see in this thread is the awareness being used as a weapon and hurled at, in this case, women. 

The insensitive remarks leveled at women by some of the men in this thread are made out of pain. Maybe on some level, they were always there but buried to get along with the wife. 

Its not good enough to bury contempt for the ways of the opposite gender. It leaks out in small and large ways from day to day and year to year. 

You say something in anger about her femaleness, relish jokes poking fun at women etc. It adds up and may wear down her desire to treat her husbands maleness with sensitivity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> *Accepting means that you don't expect men to think like woman or women like men. Most of all, you behave in a sensitive and understanding manner. Casting derision at maleness or femaleness is counterproductive. *
> 
> Each gender has some degree of awareness of gender differences. But the area we fall down is the acceptance. What I see in this thread is the awareness being used as a weapon and hurled at, in this case, women.
> 
> (


I agree with the general message of your post, but I must add that there are some complexities.
The concept of what constitute maleness is a foreign one to most males and females under a certain age.

We now live in an age where men are saying that they are the same as women and then they wonder why their wives no longer respect them and are not sexually attracted to them.

Acceptance goes a long way in fixing the problem.
But we must be careful of _what_ we accept.
Both genders.


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> But why does that dream seem so elusive, even after they have found that " special someone
> " and gotten married?
> It is natural for humans to reproduce after its kind, and select the best partner to do so.
> Why instead of " happily ever after" divorce now seems to be the default setting?


Mainly because we don't understand what it takes to go the distance. I googled "the best rated SUV's" before buying one but never read one think about marriage before taking the plunge. 

I, like everybody else, thought that being in love would unit us in all things. What a shock to find out that was wrong. 

We love each other but we are no where near thinking alike. Who knew! If I still thought love was thinking alike I would not be so sure we were in love. 

If you start with a person with similar values, goals and attitudes about money you have a more than 50% chance of making it long term.

B ut these things change so the so the ability to compromise, communicate, and honor a commitment and pure dumb luck plays a role. 

Not many couples know that it is normal to meet a few people over the years that attract them. They also don't realize how easy it is to get sucked in to act on the attraction. 

They don't know that at the first stirrings of desire it is important to shut it down by any means necessary. A lack of character, selfishness, a sense of entitlement makes that impossible for some. 

There was a poster earlier on in this thread I think who thought there was nothing wrong with lusting after women in his mind. The men are visual thing was mentioned I think. 

That's true but, what if getting carried away with dreams of new vj puts his LTR and the stability of his children's lives at risk? 

If he looked at the choice he was making in its true light - playing with fire or playing it safe by protecting his LTR. It depends on his character and level of control.


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> I agree with the general message of your post, but I must add that there are some complexities.
> The concept of what constitute maleness is a foreign one to most males and females under a certain age.
> 
> We now live in an age where men are saying that they are the same as women and then they wonder why their wives no longer respect them and are not sexually attracted to them.
> 
> Acceptance goes a long way in fixing the problem.
> But we must be careful of _what_ we accept.
> Both genders.


CM I don't see that men are trying to become like woman. Can you give examples because I am clueless. 

I've read this or something like it frequently but don't know what people are talking about.


----------



## ocotillo

Catherine602 said:


> Who says there is not a corresponding drop among young women? Women are more career oriented and, according to what I read, feel marriage is a bad deal for them.
> 
> That's strange, right? Each gender resist taking the plunge but can't resist the longing for a special connection and the lure of having a family.


I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, so can only say what I've read.

According to the PEW institute young women in the 18-34 age demographic who report marriage as a high priority has risen from 28% in 1997 to 37% today.

Among young men in the same demographic, it has fallen from 35% to 29% during the same time period


----------



## Deejo

Caribbean Man said:


> Marriage is supposed to be fulfilling and beautiful.


Really like that you posted this. 

Elegant, simple and true.

Yet so frustratingly elusive it seems.


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, so can only say what I've read.
> 
> According to the PEW institute young women in the 18-34 age demographic who report marriage as a high priority has risen from 28% in 1997 to 37% today.
> 
> Among young men in the same demographic, it has fallen from 35% to 29% during the same time period


The cynic in me wonders if it's just another agenda item on the list of today's 'you can have it all' young women. College. Career. Marriage. Babies. 
I have a 32 year old friend who has fallen in love with an extraordinarily bright 25 year old in grad school. He told me flat out. She has the entire thing mapped, and she told ... outright told him ... "you're the guy that fits my plan."

So much for beautiful and fulfilling.


----------



## wilderness

Catherine602 said:


> Who says there is not a corresponding drop among young women? Women are more career oriented and, according to what I read, feel marriage is a bad deal for them.
> 
> That's strange, right? Each gender resist taking the plunge but can't resist the longing for a special connection and the lure of having a family.


Even if marriage may be a bad deal for some woman, _divorce_ is a good deal for nearly all women. Very little risk for women, gigantic risk for men. That's the point.


----------



## Catherine602

treyvion said:


> I don't blame all women, but it's quite a bit more than a few... I was wise enough going into it to realize you can't blame all women or even most, but it's a huge percentage doing these things. I know it depends on where you look. I know that part, and make sure others know that.


Need more info. Have you met any women who have been consistently sensitive and nice? What happened to your relationships with them? 

What attracts you to one woman as apposed to another? 

I am not trying to nail all problems onto to you. Sometimes good people have the bad luck of being picked by a predatory person. 

You have no control over that because crazy people are very effective at concealing their pathology. You can avoid them if you know what to look for. 

Sometimes the pattern of your attachments may reveal why you have relationships with more troubled partners.

Which do you think has affected you? Could be a combination of factors.


----------



## treyvion

Catherine602 said:


> Need more info. Have you met any women who have been consistently sensitive and nice? What happened to your relationships with them?
> 
> What attracts you to one woman as apposed to another?
> 
> I am not trying to nail all problems onto to you. Sometimes good people have the bad luck of being picked by a predatory person.
> 
> You have no control over that because crazy people are very effective at concealing their pathology. You can avoid them if you know what to look for.
> 
> Sometimes the pattern of your attachments may reveal why you have relationships with more troubled partners.
> 
> Which do you think has affected you? Could be a combination of factors.


Just so you know. A "nice" woman is a huge turnon for me, especially if her physical image is pleasing to my eyes. The niceness adds several levels to her beauty.


----------



## john_lord_b3

wilderness said:


> Even if marriage may be a bad deal for some woman, _divorce_ is a good deal for nearly all women. Very little risk for women, gigantic risk for men. That's the point.


I see, now I get it, that explains this article...

http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2011/01/why-are-women-more-likely-to-initiate-divorce/

Although I disagree with your assertion that it has "little risk" for women.. Really, does men in your country always lose the court battles and end up being penniless all the times? Surely there were times where the women loses too?


----------



## wilderness

john_lord_b3 said:


> I see, now I get it, that explains this article...
> 
> http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2011/01/why-are-women-more-likely-to-initiate-divorce/
> 
> Although I disagree with your assertion that it has "little risk" for women.. Really, does men in your country always lose the court battles and end up being penniless all the times? Surely there were times where the women loses too?


Almost always. It is possible to win, but not without great expense, planning, strategy and tactics, timing, and luck. In some cases, it's impossible and I don't care how smart you are or how much you plan.


----------



## john_lord_b3

wilderness said:


> Almost always. It is possible to win, but not without great expense, planning, strategy and tactics, timing, and luck. In some cases, it's impossible and I don't care how smart you are or how much you plan.


Oh, :scratchhead: that's too bad..


----------



## Deejo

Although I don't think you intended it as such, your post comes off more than a little patronizing ... or matronizing if you prefer. 



Trenton said:


> What plays a bigger role in limiting men and women? Society or government?
> 
> I just watched a brilliant woman who asked herself this question and successfully led a campaign to allow women to drive in Saudi Arabia and was successful. She fought society because there were no laws forbidding women to drive, simply societal pressure.
> 
> Manal al-Sharif: A Saudi woman who dared to drive | Video on TED.com
> 
> In Yemen, Nadia Al-Sakkaf took over her father's independent newspaper after his assassination. An amazing woman working to be a bridge between Yemen and the rest of the world. With a husband who is co-pilot and proud of his wife rather than struggling with his fragile ego. Both fighting for change in Yemen and women's rights.
> 
> Nadia Al-Sakkaf: See Yemen through my eyes | Video on TED.com
> 
> Regardless of what Pew states, and I've read over the statistics as they're often quoted by men in threads like these, women are given more choices today in the states than ever before. I don't think it will go backwards and will fight to make sure this is the case.
> 
> What are men here claiming they should fight for? Better portrayals of men in media? Exercise your free will to bring this about.
> 
> Less financial burden placed upon men in divorce? Work to ensure equal pay across different careers so that a teacher or social worker with a masters degree or doctorate can earn what a man in engineering or computer science does. Change what society values as it still does under value a woman's contribution.
> 
> Less deaths due to jobs predominantly filled by men? Work for safer work places, better enforcement, etc.
> 
> In saying this I'll point out that society still plays an impressive role in shaping our ideas, expectations and goals.
> 
> Changes will impact a man's role in society just as they will impact a woman's role. Yet, in the two videos I linked you can hear two stories of women who refused to accept the roles society has dictated for them, and as such, are changing their nations and the world.
> 
> We can guess at what the outcomes will be or claim gripes against one gender or the other based upon experiences, polls or perceptions.
> 
> I am not afraid nor am I the least bit threatened by this idea that men will no longer marry because it isn't in their best interest. I say so be it to the men who feel this way. If anything, it may lessen the divorce rate rather than increase it and maybe a new version of marriage will be born out of it.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Deejo said:


> Although I don't think you intended it as such, your post comes off more than a little patronizing ... or matronizing if you prefer.


:iagree:


----------



## treyvion

wilderness said:


> Almost always. It is possible to win, but not without great expense, planning, strategy and tactics, timing, and luck. In some cases, it's impossible and I don't care how smart you are or how much you plan.


Oh, you can win - but you have to be as treacherous as the opposition. Winning in this situation is quite mean and will ruin her for quite some time.


----------



## john_lord_b3

treyvion said:


> Oh, you can win - but you have to be as treacherous as the opposition. Winning in this situation is quite mean and will ruin her for quite some time.


so, by this logic, if there were more men losing than women, it means the men were less treacherous? Or maybe their lawyers not as good as the opposition's lawyers? Isn't this the factor of the lawyers and not always in the persons in contention?


----------



## treyvion

john_lord_b3 said:


> so, by this logic, if there were more men losing than women, it means the men were less treacherous? Or maybe their lawyers not as good as the opposition's lawyers? Isn't this the factor of the lawyers and not always in the persons in contention?


It means men were not willing to be as treacherous as necessary to "win".

Most men are not going to "ruin" the now ex-wife, because they want her to be ok and society expects the children to go to the wife. 

I'm not necessarily saying "winning" is the right thing, but it can be done. Like I said, it will be very mean, it will be nitpicking over small details that even a stringent and consistent person can be caught on and she will be ruined somewhat if that information makes it outside of the courtroom.


----------



## john_lord_b3

treyvion said:


> It means men were not willing to be as treacherous as necessary to "win".
> 
> Most men are not going to "ruin" the now ex-wife, because they want her to be ok and society expects the children to go to the wife.
> 
> I'm not necessarily saying "winning" is the right thing, but it can be done. Like I said, it will be very mean, it will be nitpicking over small details that even a stringent and consistent person can be caught on and she will be ruined somewhat if that information makes it outside of the courtroom.


Ah, eh, well, thank you for the information. I used to think that this is due to the factor of the lawyer.. my logics used to go like this: 1. women are more likely to initiate divorce, thus 2. they are better prepared to get a divorce, including getting the best lawyer, while 3. the men were caught unprepared and thus 4. not getting enough time to get the best lawyer... Now I know that getting a good lawyer is not always the key to "victory"..


----------



## treyvion

john_lord_b3 said:


> Ah, eh, well, thank you for the information. I used to think that this is due to the factor of the lawyer.. my logics used to go like this: 1. women are more likely to initiate divorce, thus 2. they are better prepared to get a divorce, including getting the best lawyer, while 3. the men were caught unprepared and thus 4. not getting enough time to get the best lawyer... Now I know that getting a good lawyer is not always the key to "victory"..


Not at all. As long as you can get them to present the information, some lawyers are going to be more aggressive about it.

All the things my ex was going to do and institute to ensure I couldn't get my kids, I could've done the same thing to her and got them.

You know how the emotionally blackmail you, small little slips, delays, etc that they catch you on and label with, you can do it to them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> *Mainly because we don't understand what it takes to go the distance. I googled "the best rated SUV's" before buying one but never read one think about marriage before taking the plunge. *
> 
> I, like everybody else, thought that being in love would unit us in all things. What a shock to find out that was wrong.
> 
> We love each other but we are no where near thinking alike. Who knew! If I still thought love was thinking alike I would not be so sure we were in love.
> 
> *If you start with a person with similar values, goals and attitudes about money you have a more than 50% chance of making it long term.
> 
> But these things change so the so the ability to compromise, communicate, and honor a commitment and pure dumb luck plays a role.
> *
> Not many couples know that it is normal to meet a few people over the years that attract them. They also don't realize how easy it is to get sucked in to act on the attraction.
> 
> They don't know that at the first stirrings of desire it is important to shut it down by any means necessary. A lack of character, selfishness, a sense of entitlement makes that impossible for some.
> 
> There was a poster earlier on in this thread I think who thought there was nothing wrong with lusting after women in his mind. The men are visual thing was mentioned I think.
> 
> That's true but, what if getting carried away with dreams of new vj puts his LTR and the stability of his children's lives at risk?
> 
> If he looked at the choice he was making in its true light - playing with fire or playing it safe by protecting his LTR. It depends on his character and level of control.


Catherine,
Sometimes your posts just leave me speechless!
Yes, you are correct on every single paragraph , sentence and line.
What can I say to this?
Brilliant.

Before we were married, my wife and I had extensive pre marital counselling for almost 6 months.
I have read on TAM that men get married primarily for sex , women for love. I don't disagree, but I know that wasn't the case for me.
Sex when I was single marriage was never a problem for me. My main purpose for getting married was because I loved this woman and knew that she loved me too.
Our desire was to have a good marriage and enjoy life together.
I have a passion for life, I love life.
She too had the same.
Yes, before I married I Googled " the best rated woman to go the full distance " and came up with my wife.
But much like the Range Rover of any best rated SUV , I realized that she would need regular maintenance, which could sometimes be expensive.
A cost I decided that I would willingly bear, given the fact that the marriage terrain can at times be rough, and it made no sense risking that SUV shutting down on me in the middle of the dessert , at anytime, midday or midnight.

".._*If you start with a person with similar values, goals and attitudes about money you have a more than 50% chance of making it long term.

But these things change so the so the ability to compromise, communicate, and honor a commitment and pure dumb luck plays a role*_.."
> smiling< :iagree:>smiling<

_"...The more sand has escaped from the hourglass of our life, the clearer we should see through it..."_
*Niccolo Machiavelli*

You are a wise woman Catherine, hats off!
Best wishes to you and your husband.


----------



## Convection

Caribbean Man said:


> But these things change so the so the ability to compromise, communicate, and honor a commitment and *pure dumb luck* plays a role.


More than we would care to believe, I think.

Far be it for me to pour fuel on the fire, but the timing seemed appropriate:

8 Reasons Straight Men Don't Want to Get Married


----------



## persephone71

tulsy said:


> I just think that the current marriage contract is a joke in today's society. It rarely ever favors a man, especially when it doesn't work out. It's almost crazy to sign one...I mean, there is an awfully good chance it's not going to work out, which means there is an awfully good chance that you will loose a lot of money on top of getting your hopes, heart and dreams smashed.
> 
> .


Then I suggest men try HARDER to make it work. 

Men get TONS of benefit from marriage (emotional support, a caregiver for kids, a nanny, cook, personal assistant, sex, et al). Yet, often all of this is taken for granted. Then when women file, we're the "walkaway wife", who's trying to bleed him dry.

I think this point is overly simplistic.


----------



## unbelievable

Husbands get cooking and sex? Where is this magical place of which you speak?


----------



## Catherine602

Sorry just watched the video and I feel sorry for this lady. Is this what men think a woman should be? You think this woman understands anything about men beyond what she read on the internets? 

If she does not love and accept herself she cannot love or respect a man. You don't need women to sprout this sh!t to have a meeting of minds. Each person needs to come from a strong and healthy place. This woman is neither. 

She practices self-annihilation to curry favor among men. I don't think men need a sad self-hating woman to speak for them do they? 

I am sure any man who knows his way around is not threatened by women who love and respect themselves. 

I wonder if she has a mother. She needs to have an intervention by someone who cares about her. 

The men she is defending aren't inviting her to the pub to have a beer and a conversation about the contents of her next video, thats for sure. She useful for men to stick in the face of self respecting women but no more. 

A man would never trade in his penis to get accolades from women. Yet this poor woman traded her veejaja, boobs and hair to become a spokesmen for a group who does not need her sacrifice or invite it. Kind of makes you queasy. 

For all of her effort to be liked by men, she is probably despised by them for falling on her own sword.


----------



## Viseral

The problem is that in the US, the laws and traditions that govern marriage haven't adapted to modern culture.

Traditionally, marriage was a construct that was designed to protect women. Women had the biological burden of having to give birth and raise children. There was no other choice because birth control, washing machines, dish washers, automobiles, child daycare, etc had not been invented yet. Men had to protect, provide, and often times work in deplorable conditions.

Most modern women believe that in the past, women led domesticated lives because they were "oppressed" by "the patriarchy". This isn't true. The technology simply didn't exist to free women from domestic roles, and men from physical labor.

It was rational at the time for there to be traditions and laws that benefited women because they couldn't have careers given the limits of technology. Women received the diamond rings, the weddings, and had legal protections which provided alimony and child support should the man leave. 

All divorces had to go to court and fault was established to whichever party violated the marital contract, and the appropriate divisions of property were decided based on the circumstances.

This is known as marriage 1.0.

Nowadays, women compete with men on every level. If women make the same career choices as men, they earn just as much as men. Technology gives women the choice to have, or not have children, whenever they want. 

Women are no longer bound by nature to any kind of gender role. The laws have been changed so that it's no longer required to prove fault in divorce cases. It no longer matters who violated the marital contract and anyone can walk from a marriage at any time, and for any reason, or no reason at all. Property is divided equally, no matter who paid for it.

This is known as Marriage 2.0.

In the US, we are currently caught between marriage 1.0 and marriage 2.0.

Women still enjoy the traditional benefits of marriage 1.0 with the diamond rings and the big weddings. They also enjoy all the legal freedoms of marriage 2.0.

The legal and financial risk associated with marriage has risen dramatically for men because society expects them to continue to provide the traditional benefits of marriage 1.0, and also be at the mercy of the legal freedoms associated with marriage 2.0.

Until the old traditions of marriage are abolished and new laws/traditions are instituted based on modern gender roles, (or lack thereof) that benefit both genders, the current system will continue to be a significant legal/financial risk for men.


----------



## hambone

persephone71 said:


> Then I suggest men try HARDER to make it work.
> 
> Men get TONS of benefit from marriage (emotional support, a caregiver for kids, a nanny, cook, personal assistant, sex, et al). Yet, often all of this is taken for granted. Then when women file, we're the "walkaway wife", who's trying to bleed him dry.
> 
> I think this point is overly simplistic.


You recognize that the majority of divorces are initiated by women.

Why is that? I think it's because the lesson that women have hard from the feminists is this, "You deserve to be fulfilled.. if he's not fulfilling all your needs.. you deserve better... get out... and find someone who truly loves you!".

With all the kids raised in single parent families... they haven't seen a successful marriage. The women don't know how to be wives... and the boys don't know how to be dads and husbands.

Young women have this overwhelming drive to be a princess for the day. They don't have an overwhelming drive to be wives. Men don't have that drive to be prince for a day. 

I see far too many girls jump through hoops to get a guy to marry them. They morph themselves in the perfect girlfriend.. to get the guy to marry them. Of course, once they are married... they relax and go back to being themselves. I was a victim of that behavior. The girl I dated was fun.. and had sex just about every time we were together.. and enjoyed it. She went to all the stuff I liked...and had a great time...

Man, she ate that wedding cake and it changed her. No more sex, no more doing all that stuff we used to do... She was a SAHM (without kids) and all she did was ride around in that new car I bought her... and eat lunch with her girl friends. She wasn't cooking, wasn't cleaning, wasn't washing clothes... she wasn't doing ANYTHING. And yet, she left me. I was married 2.5 years to her and between her and the lawyers, they took everything I had. In 1986, it cost me $50,000 to get divorced from that woman. She totally fooled me. 

On the flip side of that... as bad as that first marriage was, my second marriage has been heaven. 

I see too many young couples getting married and it appears to me that the bride couldn't care who she was marrying... She just wanted a warm body to stand by her so she could be princess for a day.


----------



## persephone71

unbelievable said:


> Husbands get cooking and sex? Where is this magical place of which you speak?


My house 

Listen, I get it. My point is that M is a two-way street. Men get benefits too. Often (as is the case in my M) this is often taken for granted. Until they are served with D papers.

My H has now aggreed to go to therapy, paid for a vacation to take me to Europe, and has agreed to get his sh* t together.


----------



## persephone71

hambone said:


> You recognize that the majority of divorces are initiated by women.


Yes. Is is perhaps that women have higher degree of discomfort in Ms? This then, contradicts your original premise. 



> Why is that? I think it's because the lesson that women have hard from the feminists is this, "You deserve to be fulfilled.. if he's not fulfilling all your needs.. you deserve better... get out... and find someone who truly loves you!".


As opposed to being told that "you take whatever you get, just to have a man" like our mothers and grandmothers were taught?



> With all the kids raised in single parent families... they haven't seen a successful marriage. The women don't know how to be wives... and the boys don't know how to be dads and husbands.


Once more, overly simplistic. Kids are growing up in SPHs for many reasons. What about the myriad men who walk away? Have families "on the side?" et al.?



> Young women have this overwhelming drive to be a princess for the day. They don't have an overwhelming drive to be wives. Men don't have that drive to be prince for a day.


Not all. I eloped in Vegas. The "princess" crap is for the birds. I spent the money gambling, eating fine dining, shopping and getting laid.



> I see far too many [strike]girls [/strike] *women* jump through hoops to get a guy to marry them.


..and I see far too many men jumping through hoops to get a woman in the bed.




> They morph themselves in the perfect girlfriend.. to get the guy to marry them. Of course, once they are married... they relax and go back to being themselves.


So I guess when H end romance, intimacy and emotional attraction, gains 40 pounds, sits in front of the TV all weekend, et al he's NOT going "back to himself?" I guess we should just well...try harder? 



> I was a victim of that behavior. The girl I dated was fun.. and had sex just about every time we were together.. and enjoyed it. She went to all the stuff I liked...and had a great time...
> 
> Man, she ate that wedding cake and it changed her. No more sex, no more doing all that stuff we used to do... She was a SAHM (without kids) and all she did was ride around in that new car I bought her... and eat lunch with her girl friends. She wasn't cooking, wasn't cleaning, wasn't washing clothes... she wasn't doing ANYTHING. And yet, she left me. I was married 2.5 years to her and between her and the lawyers, they took everything I had. In 1986, it cost me $50,000 to get divorced from that woman. She totally fooled me.


Sounds like a painful experience for you. My empathy. Yet, you can NOT paint all W's with the same brush.



> I see too many young couples getting married and it appears to me that the bride couldn't care who she was marrying... She just wanted a warm body to stand by her so she could be princess for a day.



Wow...


----------



## Viseral

persephone71 said:


> My house
> 
> Listen, I get it. My point is that M is a two-way street. Men get benefits too. Often (as is the case in my M) this is often taken for granted. Until they are served with D papers.
> 
> My H has now aggreed to go to therapy, paid for a vacation to take me to Europe, and has agreed to get his sh* t together.


Interesting. 

So since your H doesn't have his sh*t together you threatened him with the financial annihilation of divorce?

Wouldn't it be nice if men had that same power for when their wives didn't have their sh*t together?

If the woman leaves the marriage, the man pays. If the man leaves the marriage, the man pays.

See how that works?


----------



## persephone71

treyvion said:


> It means men were not willing to be as treacherous as necessary to "win".
> 
> Most men are not going to "ruin" the now ex-wife, because they want her to be ok and society expects the children to go to the wife.
> 
> .


Um...not quite.

My H wanted me homeless. And was prepared to go for broke to do so.

Now, he loves me and wants to reconcile.


----------



## persephone71

Viseral said:


> Interesting.
> 
> So since your H doesn't have his sh*t together you threatened him with the financial annihilation of divorce?
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if men had that same power for when their wives didn't have their sh*t together?
> 
> If the woman leaves the marriage, the man pays. If the man leaves the marriage, the man pays.
> 
> See how that works?


No. 

Because after almost a decade of crying, pleading and basically doing handstands to convince him to address our issues, (many of them HIS) (eg. his sh* t together) I was prepared to leave him.

Oh they do "leave" the M. It's usually called "affairs."


----------



## unbelievable

persephone71 said:


> My house
> 
> Listen, I get it. My point is that M is a two-way street. Men get benefits too. Often (as is the case in my M) this is often taken for granted. Until they are served with D papers.
> 
> My H has now aggreed to go to therapy, paid for a vacation to take me to Europe, and has agreed to get his sh* t together.


Hey, I've got my crap together! We can go to Europe. How's your cornbread? My belly thinks my throat's been cut.


----------



## Viseral

persephone71 said:


> N
> 
> Oh they do "leave" the M. It's usually called "affairs."


Statistics show that women have affairs at the same rate as men.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Convection said:


> More than we would care to believe, I think.
> 
> Far be it for me to pour fuel on the fire, but the timing seemed appropriate:
> 
> 8 Reasons Straight Men Don't Want to Get Married


Really interesting article.
I think it kinda reinforces what was being said in the OP's video link.
I think that the importance of this discussion stems from the potential impact of the statistics on society , in the short term.
If my memory serves me right , the founding fathers of America, based much of what they wanted build into the American dream, on strong family values.
Strong families make vibrant communities. From these communities we get societies, and societies sharing common values comprise a great civilization.

It appears to me that of this great civilization that the men in American history have built , there is less and less space left for them and " their stuff."
Excerpt:
_".There was no sadder scene to a movie than in 'Juno' when married guy Jason Bateman realized that in his entire huge, house, he had only a large closet to keep all the stuff he loved in. That hit me like a punch in the face."_
" 8 Reasons why straight men don't want to get married."
By Helen Smith.

Ironically, this as well as the OP's video were both written by women.
Seems men are too bust trying to be "Politically Correct", they fear the dreaded misogyny label. They now have to get permission to think and express themselves, they are afraid of upsetting someone and incurring the collective wrath of the
" progressives."
I believe that there is room enough for both genders to progress without either having to concede anything. The key is frank , honest , open discussions or people being allowed to speak what's on their minds fearlessly.
That is why I am an advocate for men to deal with men's issues.

I say these things as one who lives in a country where statistically , women far outnumber men, are well represented on every level and economic strata in society, have exactly the same rights as men and whose head of state is also a woman.
And men have not had to concede anything and are still what we have always been, men.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> Sorry just watched the video and I feel sorry for this lady. Is this what men think a woman should be? You think this woman understands anything about men beyond what she read on the internets?
> 
> If she does not love and accept herself she cannot love or respect a man. You don't need women to sprout this sh!t to have a meeting of minds. Each person needs to come from a strong and healthy place. This woman is neither.
> 
> She practices self-annihilation to curry favor among men. I don't think men need a sad self-hating woman to speak for them do they?
> 
> I am sure any man who knows his way around is not threatened by women who love and respect themselves.
> 
> I wonder if she has a mother. She needs to have an intervention by someone who cares about her.
> 
> The men she is defending aren't inviting her to the pub to have a beer and a conversation about the contents of her next video, thats for sure. She useful for men to stick in the face of self respecting women but no more.
> 
> A man would never trade in his penis to get accolades from women. Yet this poor woman traded her veejaja, boobs and hair to become a spokesmen for a group who does not need her sacrifice or invite it. Kind of makes you queasy.
> 
> For all of her effort to be liked by men, she is probably despised by them for falling on her own sword.


Then maybe you should have a look at this Huffington Post blog. The female writer is basically saying the same things, just in writing.

Helen Smith: 8 Reasons Straight Men Don't Want To Get Married


----------



## persephone71

Viseral said:


> Statistics show that women have affairs at the same rate as men.


True. And when most W have affairs, the H is LESS likey to stay. The converse is true. Also, WHY do women have affairs? It's usually because they are neglected by their H and seek emotional fullfillment. 

So, it is MEN who benefit most from affairs in a M.


----------



## richie33

So when men cheat its the mans fault. When women cheat it's the mans fault.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john_lord_b3

Convection said:


> More than we would care to believe, I think.
> 
> Far be it for me to pour fuel on the fire, but the timing seemed appropriate:
> 
> 8 Reasons Straight Men Don't Want to Get Married


Wow... and a WOMAN wrote this?



> It seems that fewer and fewer people in general are getting married these days, and even fewer men seem interested. Men no longer see marriage as being as important as they did even 15 years ago. "According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997--from 28 percent to 37%. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent." Why?
> 
> *In the course of researching my new book, Men On Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - And Why It Matters, I talked with men all over America about why they're avoiding marriage. It turns out that the problem isn't that men are immature, or lazy. Instead, they're responding rationally to the incentives in today's society.* Here are some of the answers I found.
> 
> 1. You'll lose respect. A couple of generations ago, a man wasn't considered fully adult until he was married with kids. But today, fathers are figures of fun more than figures of respect: The schlubby guy with the flowered diaper bag at the mall, or one of the endless array of buffoonish TV dads in sitcoms and commercials. In today's culture, father never knows best. It's no better in the news media. As communications professor James Macnamara reports, "by volume, 69 percent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavorable, compared with just 12 percent favorable and 19 percent neutral or balanced."
> 
> 2. You'll lose out on sex. Married men have more sex than single men, on average - but much less than men who are cohabiting with their partners outside of marriage, especially as time goes on. Research even suggests that married women are more likely to gain weight than women who are cohabiting without marriage. A Men's Health article mentioned one study that followed 2,737 people for six years and found that cohabiters said they were happier and more confident than married couples and singles.
> 
> 3. You'll lose friends. "Those wedding bells are breaking up that old gang of mine." That's an old song, but it's true. When married, men's ties with friends from school and work tend to fade. Although both men and women lose friends after marriage, it tends to affect men's self-esteem more, perhaps because men tend to be less social in general.
> 
> 4. You'll lose space. We hear a lot about men retreating to their "man caves," but why do they retreat? Because they've lost the battle for the rest of the house. The Art of Manliness blog mourns "The Decline of Male Space," and notes that the development of suburban lifestyles, intended to bring the family together, resulted in the elimination of male spaces in the main part of the house, and the exile of men to attics, garages, basements - the least desirable part of the home. As a commenter to the post observes: "There was no sadder scene to a movie than in 'Juno' when married guy Jason Bateman realized that in his entire huge, house, he had only a large closet to keep all the stuff he loved in. That hit me like a punch in the face."
> 
> 5. You could lose your kids, and your money. And they may not even be your kids. Lots of men I spoke with were keenly aware of the dangers of divorce, and worried that if they were married and it went sour, the woman might take everything, including the kids. Other men were concerned that they might wind up paying child support for kids who aren't even theirs - a very real possibility in many states. On my blog, I polled over 3200 men to ask how they would react to finding out that a child wasn't theirs after all. 32 percent said they would feel "anger and fury at the mother," 6 percent said they would feel "depression," 18 percent said "anger and depression," 2 percent said "none of the above," 32 percent said "angry at the system that forced them to pay," and only 2 percent "didn't care." One man commented that his ex-wife had taunted him with the knowledge that his 11-year old son wasn't actually his: "I was angry at the mother...I severed all ties to the boy. Some may see this as a failing. I see it as self-preservation, and to those that ask the question of whether or not the courts will make a non-biological parent pay child support, pay attention: YES THEY WILL! They see you as nothing more than a source of cash for the child. It seems that a person in these situations should be able to sue the real father for child support."
> 
> 6. You'll lose in court. Men often complain that the family court legal system is stacked against them, and in fact it seems to be. Women gain custody and child support the majority of the time, as pointed out in this ABC News article: "Despite the increases in men seeking and receiving alimony, advocates warn against linking the trend to equality in the courtroom. Family court judges still tend to favor women, said Ned Holstein, the founder of Fathers & Families, a group advocating family court reform. "'Family court still gives custody overwhelmingly to mothers, child support overwhelmingly to mothers, and courts still give almony overwhelmingly to mothers and women,' he said. 'The family courts came into existence years ago in order to give things to mothers that mothers needed," he said. 'The times have changed and the courts have not.'"
> 
> 7. You'll lose your freedom. At least, if you're charged with child support that you can't pay, you can be put in jail - and if you can't afford a lawyer, you don't have the right to have one appointed because, according to the Supreme Court, it's technically a civil matter, never mind the jail time. Fathers and Families found that it's the men who are jailed rather than women: "A new report concludes that between 95% and 98.5% of all incarcerations in Massachusetts sentenced from the Massachusetts Probate and Family Courts from 2001 through 2011 have been men. Moreover, this percentage may be increasing, with an average of 94.5% from 2001 to 2008, and 96.2% from 2009 through 2011. It is likely that most of these incarcerations are for incomplete payment of child support. Further analysis suggests that women who fail to pay all of their child support are incarcerated only one-eighth as often as men with similar violations."
> 
> 8. Single life is better than ever. While the value of marriage to men has declined, the quality of single life has improved. Single men were once looked on with suspicion, passed over for promotion for important jobs, which usually valued "stable family men," and often subjected to social opprobrium. It was hard to have a love life that wasn't aimed at marriage, and premarital sex was risky and frowned upon. Now, no one looks askance at the single lifestyle, dating is easy, and employers probably prefer employees with no conflicting family responsibilities. Plus, video games, cable TV, and the Internet provide entertainment that didn't used to be available. Is this good for society? Probably not, as falling birth rates and increasing single-motherhood demonstrate. But people respond to incentives. If you want more men to marry, it needs to be a more attractive proposition.
> 
> Clarification: From author Helen Smith: "I talked only with heterosexual men about marriage for the book. It did not include same-sex marriages. However the dynamics of same -sex marriage would be a fascinating study for future research." -- HuffPost Eds.


If this is the reality in Western countries, no wonder marriage is in the decline. Plus, I am surprised a woman would write this.. maybe this is not a problem for the men only but also for the women (getting harder to find suitable husband candidates?)?


----------



## persephone71

richie33 said:


> So when men cheat its the mans fault. When women cheat it's the mans fault.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


NO.

When anyone cheats, it's that person's choice. But, there are indeed some factors that precipitate this. 

Ironcially, you didn't comment on who tends to remain in the M....

Men leave FAR MORE than W when they are the BSO.


----------



## Starstarfish

> Even if marriage may be a bad deal for some woman, divorce is a good deal for nearly all women. Very little risk for women, gigantic risk for men. That's the point.


I'm not sure if you watch the same news stories that I do, but - these seems to be an increase in divorce or the potential of divorce leading to indeed, bad deals and risks for women. IE - an increase in "I'm not going to risk divorce, so I'll murder her instead." Don't want to risk losing or having to share custody of the kids? Kill them, and burn the house down. And yes - there are women who sometimes think the same thing, and push husbands off cruise ships and other insanity. 

Again, I think like the "only boys are being put on meds" thing - it's simplifying a much bigger issue. We have a problem, but I don't know if its the laws that are causing these problems, its a change in our cultural or individual mindset, or as a race humanity has gone off its mental train tracks, but - yes, it's an issue. I personally think part of it has a lot to do with changing expectations on what marriage is and what roles a spouse is supposed to play. But again - I have no way to prove that beyond hypothesis.


----------



## persephone71

unbelievable said:


> Hey, I've got my crap together! We can go to Europe. How's your cornbread? My belly thinks my throat's been cut.


Um...ok...


----------



## Kaboom

I think a lot of people here should keep in mind that polls are different than studies- Studies are typically more controlled and dependable for determining trends than polls, which are often cited as statistics that are easily manipulated.

That being said, there's been a few studies that are easily found online that are more accurate than the sea of statistics out there, you just have to look for them.


----------



## Viseral

Starstarfish said:


> I'm not sure if you watch the same news stories that I do, but - these seems to be an increase in divorce or the potential of divorce leading to indeed, bad deals and risks for women. IE - an increase in "I'm not going to risk divorce, so I'll murder her instead." Don't want to risk losing or having to share custody of the kids? Kill them, and burn the house down. And yes - there are women who sometimes think the same thing, and push husbands off cruise ships and other insanity.
> 
> Again, I think like the "only boys are being put on meds" thing - it's simplifying a much bigger issue. We have a problem, but I don't know if its the laws that are causing these problems, its a change in our cultural or individual mindset, or as a race humanity has gone off its mental train tracks, but - yes, it's an issue. I personally think part of it has a lot to do with changing expectations on what marriage is and what roles a spouse is supposed to play. But again - I have no way to prove that beyond hypothesis.


We are taught to expect that we can "have it all" and that everyone has a right to "be happy". 

The truth is that we can't "have it all", and we can't always "be happy".

Enduring hardship is one thing that bonds people together.


----------



## Viseral

persephone71 said:


> And this.:iagree:
> 
> Go to any domestic violence shelter, ER or morgue and you will see women who've tried to leave their Hs. Tell you what, they ain't at the salon getting manicures and driving his Mercedes because they "won" in Dcourt.
> 
> When the #1 cause of intentional injury and homicide among women is at the hands of an intimate partner, there is indeed risk.
> 
> It's not all about money.


How can we prevent Intimate Partner Violence and injury to women? IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners. According to Dr. Capaldi, "The question of initiation of violence is a crucial one... much IPV is mutual, and initiations -- even that seem minor -- may lead to escalation."

While studies have consistently found that women initiate as much violence against their male partners as vice versa, two-thirds of domestic violence injuries are suffered by women.

Dr. Capaldi notes that in a study of women who were in a battered women's shelter, "67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year." Others in the domestic violence field, including Erin Pizzey, founder of the first battered women's shelter in England in the early 1970s, have had similar findings.


----------



## Catherine602

It is common for women to look forward to her wedding day. To poke fun at it is particularly nasty. It shows the extent of the lack of acceptance of something that is uniquely female. 

Contempt and derision is no way to close the gap between men and women. It is the way many women are. You cant understand it but you have a right to make a choice, accept that it is important to us and act accordingly. 

Very few woman would shoot back by posting similarly derisive things about male expectations in marriage. They may act on them though. 

Lets say the wife is as contemptuous of the male dream of frequent and varied sex year after year as he is of her female dream of one special day, just one. 

Any of you guys have daughters? Have you informed your female child that you see her desire for that special day as a useless female thing? 

Be consistent and don't participate in the sham.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Viseral said:


> How can we prevent Intimate Partner Violence and injury to women? IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is *to not initiate violence against their male partners*. According to Dr. Capaldi, "The question of initiation of violence is a crucial one... much IPV is mutual, and initiations -- even that seem minor -- may lead to escalation."
> 
> While studies have consistently found that women initiate as much violence against their male partners as vice versa, two-thirds of domestic violence injuries are suffered by women.
> 
> Dr. Capaldi notes that in a study of women who were in a battered women's shelter, "67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year." Others in the domestic violence field, including Erin Pizzey, founder of the first battered women's shelter in England in the early 1970s, have had similar findings.


Eh, unfortunately, one of our own TAM member (mr. IndyTMI) has just received beatings on the hands of his (Soon to be) ex wife just a few days ago..  I pray for his safety.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/67022-ld-wife-has-turned-me-off-28.html#post2717250


----------



## wilderness

Catherine602 said:


> Ok there are two self hating female spokesman for men in the public arena.
> 
> I'll address the financial ruination propaganda. Do you mean men should not contribute to the care of their kids if they divorce the mother?


Of course men should contribute to the care of their children. Very few people either male or female would dispute that statement. However, modern day child support is paid directly to the mother, who may use the money for whatever she chooses. _Women are not obligated to use child support money for their children. _ Not only does the father have no say in where that money goes, he also has no say in how much he should pay. The formulas in certain states are flat out punitive and ridiculous, and a man of modest means is likely to find himself out on the street as a result. Now I'm getting to the worst part-
the courts take the position that the children need to be supported by the parents, _as long as the parent is the father_! If the parent is the custodial mother, they are NEVER required to financially support the child, NEVER required to get a job, NEVER held accountable for what they do with child support money.



> When men have children they take on an 18 yr or more financial and nurturing commitment. How do you suggest that debt be satisfied?


Based on your logic, women also take on an 18yr obligation. How do YOU propose that debt be satisfied? I propose fault based divorce and/or 50/50 custody where each parent supports the children during the time they have them.



> The parent who walks out on children is overwhelmingly the father. What do you hear when men talk about more custody?


Not true. A more accurate statement would be "the parent that is _forced_ out is overwhelmingly the father". Restraining orders only work for ONE gender- care to guess which one?



> More money in their pocket. Not more time to parent and nurture their kids. Read this and other threads and tell me what you find?
> 
> A monetary motivation is selfish and such men cannot be trusted to spend more time with their kids once they get the money.
> 
> The parent who gets more time but will not honor that commitment is overwhelmingly the father.
> 
> These are the real reasons the mother is given custody. They can be relied upon to use the time and money to care for the children.


This part of your post is beyond sexist. It is a perfect example of the misandry we see in today's society. You _assume_ that men want extra custody due to money. This is the very argument that is made in court every single day.

I recommend that anyone that thinks that things in this world are equal between the sexes, should read this part of your post over and over and over.



> In every thread of a man contemplating divorce, at lest one man and usually more, encourage a him to divorce and get a younger hotter woman than his women.
> 
> This will make him a feel like a man. Good parenting is not usually counted among the activities that make him feel like a man.


Wrong. Men love their children just as much as women do. It could be argued that they are the more responsible parents as women are the ones that initiate divorce over 70% of the time.



> Sorry, the laws will never be rescinded because, as a group, men cannot be trusted to honor their commitment even with the laws. That's why the statutes were put in place and they will stay in place.


What an offensive, untrue, and manhating statement. Really no need to even respond, as your statement says it all.


----------



## Viseral

wilderness said:


> Of course men should contribute to the care of their children. Very few people either male or female would dispute that statement. However, modern day child support is paid directly to the mother, who may use the money for whatever she chooses. _Women are not obligated to use child support money for their children. _ Not only does the father have no say in where that money goes, he also has no say in how much he should pay. The formulas in certain states are flat out punitive and ridiculous, and a man of modest means is likely to find himself out on the street as a result. Now I'm getting to the worst part-
> the courts take the position that the children need to be supported by the parents, _as long as the parent is the father_! If the parent is the custodial mother, they are NEVER required to financially support the child, NEVER required to get a job, NEVER held accountable for what they do with child support money.
> 
> 
> 
> Based on your logic, women also take on an 18yr obligation. How do YOU propose that debt be satisfied? I propose fault based divorce and/or 50/50 custody where each parent supports the children during the time they have them.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. A more accurate statement would be "the parent that is _forced_ out is overwhelmingly the father". Restraining orders only work for ONE gender- care to guess which one?
> 
> 
> 
> This part of your post is beyond sexist. It is a perfect example of the misandry we see in today's society. You _assume_ that men want extra custody due to money. This is the very argument that is made in court every single day.
> 
> I recommend that anyone that thinks that things in this world are equal between the sexes, should read this part of your post over and over and over.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Men love their children just as much as women do. It could be argued that they are the more responsible parents as women are the ones that initiate divorce over 70% of the time.
> 
> 
> 
> What an offensive, untrue, and manhating statement. Really no need to even respond, as your statement says it all.


Thanks for the tag team bro! I was wondering when wilderness was gonna step back into the ring....


----------



## Deejo

I think you have a lot of great things to say, until one button too many gets pushed.

You're last post(s) are a bit much. You don't get to be offended by presumed misogyny and then go lob a misandrist grenade into the room.

I have a great divorce. My ex and I joke, "you're the best ex-husband/wife ever."

Would have been really, really great for both of us and our children if we could have saved it.

But we didn't.

Divorce is ugly, destructive, costly and painful for EVERYONE it touches.

The goal of TAM is still to support healthy and happy marriages.

We will suffer the slings and arrows in the effort to do so.


----------



## Catherine602

Deejo said:


> I think you have a lot of great things to say, until one button too many gets pushed.
> 
> You're last post(s) are a bit much. You don't get to be offended by presumed misogyny and then go lob a misandrist grenade into the room.
> 
> I have a great divorce. My ex and I joke, "you're the best ex-husband/wife ever."
> 
> Would have been really, really great for both of us and our children if we could have saved it.
> 
> But we didn't.
> 
> Divorce is ugly, destructive, costly and painful for EVERYONE it touches.
> 
> The goal of TAM is still to support healthy and happy marriages.
> 
> We will suffer the slings and arrows in the effort to do so.


I have been very understanding. I think it gets to such a tipping point that begs a strong response. When the discussion gets nasty and insulting its time to say something. 

This thread is replete with unsubstantiated accusations about woman and contempt. If they go unchallenged, how does that benefit the community? 

I know it is out of pain and I acknowledged that many times. But the hits keep on coming. Holding women in contempt will not help the present or next relationship. 

I will say no more and delete my inflammatory post. It pisses me off though that bombs directed at woman go unchallenged.

Over and out.


----------



## wilderness

Catherine602 said:


> I have been very understanding. I think it gets to such a tipping point that begs a strong response. When the discussion gets nasty and insulting its time to say something.
> 
> This thread is replete with unsubstantiated accusations about woman and contempt. If they go unchallenged, how does that benefit the community?
> 
> I know it is out of pain and I acknowledged that many times. But the hits keep on coming. Holding women in contempt will not help the present or next relationship.
> 
> I will say no more and delete my inflammatory post. It pisses me off though that bombs directed at woman go unchallenged.
> 
> Over and out.


The fact that you said it in the first place speaks volumes, whether you delete it or not. You made some pretty outrageous statements. Do you really feel that way? Do you really feel that men are poor parents that only care about reducing child support? C'mon, now.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Ok, ok guys.

i know many of you will disagree with me here, so you can hit me with your 2 x 4's , but my back is wide and hard.

Lets not confuse Catherine's debating style with her personality.
It makes no sense attacking someone simply because they responded in a tone that is not favourable to our senses.
I will always maintain that even though someone may say something that sounds offensive, doesn't mean it was meant to offend. 

A great many of her posts are actually in support of equality and understanding between the genders so I don't think that I can honestly say that she desires anything else.

I feel that those two terms, misogyny and missandry are thrown around here on TAM way too much and whenever they are used, automatically it speaks of victimhood.
If we are talking in that dynamic , then all we would have are attacks and defences.
Maybe she's having a bad day or whatever, but I'm sure that she would explain herself better whenever she gets back on.
She is a brilliant woman, and there is much that can be learned from her IMO.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> I have been very understanding. I think it gets to such a tipping point that begs a strong response. When the discussion gets nasty and insulting its time to say something.
> 
> This thread is replete with unsubstantiated accusations about woman and contempt. If they go unchallenged, how does that benefit the community?
> 
> I know it is out of pain and I acknowledged that many times. But the hits keep on coming. Holding women in contempt will not help the present or next relationship.
> 
> I will say no more and delete my inflammatory post. It pisses me off though that bombs directed at woman go unchallenged.
> 
> Over and out.


Catherine,
Your posts were directed at me and they were not offensive to me.
No need to delete them.
Come on we are just discussing this, like we're accustomed.
OK?


----------



## wilderness

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok, ok guys.
> 
> i know many of you will disagree with me here, so you can hit me with your 2 x 4's , but my back is wide and hard.
> 
> Lets not confuse Catherine's debating style with her personality.
> It makes no sense attacking someone simply because they responded in a tone that is not favourable to our senses.
> I will always maintain that even though someone may say something that sounds offensive, doesn't mean it was meant to offend.
> 
> A great many of her posts are actually in support of equality and understanding between the genders so I don't think that I can honestly say that she desires anything else.
> 
> I feel that those two terms, misogyny and missandry are thrown around here on TAM way too much and whenever they are used, automatically it speaks of victimhood.
> If we are talking in that dynamic , then all we would have are attacks and defences.
> Maybe she's having a bad day or whatever, but I'm sure that she would explain herself better whenever she gets back on.
> She is a brilliant woman, and there is much that can be learned from her IMO.


Please defend this quote-



> Sorry, the laws will never be rescinded because, as a group, men cannot be trusted to honor their commitment even with the laws. That's why the statutes were put in place and they will stay in place.


----------



## richie33

CM is not defending her posts. He is defending her as a poster. I have read some other posts by her and she gives good advice. Maybe this is a sensitive subject for her and she feels attacked. I don't think she has cause she gives it as good as she gets it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

richie33 said:


> CM is not defending her posts. He is defending her as a poster. I have read some other posts by her and she gives good advice. Maybe this is a sensitive subject for her and she feels attacked. I don't think she has cause she gives it as good as she gets it.


Yes^^^.


----------



## wilderness

> "...as a group, men cannot be trusted to honor their commitment..."


Catherine 602

No apology for the comment itself, just an 'offer' to remove the post.


----------



## COguy

richie33 said:


> CM is not defending her posts. He is defending her as a poster. I have read some other posts by her and she gives good advice. Maybe this is a sensitive subject for her and she feels attacked. I don't think she has cause she gives it as good as she gets it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If I give helpful advice and then in one post say that black people shouldn't vote because they aren't very bright and that women shouldn't run for office because they aren't good leaders, what would you think?

In one post she attempted to make right the stereotype that men who don't get their kids in court are deserving of it because of an entire gender as a whole.

As someone who is spending an ungodly amount of time and money fighting this stereotype in order to be a parent to his children, I find it radically offensive.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

wilderness said:


> Please defend this quote-


I won't defend it, but that does not mean she does not bring some good points to the table. Her point about us men not attacking those who flat out attach women is one such example. Earlier in this very thread, the following was posted:



> I know a lot of women, and not a few men, think I'm a sexist jerk of a man, but look in the mirror when you wonder why I'm such a jerk at times. I know Catherine wants to say I'm making women pay for what my wife puts me though, but it's hardly just her. I've been around women my whole life.* All different ilks from your poor trailer women to your country-club stepford wives; and you all think alike- that men owe you something, everything.*


How many stepped up to say that was unfair and irresponsible? Far to few. When we fail to do that, it is not surprising that some women will begin to suspect our complaints are not coming from a sincere place. They will also seek to defend women, including making unfair statements. Yes, Catherine should not have said that, but it was hardly unprovoked.

I will say again what I said before. Women are not the enemy. Yes, there are terrible women out there who are, but most are struggling to get through life like men are. To paint either sex as being to blame is not going to help anyone.


----------



## john_lord_b3

richie33 said:


> CM is not defending her posts. He is defending her as a poster. I have read some other posts by her and she gives good advice. Maybe this is a sensitive subject for her and she feels attacked. I don't think she has cause she gives it as good as she gets it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The dynamics in this thread is.. well.. educational to me. First we have men who has been hurt by women, venting their anger, and while they may not meant it, it was perceived as insult to _all_ women. Then the women blast away with full vigor. Then after a volley of back-and-forth exchanges, some lost their cool and, well, moderator stepped in. Maybe the men should re-read their posts and see where their words could be interpreted as "painting all women in the same brush", while the women should also re-read their posts and see where their words could be seen as "misandry"..

All of this tells us that, if we are to find a solution, then the ability to see things from the opposite point of view, and to understand the pain of others, are very important. As well as keeping a cooler head. Thank you Mr. Moderator.


----------



## richie33

COguy said:


> If I give helpful advice and then in one post say that black people shouldn't vote because they aren't very bright and that women shouldn't run for office because they aren't good leaders, what would you think?
> 
> In one post she attempted to make right the stereotype that men who don't get their kids in court are deserving of it because of an entire gender as a whole.
> 
> As someone who is spending an ungodly amount of time and money fighting this stereotype in order to be a parent to his children, I find it radically offensive.


I would think you are entitled to your opinion....I would know I probably couldn't change your mind no matter what I said.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wilderness

Tall Average Guy said:


> I won't defend it, but that does not mean she does not bring some good points to the table. Her point about us men not attacking those who flat out attach women is one such example. Earlier in this very thread, the following was posted:
> 
> 
> 
> How many stepped up to say that was unfair and irresponsible? Far to few. When we fail to do that, it is not surprising that some women will begin to suspect our complaints are not coming from a sincere place. They will also seek to defend women, including making unfair statements. Yes, Catherine should not have said that, but it was hardly unprovoked.
> 
> I will say again what I said before. Women are not the enemy. Yes, there are terrible women out there who are, but most are struggling to get through life like men are. To paint either sex as being to blame is not going to help anyone.


No way. I'm not nearly as willing to let her off the hook based on what someone else said and what some of us didn't say, which to be honest is like comparing apples to oranges. Again, the quote says it all:



> "...as a group, men cannot be trusted to honor their commitment..."


This quote was referring to _parental_ commitments. That's a pretty strong statement against an entire gender, and a statement that I might add is *patently false*.

Furthermore, it is my observation that on this thread many comments perceived to be 'attacks' against women are simply facts. For example, factually, women are not required to use child support to support their children. That statement is not an attack on women at all, it's a fact that many may feel is inconvenient (because it doesn't support their respective arguments).


----------



## Tall Average Guy

wilderness said:


> No way. I'm not nearly as willing to let her off the hook based on what someone else said and what some of us didn't say, which to be honest is like comparing apples to oranges. Again, the quote says it all:
> 
> 
> 
> This quote was referring to _parental_ commitments. That's a pretty strong statement against an entire gender, and a statement that I might add is *patently false*.
> 
> Furthermore, it is my observation that on this thread many comments perceived to be 'attacks' against women are simply facts. For example, factually, women are not required to use child support to support their children. That statement is not an attack on women at all, it's a fact that many may feel is inconvenient (because it doesn't support their respective arguments).


I won't let her off the hook either. It was wrong to say, it is not true, and I am disappointed that she made it. She is better than that. I hope that is was anger talking, and not what she actually believes (just like when two people fight and say things to hurt each other, even if they don't believe them).

But that does not mean that she does not have a point about the tone of this thread. Where was the moral outrage over a poster saying that *all women* think that men owe them something. You can parse it all you want, but the fact is the statement I quoted was an attack on all women. Yet almost no man objected. 

So when a women sees that, what is she suppose to think? Do you think she will look at other posts that talk about specific women and not view them differently? Are you saying that you won;t look at Catherine's posts differently? If other women saw that post, and said nothing about it, that you would not view their subsequent posts differently?

If we want to be men, that means we take care of our own crap first, regardless of what any particular woman says. We don't use a stupid statement to justify being nasty. And we sure as hell don't get to take the moral high ground over gender attacks when we ignored our own gender doing the attacking.


----------



## wilderness

Tall Average Guy said:


> I won't let her off the hook either. It was wrong to say, it is not true, and I am disappointed that she made it. She is better than that. I hope that is was anger talking, and not what she actually believes (just like when two people fight and say things to hurt each other, even if they don't believe them).
> 
> But that does not mean that she does not have a point about the tone of this thread. Where was the moral outrage over a poster saying that *all women* think that men owe them something. You can parse it all you want, but the fact is the statement I quoted was an attack on all women. Yet almost no man objected.
> 
> So when a women sees that, what is she suppose to think? Do you think she will look at other posts that talk about specific women and not view them differently? Are you saying that you won;t look at Catherine's posts differently? If other women saw that post, and said nothing about it, that you would not view their subsequent posts differently?
> 
> If we want to be men, that means we take care of our own crap first, regardless of what any particular woman says. We don't use a stupid statement to justify being nasty. And we sure as hell don't get to take the moral high ground over gender attacks when we ignored our own gender doing the attacking.


Look, I agree that any insinuation whether good or bad that _all_ women...(anything), is ridiculous. However, I think it's a pretty big leap to conclude that we as men need to 'police' such a statement. I am not responsible in any way, shape, or form, for what another man does or says- that notion just serves to further perpetuate the gender war men vs. women. 

To me, the notion of personal responsibility is very simple and powerful- we are all responsible for our own choices.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Tall Average Guy said:


> If we want to be men, that means we take care of our own crap first, regardless of what any particular woman says. We don't use a stupid statement to justify being nasty. *And we sure as hell don't get to take the moral high ground over gender attacks when we ignored our own gender doing the attacking.*


:iagree:

There can be no " _moral high ground_" when both sides are attacking the exact, same ,things thing each other.
In that dynamic, we are just shifting positions from attacker to victim to bystander. Wash , rinse & repeat. No headway can be gained.


----------



## Starstarfish

Well - I can lay out my experience as a kid whose parents divorced. Their first marriage being a disaster prevented neither my mother nor my father from marrying (to others) again - to partners they have now been with for 20+ years. 

My parents married out of high school (yes, she was pregnant with me) and divorced three years later. Mmy father was not an active part of my life, nor did he get screwed. In my conscious lifetime (AKA within my memory) I've met my father twice. He was once active military, and when he was, he paid child support because it was required, but when he left and the divorce was finalized - he stopped paying. My mother never pushed him as "she didn't want anything more to do with him." And that was the end of his involvement. He was never required to pay alimony or anything else. 

My father's parents sued for visitation, yes - they wanted to see me, but my father didn't, and were granted it. So - I'd go and see them. Their idea of a good weekend was me at nine pulling rocks from the garden to fill up a big bucket to fill in the holes in the unpaved driveway at their country cabin. Each bucket earned me a quarter so I could buy something at the flea market. Otherwise, I was ignored and wandered around on my own devices, and spent my meals being lectured about my appearance (looking too much like my mother) and my weight. I'm not quite sure what reason they really wanted me around except to feel that they "won something" from my mother. 

My mother had no time or interest in really being involved with me, and so worked to buy sports cars and leather jackets, and left me to my maternal grandparents to raise. My mother remarried later, and assumed we'd become an instant family. I lived off and on with my mother and my stepfather, or back with my grandmother over the years, depending on various factors. My step-father resented the fact that I "brought nothing to the table" and huge arguments ensued whenever my mother needed to spend any money on me - clothes, school supplies, anything. My hair was all cut off so it wouldn't need to be cut as often, as that was a waste. I was kicked out of the house at 17, so I'd no longer "be a burden" even though at 17, I was paying rent to live at home. I didn't speak to my mother for the next nine years.

One time when I was in very desperate straights financially while I was in college, I called my paternal grandmother (his mother, as I had no knowledge on how to contact him) - after not having asked anyone for anything all those years, and was told rather succinctly "Your mother remarried, so you aren't our problem anymore. Don't call again."

Neither my mother nor my father attended my graduation from high school, from college, or my wedding. I had to have my current boss at work walk me down the aisle - there was literally no one else for me to invite. 

Whose fault was this situation? I have no idea - likely it was a combination of people whose egos and personal sense of importance totally overshadowed concern for me. But neither my mother or father got screwed by their marriage and subsequent divorce. Their lives were basically not impacted at all. So yes, there are deadbeat mothers as well as deadbeat fathers, and some of us, sadly, end up with both. 

And I could turn this into a pity party, but that's not really my end purpose. The purpose is - in this situation, someone could have stepped forward and stopped being concerned about who was "getting taken advantage of" and how I should have been "someone else's problem." But in the end - no one did, there was too much deeply entrenched asshattery on either side. 

So, no, I'm fully aware that both mothers and fathers can make equally poor choices when it comes to marriage and their children, but I also not the antecedent, "all divorced men I know are great fathers" isn't really the truth either. The truth is somewhere in the middle - where either side can be more at fault, but really - in the end when the focus is on who is winning and who is losing, there's likely always the same person losing - the kids.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> I think these threads are great because they're a practice in futility. Everyone seems to want to blabber on about themselves and their perceived wrongs/rights rather than talk about practical, fair measures of change.
> 
> Does anyone have a suggestion that allows both men and women to maintain their masculinity or femininity while keeping things fair for both and not degrading any aspect of either gender with accusations or assumption?
> 
> Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


Sorry,
But I don't think these threads are exercises in futility.

Catherine said it earlier on.
People must first be willing to understand each other point of view.


----------



## wilderness

Trenton said:


> I think these threads are great because they're a practice in futility. Everyone seems to want to blabber on about themselves and their perceived wrongs/rights rather than talk about practical, fair measures of change.
> 
> Does anyone have a suggestion that allows both men and women to maintain their masculinity or femininity while keeping things fair for both and not degrading any aspect of either gender with accusations or assumption?
> 
> Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


I'll take a crack at it.
First, reestablish fault based divorce. No more custodial and financial incentive to have an affair and divorce. In fact, a _disincentive._

In cases where fault cannot be proven, a presumption of 50/50 custody with no money changing hands at all.

Abolish alimony except in fault based divorce (the person at fault pays).

This should be a good start.


----------



## ocotillo

Interesting videos, Trenton.



Trenton said:


> What are men here claiming they should fight for? Better portrayals of men in media? Exercise your free will to bring this about.


I agree inasmuch as the media shows the public pretty much what they want to see and therefore the simple act of voting with one's feet would change things if enough people did it. But the reasons why the public wants to see what they want to see are varied and complex.

The devaluation of the role of the father that started about halfway through the 20th century was simply a facet of the larger post-war social upheaval and challenge to most traditional institutions and forms of authority. Many good things have been derived from that period, but this one smacks more of an enduring type of collateral damage. 



Trenton said:


> Less deaths due to jobs predominantly filled by men? Work for safer work places, better enforcement, etc.


For some reason, that reminds me of the Charles Ebbets photograph that shows 11 workman casually eating lunch on a bare I-beam during the construction of the GE building. They're at least 60 floors up without harnesses or tie-offs.

Workplace safety has come a long way since then, but there are still plenty of occupations where risk to life and limb is an intrinsic part of the job. First responders of all types, especially police and fire are always going to be at risk. Military duty is always going to be dangerous. Working on an oil platform is always going to be dangerous. Working with high voltage is always going to be dangerous.

I could go on and on, but the point would not be to claim that men are somehow oppressed. (Again I do not think this is a male vs. female dispute and am very sorry that this thread keeps taking that route) Men take these jobs voluntarily and take a great deal of pride in them. It will always be this way. 

The point in bringing this up revolves around male psychology and how men derive a sense of self worth largely from the perceived importance and worth of the things they do. --Which is why feeding young children the message that the role of the father is not an important or even a necessary job is insidious.

Getting even intelligent people to acknowledge a message that is almost certainly unhealthy is a challenge. Look at our own conversation on this thread. I cited Disney's adaptation of Peter Pan as an early example, and you pointed out that the story itself had been written in the early 1900's. 

But if anything, that further supports the point. In the 1911 version of the story, Darling is a man who agonizes over how to support his family and frantically does mental arithmetic calculating what austerity measures he can personally take to put more food on the table. Disney's decision to recast him in an unfavorable light and link him to the story's real villain was therefore deliberate and not something they simply inherited from an older story.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

wilderness said:


> Look, I agree that any insinuation whether good or bad that _all_ women...(anything), is ridiculous. However, I think it's a pretty big leap to conclude that we as men need to 'police' such a statement. I am not responsible in any way, shape, or form, for what another man does or says- that notion just serves to further perpetuate the gender war men vs. women.


You are not responsible for what Catherine said, either, yet you had no issue with going hard after her for a nasty comment. Why the difference?



> To me, the notion of personal responsibility is very simple and powerful- we are all responsible for our own choices.


I don't disagree. What she said was wrong, and she is responsible for it.

But when some attacks all men and you quickly counter it (and rightly so), your failure to counter an attack an all women looks like an agreement with it. And when no other man even objects to the statement attacking all women, but many quickly jump to point out any attack on men, it creates an understandable perception of agreement. To pretend otherwise is merely an attempt to ignore the obvious. 

The point of this thread was for men to discuss the issues that we see occurring with marriage, and society in general. It is not just about us individually, but about us as a collective. Part of that is recognizing the reality that when a group of men speak, it will often be taken as what all men believe. And when no men counter that, it is hard to argue that those who were posting did not at least tacitly agree. I am not talking about opinions on what to do, or how best to approach things. I am talking about nasty comments that attack one gender. It was wrong when she did it, and it was wrong when he did it. Yet only one raised any fuss among the male posters.

Perception is reality. If women perceive that the men on this board hate women, we won't get very far, just like the women who are perceived to hate men don't get far in changing minds. That is the world we live in.


----------



## wilderness

Starstarfish said:


> Well - I can lay out my experience as a kid whose parents divorced. Their first marriage being a disaster prevented neither my mother nor my father from marrying (to others) again - to partners they have now been with for 20+ years.
> 
> My parents married out of high school (yes, she was pregnant with me) and divorced three years later. Mmy father was not an active part of my life, nor did he get screwed. In my conscious lifetime (AKA within my memory) I've met my father twice. He was once active military, and when he was, he paid child support because it was required, but when he left and the divorce was finalized - he stopped paying. My mother never pushed him as "she didn't want anything more to do with him." And that was the end of his involvement. He was never required to pay alimony or anything else.
> 
> My father's parents sued for visitation, yes - they wanted to see me, but my father didn't, and were granted it. So - I'd go and see them. Their idea of a good weekend was me at nine pulling rocks from the garden to fill up a big bucket to fill in the holes in the unpaved driveway at their country cabin. Each bucket earned me a quarter so I could buy something at the flea market. Otherwise, I was ignored and wandered around on my own devices, and spent my meals being lectured about my appearance (looking too much like my mother) and my weight. I'm not quite sure what reason they really wanted me around except to feel that they "won something" from my mother.
> 
> My mother had no time or interest in really being involved with me, and so worked to buy sports cars and leather jackets, and left me to my maternal grandparents to raise. My mother remarried later, and assumed we'd become an instant family. I lived off and on with my mother and my stepfather, or back with my grandmother over the years, depending on various factors. My step-father resented the fact that I "brought nothing to the table" and huge arguments ensued whenever my mother needed to spend any money on me - clothes, school supplies, anything. My hair was all cut off so it wouldn't need to be cut as often, as that was a waste. I was kicked out of the house at 17, so I'd no longer "be a burden" even though at 17, I was paying rent to live at home. I didn't speak to my mother for the next nine years.
> 
> One time when I was in very desperate straights financially while I was in college, I called my paternal grandmother (his mother, as I had no knowledge on how to contact him) - after not having asked anyone for anything all those years, and was told rather succinctly "Your mother remarried, so you aren't our problem anymore. Don't call again."
> 
> Neither my mother nor my father attended my graduation from high school, from college, or my wedding. I had to have my current boss at work walk me down the aisle - there was literally no one else for me to invite.
> 
> Whose fault was this situation? I have no idea - likely it was a combination of people whose egos and personal sense of importance totally overshadowed concern for me. But neither my mother or father got screwed by their marriage and subsequent divorce. Their lives were basically not impacted at all. So yes, there are deadbeat mothers as well as deadbeat fathers, and some of us, sadly, end up with both.
> 
> And I could turn this into a pity party, but that's not really my end purpose. The purpose is - in this situation, someone could have stepped forward and stopped being concerned about who was "getting taken advantage of" and how I should have been "someone else's problem." But in the end - no one did, there was too much deeply entrenched asshattery on either side.
> 
> So, no, I'm fully aware that both mothers and fathers can make equally poor choices when it comes to marriage and their children, but I also not the antecedent, "all divorced men I know are great fathers" isn't really the truth either. The truth is somewhere in the middle - where either side can be more at fault, but really - in the end when the focus is on who is winning and who is losing, there's likely always the same person losing - the kids.


A heartbreaking story. I am truly sorry for your struggles in life with your parents and grandparents who all betrayed you. 

I must say, though...from the perspective of a father fighting with everything that I've got to be involved in my daughter's life- winning is _everything_. Losing means that I won't be a part of my daughter's life. Losing means my daughter loses, too. There are thousands of us out there- father's who have to fight and have to win, because the only other choice it to walk away.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> There can be no " _moral high ground_" when both sides are attacking the exact, same ,things thing each other.
> In that dynamic, we are just shifting positions from attacker to victim to bystander. Wash , rinse & repeat. No headway can be gained.


:iagree: that was the point I was trying to make, Mr. Carribean Man. 

That is why, I sincerely suggests the main posters of this thread to re-read and re-read again what they have posted. Backtracking. Not to cover their tracks, but to see where they actually intent to start fire, and where the fire wasn't actually intended. Then see if next time they could make a statement to the same effect, but without starting fire.. Retaliatory statements may give temporary good feelings ("yeah, take that, sucker!"  ) but in the end, an eye for an eye leaves the world blind.


----------



## COguy

Trenton said:


> I think these threads are great because they're a practice in futility. Everyone seems to want to blabber on about themselves and their perceived wrongs/rights rather than talk about practical, fair measures of change.
> 
> Does anyone have a suggestion that allows both men and women to maintain their masculinity or femininity while keeping things fair for both and not degrading any aspect of either gender with accusations or assumption?
> 
> Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


How about doing away with the notion BEFORE establishing facts that one person is more or less entitled to something in a divorce?

Without direct evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that parenting will be 50/50 and the kids stay where both parents have access.

That would be a good start...


I'll also continue to feed the troll. Saying something ambiguous like, "All guys are douch*bags that use women for sex" or "women are gold diggers" is less offensive to me than saying that men shouldn't be awarded children in divorce court. One assumes hyperbole, anger, and bad experience; the other is a real stereotype that affects fathers from being good parents and NEEDS to be removed.

I view it as the same line as "I hate black people" vs "Black people should not be allowed to eat at the same restaurant as whites"

Both are dumb comments, but one has a much worse connotation that has real consequences.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> *The point in bringing this up revolves around male psychology and how men derive a sense of self worth largely from the perceived importance and worth of the things they do. * --Which is why feeding young children the message that the role of the father is not an important or even a necessary job is insidious.


This^^^right there is a huge point.
This is where the " _rubber hits the road_", for most men even though they don't fully grasp it.
And where most women misunderstand men.
Traditionally ,men have always defined themselves by their roles in societies and what they do.

Take away these roles, or mess with them and you have only emasculated men.


----------



## COguy

wilderness said:


> A heartbreaking story. I am truly sorry for your struggles in life with your parents and grandparents who all betrayed you.
> 
> I must say, though...from the perspective of a father fighting with everything that I've got to be involved in my daughter's life- winning is _everything_. Losing means that I won't be a part of my daughter's life. Losing means my daughter loses, too. There are thousands of us out there- father's who have to fight and have to win, because the only other choice it to walk away.


I mirror these thoughts. I have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get my kids out of a bad situation. If I didn't have the support, I would be stuck with every other weekend until she decided to move out of state.

For those of us that WANT our kids, we have to FIGHT for it. It shouldn't be that way. People that want to be good parents should not have to move mountains to do it.

I know too many dads that never get to see their kids because they didn't have $30,000-$50,000 to contest it in court. That's a shame.

I'm really sorry about your story though, I am glad that you have overcome your childhood situation.


----------



## Caribbean Man

COguy said:


> For those of us that WANT our kids, we have to FIGHT for it. It shouldn't be that way. People that want to be good parents should not have to move mountains to do it.
> 
> I know too many dads that never get to see their kids because they didn't have $30,000-$50,000 to contest it in court. That's a shame.


I know personally of men [ in my family ] who had to hire high priced lawyers just to get to see their kids. A relative of mine had to spend upwards of $100K , to block his divorced wife from migrating to the UK with their baby daughter.
That " baby girl" is now a psychologist working in the family courts, and trying to change the system.

Presently in our country, there are organizations made up of lawyers and professionals that help men who are in those type of situations, by giving them free legal advice and aid.

They are currently lobbying the government to change the laws, and are having much success.

These problems are fixable , but we cannot pretend that they do not exist, and casting blame on the opposite gender doesn't help


----------



## wilderness

Tall Average Guy said:


> You are not responsible for what Catherine said, either, yet you had no issue with going hard after her for a nasty comment. Why the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree. What she said was wrong, and she is responsible for it.
> 
> But when some attacks all men and you quickly counter it (and rightly so), your failure to counter an attack an all women looks like an agreement with it. And when no other man even objects to the statement attacking all women, but many quickly jump to point out any attack on men, it creates an understandable perception of agreement. To pretend otherwise is merely an attempt to ignore the obvious.
> 
> The point of this thread was for men to discuss the issues that we see occurring with marriage, and society in general. It is not just about us individually, but about us as a collective. Part of that is recognizing the reality that when a group of men speak, it will often be taken as what all men believe. And when no men counter that, it is hard to argue that those who were posting did not at least tacitly agree. I am not talking about opinions on what to do, or how best to approach things. I am talking about nasty comments that attack one gender. It was wrong when she did it, and it was wrong when he did it. Yet only one raised any fuss among the male posters.
> 
> Perception is reality. If women perceive that the men on this board hate women, we won't get very far, just like the women who are perceived to hate men don't get far in changing minds. That is the world we live in.


I agree with your point for the most part. The reason that I didn't say anything regarding the quote that everyone keeps referencing, was that- well- I didn't think it was all that egregious or damaging. It struck me as kind of a joke or a troll, not something that most people would pay attention to. 

However, your larger point is a valid one, and I as well as other men should be more vigilante in defending women when appropriate.


----------



## Starstarfish

I think the idea though, Wilderness is who you are winning for. You seem very centered, that you are winning for your daughter, rather than -against- your ex. The second situation, winning -against- the ex by any means neccessary, can mean the kids get caught in the crossfire or left by the wayside. 

So maybe the "winning/losing" thing wasn't the best way to label my idea. I wasn't sure how else to label it.


----------



## COguy

Trenton said:


> To Wilderness & CoGuy:
> 
> I'm having trouble keeping up with this fast paced threat atm but wanted to respond to your clear suggestions as I appreciate them.
> 
> First, I'm ignorant when it comes to divorce in having never gone through one and as such not too clear on how it falls for either gender but I can tell you that based upon using logic and justice I would agree to the following:
> 
> 1. At fault divorces (if they're currently not allowed should be)
> 
> 2. Attorney's fees for both husband and wife should come from joint accounts and be cap'd based upon available funding so that both parties are more likely to get equal representation.
> 
> 3. Alimony should never automatically be lifetime, the case should be allowed to be brought back before the judge or mediator based upon life changes for both the ex's.
> 
> 4. A woman or man who raised a child(ren) while the other worked should be entitled to alimony for the amount of years that that parent was at home raising a child by default based upon economic conditions in the household.
> 
> 5. A no fault divorce should go to 50/50 custody typically spit between both parents if this is what both wants but if either/or wants less custody then they should pay child support based upon a reasonable formula.
> 
> Can you let me know if these sound reasonable to you?


That's more than reasonable. Though I think #2 and #4 should be based on fault if necessary and the facts surrounding the case.

In my case, wife refused to work or get an education even when she had the opportunity. Also, someone who cheats before separation shouldn't get legal fees from the other party IMO.

But I would cede those two things if parents walked into court on an even footing without gender bias. In the cases I know from my limited reference (and this is not statistical, just anecdotal), there is a huge financial incentive for a woman to marry a man, never work a day in her life, have a baby, cheat like crazy, and then collect a paycheck for life.

Now having said that, there are plenty of deadbeat dads who make babies and run, my girlfriend has a child who's never seen her father and she's never seen a dime. And I know plenty of women who were left destitute in their divorces with no way to support their family.

Both are tragedies, and the courts handle both poorly.


----------



## wilderness

Starstarfish said:


> I think the idea though, Wilderness is who you are winning for. You seem very centered, that you are winning for your daughter, rather than -against- your ex. The second situation, winning -against- the ex by any means neccessary, can mean the kids get caught in the crossfire or left by the wayside.
> 
> So maybe the "winning/losing" thing wasn't the best way to label my idea. I wasn't sure how else to label it.


Maybe it's a semantic argument, but as someone going through it, I don't think so. The pressure that I've faced from family, friends, mediators, judges, courts, etc...to give up this fight has been through the roof. The argument is always the same- t_his type of struggle puts the kids in the middle._ 

The issue, I feel, is one of accountability. Throughout this entire process, I have been held hyper accountable by everyone (and especially the full force of the state). I'm accountable to financially support my child. I'm accountable to not put my daughter in the middle. I'm accountable to be the 'reasonable' one. I'm accountable to insure my daughter. I'm accountable for transportation. I'm accountable for everything, my x is accountable for _nothing_. 

So the practical result is that the accountability is laid off on me at every turn. My x can drive the bus of 'high conflict divorce' and I am forced into one of 2 very bad spots- I can either fight (and put my daughter in the middle, which will hurt my daughter), or I can not fight (and I won't be a part of my daughter's life, which will hurt my daughter).

This is what it's like to be a man in this predicament. This is how it works.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This is irrelevant but just wanted to throw my experience into the mix:

*My father did not pay child support "unless he felt like it". At the time, there was nothing in the legal system to enforce child support. So he ended up "feeling like" paying about one month per year. My mother never went after him for what he never paid her. She supported us on her own by her own career, which she had to do but she was also proud that she was able to.

*When I got divorced, I was the one who had to fork out a bunch of money, not my ex-h. It was not a fair deal, I got screwed over, then I found out he had hid a bunch of money during the divorce so that he wouldn't have to share it with me. But I didn't bother chasing him back to court to "get my share". Instead I just chalked it up to "yes, the fact that he did this just confirms my desire to divorce him". 

.


----------



## COguy

Trenton said:


> I think if a spouse cheats it should be a misdemeanor that would also allow you to lose the benefits of equal attorney representation, entitlement to automatic 50/50 custody and alimony all together.
> 
> The catch here would be that an individual would have to be charged and found guilty of the misdemeanor of cheating in order for it to automatically disqualify them from the entitlements I listed above.


It would be a step in the right direction. Very difficult to prove though and there would be many who would decry it.

Custody should not be a factor of cheating though. That's about the only thing the court gets right that I see. Your acts as a spouse should have no bearing on your custody rights unless it interferes with your parenting.

Legal fees and alimony is one thing, but being a cheater doesn't make you a bad parent.


----------



## wilderness

Trenton said:


> To Wilderness & CoGuy:
> 
> I'm having trouble keeping up with this fast paced threat atm but wanted to respond to your clear suggestions as I appreciate them.
> 
> First, I'm ignorant when it comes to divorce in having never gone through one and as such not too clear on how it falls for either gender


May I respectfully ask, if you are ignorant of the way divorce works, how can you know that men are not oppressed in divorce? 



> but I can tell you that based upon using logic and justice I would agree to the following:
> 
> 1. At fault divorces (if they're currently not allowed should be)


We are in accord.



> 2. Attorney's fees for both husband and wife should come from joint accounts and be cap'd based upon available funding so that both parties are more likely to get equal representation.


I agree but I think after everything is reconciled the at fault party should pay for the lawyer.



> 3. Alimony should never automatically be lifetime, the case should be allowed to be brought back before the judge or mediator based upon life changes for both the ex's.


This is how it supposedly is in most states. In practice, it is _very_ difficult- and expensive- to modify alimony downward once it's ordered. Most people aren't aware of this.



> 4. A woman or man who raised a child(ren) while the other worked should be entitled to alimony for the amount of years that that parent was at home raising a child by default based upon economic conditions in the household.


To me it depends on who is at fault. I don't think it's right for anyone to walk out on a marriage and get financial support as a parting gift.



> 5. A no fault divorce should go to 50/50 custody typically spit between both parents if this is what both wants but if either/or wants less custody then they should pay child support based upon a reasonable formula.


I'm totally down with this. But it will never happen as the state has every financial incentive to prevent it as they receive dollar for dollar matching funds from the federal government on child support.


----------



## COguy

Faithful Wife said:


> This is irrelevant but just wanted to throw my experience into the mix:
> 
> *My father did not pay child support "unless he felt like it". At the time, there was nothing in the legal system to enforce child support. So he ended up "feeling like" paying about one month per year. My mother never went after him for what he never paid her. She supported us on her own by her own career, which she had to do but she was also proud that she was able to.
> 
> *When I got divorced, I was the one who had to fork out a bunch of money, not my ex-h. It was not a fair deal, I got screwed over, then I found out he had hid a bunch of money during the divorce so that he wouldn't have to share it with me. But I didn't bother chasing him back to court to "get my share". Instead I just chalked it up to "yes, the fact that he did this just confirms my desire to divorce him".
> 
> .


I never get this. There's so many deadbeat dads that get away with it, you owe it to those who get screwed to go after the money.

If I win my case in a few weeks I'm going to go after every penny of judgement and child support, even if it's the minimum. For nothing more than principle. I was even thinking about putting half towards their college and donating the other half to legal defense charities.

Why let anyone get away with it when there are sooo many good people that get screwed over in court and have no way to stop it.


----------



## norajane

ocotillo said:


> The point in bringing this up revolves around male psychology and how men derive a sense of self worth largely from the perceived importance and worth of the things they do. --Which is why feeding young children the message that the role of the father is not an important or even a necessary job is insidious.
> 
> Getting even intelligent people to acknowledge a message that is almost certainly unhealthy is a challenge. Look at our own conversation on this thread. I cited Disney's adaptation of Peter Pan as an early example, and you pointed out that the story itself had been written in the early 1900's.
> 
> But if anything, that further supports the point. In the 1911 version of the story, Darling is a man who agonizes over how to support his family and frantically does mental arithmetic calculating what austerity measures he can personally take to put more food on the table. Disney's decision to recast him in an unfavorable light and link him to the story's real villain was therefore deliberate and not something they simply inherited from an older story.


As a kid, I learned about men's and women's roles in marriage and society from my parents, by seeing how they managed work, marriage, etc. And by listening to what they had to say about it.

I always saw everything on tv and movies as a fantasy, a fake, because it looked NOTHING like my family and my life. I didn't take it as any kind of example of reality or "how things are (or should be)."

I still believe parents have the most influence over what their kids learn, especially by example. Do you think kids today are different and look to media as opposed to their own house to learn about men and women's roles?


----------



## Faithful Wife

COguy...thankfully in our state, there is now a good system for child support enforcement.

.


----------



## Viseral

Viseral said:


> I don't blame women, I blame the laws that govern marriage and divorce.
> 
> My heart tells me to love and cherish my woman with reckless abandon. My head tells me to run from the legality of marriage like it's the plague.


I'll reiterate my previous statement and say that this isn't about blaming women. It's about the laws that currently govern marriage and divorce.

The "No-Fault" divorce system is fundamentally flawed. 

It's like saying "here, sign this business contract, but don't worry if you break it, because there are no consequences for doing so, and you'll even be financially rewarded if you do."

It's the only contract known where the person who breaks it is not held at fault. So what's the point of having it in the first place?

I acknowledge that many men who are concerned with men's rights come across as angry at times, but it's very difficult to explain how "the system" works to those who've never been on the receiving end of it.

Yes, I love women. I really just want to find an equitable arrangement that both men and women can exist together in.


----------



## Deejo

You're all sensitive ... like a bunch of girls ... 

I don't expect everyone to know everyone else's backstory. Given my tenure, I know lots.

We aren't discussing much any more. We are practicing the adult equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I."

Lets move forward.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I used to work for a family law attorney, and there is actually a movement in family law called Collaborative Divorce. This is a new legal process that is different than other adversarial legal processes because:

*The attorneys involved work for the entire family, not for the spouses.

*The spouses and attorneys all agree to come to a settlement together without going to court.

*This means that all attorney meetings are opened up. So you have 4-way conferences for the most part.

*All aspects of how a divorce affects the ENTIRE family are covered in the process. So how the kids are being affected is dealt with directly. Counseling is usually recommended for kids of divorce.

*The spouses are both encouraged to get good divorce care, which helps them understand how to not go postal on each other, how to deal with the crisis that occurs during a divorce, and this also helps the spouses not use their attorneys as counselors and instead, get real counselors.

This process is somewhat new as far as legal processes go, something like 15 years old or something (as far as it being used in actual divorces). Part of the reason more people don't use it is that it is NOT cheaper than a adversarial divorce as far as legal fees go. But the intent of a Collaborative Divorce is to be kind and fair to all parties involved....so for those who can afford it, and for those spouses who strive to be fair and loving and protect their children from horrible stuff, even during divorce, it can be a really great legal process.

.


----------



## Viseral

Trenton said:


> Then we're on the same side but when we work on changing these laws let's not make it a gender war at all. Let's make it so regardless of gender, justice prevails. I'm all for justice but not at the sake of one gender for the benefit of the other.


Wow, I never thought I'd agree with you, but I do. Thank you.


----------



## COguy

Faithful, I think that sounds great but I think it also assumes that both parties are sane.

Cluster B PDs represent a disproportionately high number of divorce cases, and I saw a statistic that 95% of high conflict divorces involve someone with a Cluster B PD.

Any form of compromise with someone like that won't work. And since narcissism is on the rise, I don't see Adversarial divorces ending anytime soon.


----------



## Starstarfish

I laid out my backstory for purposes of discussion. 

But, if it wasn't helpful, now I'm kind of embarrassed, I think I'll go slink back to Social now.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes COguy...it can only work with people who don't want to make divorce as painful as it can be.

Sadly, most people who are getting divorced DO want to hurt their spouse in that moment.

It was nice working for that attorney though so I could see how the Collaborative process works. Quite refreshing.

.


----------



## ocotillo

norajane said:


> I still believe parents have the most influence over what their kids learn, especially by example. Do you think kids today are different and look to media as opposed to their own house to learn about men and women's roles?


Media affects everybody profoundly in ways that slip in through the cracks of our mental shield. Advertising wouldn't work otherwise. One of the favorite anecdotes in the industry is how sharply sales of hunting rifles declined for a few years after the movie, Bambi was released. 

Of course this isn't to say that good role models are not very important too.


----------



## wilderness

Faithful Wife said:


> I used to work for a family law attorney, and there is actually a movement in family law called Collaborative Divorce. This is a new legal process that is different than other adversarial legal processes because:
> 
> *The attorneys involved work for the entire family, not for the spouses.
> 
> *The spouses and attorneys all agree to come to a settlement together without going to court.
> 
> *This means that all attorney meetings are opened up. So you have 4-way conferences for the most part.
> 
> *All aspects of how a divorce affects the ENTIRE family are covered in the process. So how the kids are being affected is dealt with directly. Counseling is usually recommended for kids of divorce.
> 
> *The spouses are both encouraged to get good divorce care, which helps them understand how to not go postal on each other, how to deal with the crisis that occurs during a divorce, and this also helps the spouses not use their attorneys as counselors and instead, get real counselors.
> 
> This process is somewhat new as far as legal processes go, something like 15 years old or something (as far as it being used in actual divorces). Part of the reason more people don't use it is that it is NOT cheaper than a adversarial divorce as far as legal fees go. But the intent of a Collaborative Divorce is to be kind and fair to all parties involved....so for those who can afford it, and for those spouses who strive to be fair and loving and protect their children from horrible stuff, even during divorce, it can be a really great legal process.
> 
> .


With all due respect, collaborative divorce almost always fails. What happens in practice is that the party with the most to lose is held over a barrel during the entire process. The reason for this is that should the process fail, both attorney's walk away (AFTER getting paid, of course) and everything starts over at square one. 

We don't need legal gimmicks like collaborative divorce. We need fault based divorce and a presumption of 50/50 custody with no money changing hands as the norm. That should _prevent_ most divorces in the first place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not sure where your expertise on this topic comes in, if you have any, but being that I worked as the accountant for this attorney for several years, I saw dozens of successful Collaborative Divorces sooo.....you are wrong.

.


----------



## norajane

ocotillo said:


> Media affects everybody profoundly in ways that slip in through the cracks of our mental shield. Advertising wouldn't work otherwise. One of the favorite anecdotes in the industry is how sharply sales of hunting rifles declined for a few years after the movie, Bambi was released.
> 
> Of course this isn't to say that good role models are not very important too.


Frankly, I think the good role models at home are more important than anything else. And I believe that's where the responsibility _firmly _lies in terms of teaching kids their roles in family and society - parents. 

To use another personal example, most of the kids (girls and boys) in my high school didn't go to college, but I did. We grew up with the same media, same society. Main difference was my parents' influence. In my neighborhood, education wasn't considered important but my parents pushed it heavily.

If parents are involved with their kids, media is far less of an influence on how they live their lives. If parents are not involved with their kids, they reap what they sow.


----------



## wilderness

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure where your expertise on this topic comes in, if you have any, but being that I worked as the accountant for this attorney for several years, I saw dozens of successful Collaborative Divorces sooo.....you are wrong.
> 
> .


No, I'm not wrong. And I can prove it through common sense and logic. There really is no need for a 'collaborative' divorce process if the true aim is to be fair. Just split all the assets down the middle and have 50/50 custody with no money changing hands. Every divorce can be negotiated in 5 minutes if you do it this way. No need for lawyers. No need for GALs. No need for mediators. No need for court appointed therapists, parenting coordinators, parenting classes, et al.

Now I ask you, who worked for lawyers that engaged in the collaborative divorce gimmick- why didn't the lawyers simply negotiate the above agreement in 5 minutes? If you answer that they did, I would like the case numbers of those particular cases so I can verify it (because I don't believe it), if they didn't- why not?

Because it's all about the money.


----------



## Deejo

we used a mediator. our divorce was very collaborative.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo....the word collaborative is just a word...but in the legal process, it is literally a different process. This causes confusion by people, because they feel their divorce was collaborative. It can be collaborative in spirit, but that has nothing to do with the separate legal process. Just pointing this out, because it always causes confusion. I have had several people tell me they were doing a collaborative divorce, when in reality, they were not.

.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wilderness....the reason Collaborative Divorces can't be mediated in 5 minutes is because there are typically a lot of assets and or custody issues to consider.

However...I will not be debating this with you, since you clearly know nothing about it and just want to push buttons. If you were honestly interested in real answers, I'd be happy to discuss it.

.


----------



## wilderness

Faithful Wife said:


> Wilderness....the reason Collaborative Divorces can't be mediated in 5 minutes is because there are typically a lot of assets and or custody issues to consider.
> 
> However...I will not be debating this with you, since you clearly know nothing about it and just want to push buttons. If you were honestly interested in real answers, I'd be happy to discuss it.
> 
> .


Sure, I'm interested. But please don't assume that I don't know about collaborative divorce. I know a ton about it. I've researched it extensively, seen and advised many men embroiled in the divorce process considering and/or involved in collaborative divorce.

The biggest factor that you failed to reveal about CD (collaborative divorce) is that if the matter cannot be settled with the CD attorneys, they quit and the divorcing spouses are forced to start over. And again, common sense and logic should dictate that this creates leverage (usually for the wife).

As to your reasoning behind non expedient settlement, I'll give you a little when it comes to couples with extensive assets (not all CB involve wealthy couples, however, I'm sure you know this), but custody should be easy- 50/50 with no child support (in most cases, I realize there are exceptions).

I have to leave for a couple of hours, so if I fail to respond right away, I'm not being rude, I'm just not around.


----------



## ocotillo

norajane said:


> If parents are involved with their kids, media is far less of an influence on how they live their lives. If parents are not involved with their kids, they reap what they sow.


Good observation. Just so I'm not being misunderstood though, I'm making a general observation about male psychology and a works oriented sense of self worth. A good father and role model would not necessarily translate to a desire to be a husband and father yourself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

wilderness....Not sure why you think I care about your opinion? I know you don't care about mine either, so.....have fun debating this with yourself. What do I care about "all the research" you have done? I have personal experience with dozens of cases, that's what I have based my opinions on. Base yours on whatever you want. 

As for anyone else, if you are interested in Collaborative Divorce, I'd be happy to PM with you about it, as it really is a great process for some families. It is not the best way for everyone, that is for sure, but for some, it is a really great alternative. It is a step in the right direction.

.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

wilderness said:


> Now I ask you, who worked for lawyers that engaged in the collaborative divorce gimmick- why didn't the lawyers simply negotiate the above agreement in 5 minutes? If you answer that they did, I would like the case numbers of those particular cases so I can verify it (because I don't believe it), if they didn't- why not?
> 
> Because it's all about the money.


Your question is faulty because it assumes the lawyer has all the control, when in fact they don't. They work for their client, a client who often has been hurt, is angry, wants to blame the other spouse. You have two separate people who have very different versions of what "fair" entails.

There is a poster in the Politics forum here (I believe he goes by the name Galt - I know he loves the green colored font) who perfectly illustrates this. He believes that since he earned the paycheck, everything that came from it is his. Fair, in his definition, is that his wife has the burden to demonstrate that she earned something before he is forced to give it to her. Yes, he is an extreme, but it is useful to illustrate that two people who want to divorce can nonetheless have very different ideas about what is fair.


----------



## wilderness

Tall Average Guy said:


> Your question is faulty because it assumes the lawyer has all the control, when in fact they don't. They work for their client, a client who often has been hurt, is angry, wants to blame the other spouse. You have two separate people who have very different versions of what "fair" entails.
> 
> There is a poster in the Politics forum here (I believe he goes by the name Galt - I know he loves the green colored font) who perfectly illustrates this. He believes that since he earned the paycheck, everything that came from it is his. Fair, in his definition, is that his wife has the burden to demonstrate that she earned something before he is forced to give it to her. Yes, he is an extreme, but it is useful to illustrate that two people who want to divorce can nonetheless have very different ideas about what is fair.


I think you are making my point. If one party wants what isn't fair, leverage is applied in collaborative divorce just like it's applied in traditional divorce. The leverage is increased, though. Greater cost= higher leverage.


----------



## Deejo

Starstarfish said:


> I laid out my backstory for purposes of discussion.
> 
> But, if it wasn't helpful, now I'm kind of embarrassed, I think I'll go slink back to Social now.


I'm glad you shared it.

Even the most jaded gender warrior can't down-play that there are issues with how to best teach young boys, versus teaching young girls.

Issue is, that a lot of folks currently engaged in the discussion are focused on the adult and marriage side of the equation.

Every man starts as a little boy. Sounds like exactly the right place to start working on cultivating and nurturing self-reliant and well adjusted men.


----------



## Fallen Leaf

Just wanted to say, I don't like the idea of a dad who stays home to watch the kids while the wife works. Sorry if I am backwards. I think a man should always work. By that I mean have a paying job no matter the circumstance.

The sad thing is that because women and society have fought for women's rights and equality in so many areas, I feel as though I have to protect my kids (I have two girls) and teach them to be independent. I have to teach them that they don't need a man to be successful and that they can live a single life and be happy without a man. This is my way of protecting them. I just don't trust that there's enough successful strong masculine men out there. I don't want my girls to grow up dreaming of the perfect guy just to learn they don't exist. So, I guess I'm teaching them already that those guys don't exist so that they don't get themselves into a mess searching for him. I hope they do exist though and I hope my girls will find guys like that.

When my husband and I first married we were just fresh out of college and had no jobs. I was so afraid that my husband would be like one of those guys who were too lazy to look for a job, or who didn't know how to find a good job, or who was too busy playing video games/watching tv because he didn't really work a real job all his college life and I did. Also, my brothers were spoiled and they played games all day and all night and never kept their minimum wage jobs so it bothered me and I didn't want to end up with a husband like my brothers. Anyway, he wasn't like that at all but it took me awhile to realize it. He worked hard and kept looking and going on interviews until he was completely drained. We ended up working on plan B which was, he return to school, and I'd work any job. It just had to be full time and have health benefits. So, I found a job with all that and husband returned to school but at the same time, he also found a job and continued working full-time until he wasn't able to because of his school schedule and had to go part-time. But, even when he worked part-time, he would do extra work. He'd cover other people's shifts on the weekends and days he didn't have school. When he graduated school and got a good paying job, I quit my job to be a SAHM. He now works 60+ hrs a week and picks up additional shifts when he can. I tell him to only do what he can and if he feels like burning out to stop. I remind him from time to time that if he does get the feeling of burning out, I will return to work until he's okay to work again. And, that he doesn't have to feel like he has to do all the work. I am always available, I have a degree, and experience, and I'm not afraid to go back into corporate world. I know he knows but because he is man and he wants to take care of his family, he works hard. It makes me proud to have him as my husband. On the other end, I don't like the feeling of not using my skills and my college degree. I've worked all my life (since I was able to work...14), have been independent since I was 18, and so it was scary to put my trust on a man I call husband to bring in all the money while I stay home to watch the kids. It was also hard to be a SAHM since that has been looked down upon since I could remember. That's also why I worked all my life. I didn't want to be SAHM. I wanted to be a working independent woman and always saw myself that way even after getting married and having kids. But, living it is different. I see how important it is to raise my own kids and I want to be the one to be there at all there events (school related, dance competitions, swim competitions, etc.). So, I've chosen to give up a career to take care of my kids. It was a hard decision and it took a long time for me to adjust and accept that a SAHM is a good thing. But, the great thing about all this is that kids do grow up (damn it), and I will soon be able to return to work.

I do think women have it better than men in our society. I'm not sure why they keep complaining.

btw, since some of you brought up tv watching, I just wanted to add that I don't watch much tv. I know, SAHM's have all the time in the world to watch tv but somehow I just don't. I wonder how those SAHM do it. But, I will say, I do flip thru the channels every so often and found the WB show, "Arrow" awesome! I love Oliver Queen's character: dark, handsome, mysterious, and hot. I also love the new Superman in "Man of Steel," boy is he hot, powerful, kind, and out of this world! LOL! Of course, my husband is above them all.


----------



## Viseral

Fallen Leaf said:


> Just wanted to say, I don't like the idea of a dad who stays home to watch the kids while the wife works. Sorry if I am backwards. I think a man should always work. By that I mean have a paying job no matter the circumstance.
> 
> The sad thing is that because women and society have fought for women's rights and equality in so many areas, I feel as though I have to protect my kids (I have two girls) and teach them to be independent. I have to teach them that they don't need a man to be successful and that they can live a single life and be happy without a man. This is my way of protecting them. I just don't trust that there's enough successful strong masculine men out there. I don't want my girls to grow up dreaming of the perfect guy just to learn they don't exist. So, I guess I'm teaching them already that those guys don't exist so that they don't get themselves into a mess searching for him. I hope they do exist though and I hope my girls will find guys like that.
> 
> When my husband and I first married we were just fresh out of college and had no jobs. I was so afraid that my husband would be like one of those guys who were too lazy to look for a job, or who didn't know how to find a good job, or who was too busy playing video games/watching tv because he didn't really work a real job all his college life and I did. Also, my brothers were spoiled and they played games all day and all night and never kept their minimum wage jobs so it bothered me and I didn't want to end up with a husband like my brothers. Anyway, he wasn't like that at all but it took me awhile to realize it. He worked hard and kept looking and going on interviews until he was completely drained. We ended up working on plan B which was, he return to school, and I'd work any job. It just had to be full time and have health benefits. So, I found a job with all that and husband returned to school but at the same time, he also found a job and continued working full-time until he wasn't able to because of his school schedule and had to go part-time. But, even when he worked part-time, he would do extra work. He'd cover other people's shifts on the weekends and days he didn't have school. When he graduated school and got a good paying job, I quit my job to be a SAHM. He now works 60+ hrs a week and picks up additional shifts when he can. I tell him to only do what he can and if he feels like burning out to stop. I remind him from time to time that if he does get the feeling of burning out, I will return to work until he's okay to work again. And, that he doesn't have to feel like he has to do all the work. I am always available, I have a degree, and experience, and I'm not afraid to go back into corporate world. I know he knows but because he is man and he wants to take care of his family, he works hard. It makes me proud to have him as my husband. On the other end, I don't like the feeling of not using my skills and my college degree. I've worked all my life (since I was able to work...14), have been independent since I was 18, and so it was scary to put my trust on a man I call husband to bring in all the money while I stay home to watch the kids. It was also hard to be a SAHM since that has been looked down upon since I could remember. That's also why I worked all my life. I didn't want to be SAHM. I wanted to be a working independent woman and always saw myself that way even after getting married and having kids. But, living it is different. I see how important it is to raise my own kids and I want to be the one to be there at all there events (school related, dance competitions, swim competitions, etc.). So, I've chosen to give up a career to take care of my kids. It was a hard decision and it took a long time for me to adjust and accept that a SAHM is a good thing. But, the great thing about all this is that kids do grow up (damn it), and I will soon be able to return to work.
> 
> I do think women have it better than men in our society. I'm not sure why they keep complaining.
> 
> btw, since some of you brought up tv watching, I just wanted to add that I don't watch much tv. I know, SAHM's have all the time in the world to watch tv but somehow I just don't. I wonder how those SAHM do it. But, I will say, I do flip thru the channels every so often and found the WB show, "Arrow" awesome! I love Oliver Queen's character: dark, handsome, mysterious, and hot. I also love the new Superman in "Man of Steel," boy is he hot, powerful, kind, and out of this world! LOL! Of course, my husband is above them all.


Wow, a woman who respects her man, his role as provider, recognizes that men and women have uniquely different but equally valuable roles, and values raising her own children.

Thank you for that refreshing outlook.


----------



## persephone71

Viseral said:


> How can we prevent Intimate Partner Violence and injury to women? IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners. According to Dr. Capaldi, "The question of initiation of violence is a crucial one... much IPV is mutual, and initiations -- even that seem minor -- may lead to escalation."
> 
> While studies have consistently found that women initiate as much violence against their male partners as vice versa, two-thirds of domestic violence injuries are suffered by women.
> 
> Dr. Capaldi notes that in a study of women who were in a battered women's shelter, "67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year." Others in the domestic violence field, including Erin Pizzey, founder of the first battered women's shelter in England in the early 1970s, have had similar findings.


Wow. I can't even comment on this without a drink.

Oregon Social Learning Center??? Hmmm...don't even think that's a T3 research institute. Can we say "confirmation bias?"


----------



## john_lord_b3

Viseral said:


> Wow, a woman who respects her man, his role as provider, recognizes that men and women have uniquely different but equally valuable roles, and values raising her own children.
> 
> Thank you for that refreshing outlook.


:iagree::smthumbup: We would go through hell and back again to have such wife... and I am glad my wife is exactly like what you're describing.

Anyway, thank you for the enlightenment, Mrs. Leaf!


----------



## john_lord_b3

Viseral said:


> I'll reiterate my previous statement and say that this isn't about blaming women. It's about the laws that currently govern marriage and divorce.
> 
> The "No-Fault" divorce system is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> It's like saying "here, sign this business contract, but don't worry if you break it, because there are no consequences for doing so, and you'll even be financially rewarded if you do."
> 
> It's the only contract known where the person who breaks it is not held at fault. So what's the point of having it in the first place?
> 
> I acknowledge that many men who are concerned with men's rights come across as angry at times, but it's very difficult to explain how "the system" works to those who've never been on the receiving end of it.
> 
> Yes, I love women. I really just want to find an equitable arrangement that both men and women can exist together in.


:smthumbup::iagree: This is a good statement of intention.. clear and to the point, it's about defending the downtrodden rather than attacking a certain gender.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Fallen Leaf said:


> Just wanted to say, I don't like the idea of a dad who stays home to watch the kids while the wife works. Sorry if I am backwards. I think a man should always work. By that I mean have a paying job no matter the circumstance.
> 
> The sad thing is that because women and society have fought for women's rights and equality in so many areas, I feel as though I have to protect my kids (I have two girls) and teach them to be independent. I have to teach them that they don't need a man to be successful and that they can live a single life and be happy without a man. This is my way of protecting them. I just don't trust that there's enough successful strong masculine men out there. I don't want my girls to grow up dreaming of the perfect guy just to learn they don't exist. So, I guess I'm teaching them already that those guys don't exist so that they don't get themselves into a mess searching for him. I hope they do exist though and I hope my girls will find guys like that.
> 
> When my husband and I first married we were just fresh out of college and had no jobs. I was so afraid that my husband would be like one of those guys who were too lazy to look for a job, or who didn't know how to find a good job, or who was too busy playing video games/watching tv because he didn't really work a real job all his college life and I did. Also, my brothers were spoiled and they played games all day and all night and never kept their minimum wage jobs so it bothered me and I didn't want to end up with a husband like my brothers. Anyway, he wasn't like that at all but it took me awhile to realize it. He worked hard and kept looking and going on interviews until he was completely drained. We ended up working on plan B which was, he return to school, and I'd work any job. It just had to be full time and have health benefits. So, I found a job with all that and husband returned to school but at the same time, he also found a job and continued working full-time until he wasn't able to because of his school schedule and had to go part-time. But, even when he worked part-time, he would do extra work. He'd cover other people's shifts on the weekends and days he didn't have school. When he graduated school and got a good paying job, I quit my job to be a SAHM. He now works 60+ hrs a week and picks up additional shifts when he can. I tell him to only do what he can and if he feels like burning out to stop. I remind him from time to time that if he does get the feeling of burning out, I will return to work until he's okay to work again. And, that he doesn't have to feel like he has to do all the work. I am always available, I have a degree, and experience, and I'm not afraid to go back into corporate world. I know he knows but because he is man and he wants to take care of his family, he works hard. It makes me proud to have him as my husband. On the other end, I don't like the feeling of not using my skills and my college degree. I've worked all my life (since I was able to work...14), have been independent since I was 18, and so it was scary to put my trust on a man I call husband to bring in all the money while I stay home to watch the kids. It was also hard to be a SAHM since that has been looked down upon since I could remember. That's also why I worked all my life. I didn't want to be SAHM. I wanted to be a working independent woman and always saw myself that way even after getting married and having kids. But, living it is different. I see how important it is to raise my own kids and I want to be the one to be there at all there events (school related, dance competitions, swim competitions, etc.). So, I've chosen to give up a career to take care of my kids. It was a hard decision and it took a long time for me to adjust and accept that a SAHM is a good thing. But, the great thing about all this is that kids do grow up (damn it), and I will soon be able to return to work.
> 
> *I do think women have it better than men in our society. I'm not sure why they keep complaining.*
> 
> btw, since some of you brought up tv watching, I just wanted to add that I don't watch much tv. I know, SAHM's have all the time in the world to watch tv but somehow I just don't. I wonder how those SAHM do it. But, I will say, I do flip thru the channels every so often and found the WB show, "Arrow" awesome! I love Oliver Queen's character: dark, handsome, mysterious, and hot. I also love the new Superman in "Man of Steel," boy is he hot, powerful, kind, and out of this world! LOL! Of course, my husband is above them all.


:smthumbup:

Mrs. Leaf, I am not debating you, in fact I like all you wrote above, and I am sure many men would gone through heaven and back again to have a dependable wife like you..

But, I am interested in your comment in bold above, maybe you could elaborate further? For example, on which areas of modern life do you think women has it better/have more advantage than men?


----------



## Fallen Leaf

john_lord_b3 said:


> :smthumbup:
> 
> Mrs. Leaf, I am not debating you, in fact I like all you wrote above, and I am sure many men would gone through heaven and back again to have a dependable wife like you..
> 
> But, I am interested in your comment in bold above, maybe you could elaborate further? For example, on which areas of modern life do you think women has it better/have more advantage than men?


Are you asking because you don't know?


----------



## john_lord_b3

Fallen Leaf said:


> Are you asking because you don't know?


I never lived in a Western country, all knowledge I got was through books and the Internet, and as I am sure you also know, the information presented online (including youtube etc) sometimes very conflicting, at one side, some Western men says women has it all, at the other side, some Western women says women are oppressed. So I am very interested to hear what you have to say about this, based on your real-life experience.


----------



## Fallen Leaf

john_lord_b3 said:


> I never lived in a Western country, all knowledge I got was through books and the Internet, and as I am sure you also know, the information presented online (including youtube etc) sometimes very conflicting, at one side, some Western men says women has it all, at the other side, some Western women says women are oppressed. So I am very interested to hear what you have to say about this, based on your real-life experience.


You pretty much just said what I had said earlier, except I didn't make the distinction between who said what, and you did.

Have you met any American women? If so, what do you think of them? Are they different from women from your country? How do they come across to you?

I guess because you're looking at American women from a completely different angle, you may see what I'm trying to say differently then what an American man (and women) might see. When I said women have it better then men in our (American) society, I'm saying that women have more choices and the freedom to do pretty much whatever they want. They don't have to marry at a certain age to a certain guy. They don't even have to ever marry. They can pursue their careers until the end of the world. They can have a baby or babies without a father. They can even have two husbands...yes, if you've watched Dateline or 20/20 I think they did an episode on that but normally, most women don't want that (I hope). They can dress however they want and be fat or skinny or whatever and they can still have a great career, a family, etc. In a divorce, they often get custody of the kids, the house, the car, the money, etc.

You probably will never hear of a single man pursuing his career and then in his late 40's wanting to adopt a child on his own or have a surrogate carry his child. The belief is that a man will always be able to find a wife and have kids with her but that is so untrue. That's just one example of unfairness. It is equally difficult for a man to find a wife as it is for a woman to find a husband and focusing on a career into one's late 30's or 40's (whether man or woman) does limit one's ability/exposure to finding the right person.

Where did you get that women were oppressed? I'd like to know about that because it's obviously not true. Maybe you're referring to women who consider themselves "victims" of everything? If so, it's probably because of their upbringing. Maybe their parents taught them to be victims but as a society, women are not oppressed and are not victims.

Btw, I was brought up in a family where I was pretty much forced to be a victim. I love my mother now but as a young teenager, I was told the worse things a child could ever hear. Was never physically abused but psychologically, yes. It was really not an every day thing but it was enough for me to have to struggle with it as a young adult. I survived it because I looked to my dad. I saw how proud and strong he was as a person. He never complained and he worked hard to put food on the table. To this day, he is still hard working. Unfortunately, he didn't pay much attention to education and making/saving money but he has been successful in other areas. As an adult now, I am able to look at the strengths of my mother and be proud of who she is. Anyway, my point is, I chose not to be a victim. I felt it was a waste of time. I realized I had freedom and the possibilities were endless.


----------



## PHTlump

Catherine602 said:


> Any of you guys have daughters? Have you informed your female child that you see her desire for that special day as a useless female thing?
> 
> Be consistent and don't participate in the sham.


I have a young daughter. She isn't yet old enough for me to talk much about weddings. However, when she is, I will inform her that a large wedding that spends tens of thousands of dollars is a useless luxury that I will not participate in.

And for sexual equity, if my son told me that he wanted to spend a ridiculous amount of money having a party commemorating something special (perhaps a graduation), I would tell him the same thing.

I see that Catherine is gone from the thread, so I'll direct this part of my post at the rest of you. I see that she has repeatedly suggested that people who believe things like family courts should give men and women equal consideration are simply guilty of hating women, or speaking from their pain caused by being mistreated by women. I'll don my amateur psychologist hat and diagnose this as projection. I think Catherine has a good deal of unresolved pain from a man, or men, in her past. And this is why the thought that men should be considered in family court for the privilege of being the custodial parent to be anathema to her.

Of course, she could also be a run of the mill misandrist. Who knows?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> Have Women Removed Men's need to Put A Ring on It? -
> 
> Men are waiting longer to get married because the benefits traditionally assigned to marriage are available on the open market. Therefore, it’s an adaptation rather than devaluation.
> 
> *Men haven’t changed. They still want the same primary things from women. Sex and heirs. And if getting those things no longer require a marriage. Then the point of marriage is obsolete.* That’s like walking a mile to get water and bring it back to your home…there was a time that was necessary. But along came indoor plumbing and walking was not necessary…because the water was the main motivation, not the walking.
> 
> So to me the question should be have women devalued marriage? Because men are still getting what they have always wanted…women are on the losing end. Do you hear men complaining about wanting to get married and cant? So the problem has to start with women making an analytic observation to determine why they as individuals aren’t married…





> The Marrying Kind?
> ... A nationwide study of men found that many men are not interested in marriage, they are basically marriage-phobic. They are more likely than other unmarried males to come from nontraditional families, to be nonreligious and to have fathers who were not involved in their lives, according to the survey.
> 
> According to the survey, the marrying kind is the man raised in "traditional" family households as opposed to nontraditional households. But let's not pretend that households presided over by Ozzie and Harriet act-alikes are such a powerful pro-marriage factory. Among the unmarried men who were surveyed, a thoroughly underwhelming 55 percent from traditional households said they "would be ready to marry tomorrow if the right person came along."






> _Originally Posted by *Fallen Leaf *_ The sad thing is that because women and society have fought for women's rights and equality in so many areas, I feel as though I have to protect my kids (I have two girls) and teach them to be independent. I have to teach them that they don't need a man to be successful and that they can live a single life and be happy without a man. This is my way of protecting them.


 I feel this way also....if our daughter doesn't go to College, she will be looked upon as "less" / foolish / low class even... through society's eyes...even IF she marries the best man around, others will still find her foolish...

I've never been independent on my own..other than living in a camper in someone's back yard for a summer when I was 18.... I had my own car & a steady job.....

I contributed near equally (if not more so) -in our early yrs/dating & into our 1st year married ... in savings & financially till we had our 1st child....then he willingly /wantingly took on the full financial burden - which to him...he never looked upon as a burden but a privilege....because he had a family he loved & wanted to be there for in every way... Good men DO this.... and I wasn't a slacker by any means sitting at home eating bon bons, though I did enjoy some Soap Operas .  

I'd consider us both ..."*Inter*dependent" - not independent from each other, different roles but both valued... working together towards our goals... 

Explained like this >> 


> Interdependence is being mutually dependent, or simply being dependent on each other . Two people in a healthy relationship are said to be interdependent. In contrast to existing alone, it is a voluntary recognition that “no man is an island,” and that we must co-inhabit the space in which we live.
> 
> The most important point to understand is ”this debate positions both independence and interdependence as alternative endpoints of maturity… Independence and interdependence are polar opposites—either the two ends of a continuum, or else mutually exclusive categories”


So in this way...never even thought about it till I landed here -but I've never been ashamed of "depending" on my husband...he's never, for a day, made Me feel this way....he tells me I am the brains of the outfit, it'd all fall apart without me. Only society does this.. posts on this forum...Men seem to do it less frequently over women even....which I understand they are speaking out of their experiences -being left by a man -or that fear.... 

I'd be the 1st to tell any woman... It matters SO MUCH the type of man you marry.....what kind of family did he come from...what are his values, has he proven how deeply he feels about family, honor, is he a man of integrity...and this goes for both sides of the aisle.. ....as women can screw men too - and badly...never jump in too quick... Test each character with sweet TIME... 



> I just don't trust that there's enough successful strong masculine men out there. I don't want my girls to grow up dreaming of the perfect guy just to learn they don't exist. So, I guess I'm teaching them already that those guys don't exist so that they don't get themselves into a mess searching for him. I hope they do exist though and I hope my girls will find guys like that.


 I still believe GOOD men like that exist...though they are drowning...when they look around & not feel appreciated

We are doing our best to raise 5 of them... Though we are an older fashioned family in many regards... it's like going against the wind in this society.. . 

But all you hear today from others is ...."Why would you want to get married, it all goes to hell after that ?"...they are told they aren't mature till almost 30... live it up... meanwhile people are making in grained lifestyle habits that may be a struggle to break when they find a compatible match. 

Just my 2 cents from a Happy wife & SAHM..


----------



## Tall Average Guy

PHTlump said:


> I see that Catherine is gone from the thread, so I'll direct this part of my post at the rest of you. I see that she has repeatedly suggested that people who believe things like family courts should give men and women equal consideration are simply guilty of hating women, or speaking from their pain caused by being mistreated by women. I'll don my amateur psychologist hat and diagnose this as projection. I think Catherine has a good deal of unresolved pain from a man, or men, in her past. And this is why the thought that men should be considered in family court for the privilege of being the custodial parent to be anathema to her.


Or she could have seen the actual posts accusing all women of bad behavior going uncontested, and concluded that these pleas for "equal treatment" were not in good faith. The apparent acquiescence to such statements can trigger others (and perhaps it triggered her), including those who have been hurt by men, just as her statements triggered those hurt by women.

We do ourselves no favors by conveniently ignoring the nasty posts by men about women then turning with fangs bared when the tables are turned. Being a man means taking care of our side of the street and not excusing poor behavior, period. We lose credibility with those women who could support real change. It turns women into the enemy. That is wrong and it helps no one.


----------



## treyvion

Tall Average Guy said:


> Or she could have seen the actual posts accusing all women of bad behavior going uncontested, and concluded that these pleas for "equal treatment" were not in good faith. The apparent acquiescence to such statements can trigger others (and perhaps it triggered her), including those who have been hurt by men, just as her statements triggered those hurt by women.
> 
> We do ourselves no favors by conveniently ignoring the nasty posts by men about women then turning with fangs bared when the tables are turned. Being a man means taking care of our side of the street and not excusing poor behavior, period. We lose credibility with those women who could support real change. It turns women into the enemy. That is wrong and it helps no one.


Agree. Some men are the enemy to women, and some women are the enemy to men. That's their decision.

There are also good men and bad men and degrees between.

There are also good women and bad women and degrees between.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thanks for that, TAG.

.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel this way also....if our daughter doesn't go to College, she will be looked upon as "less" / foolish / low class even... through society's eyes...even IF she marries the best man around, others will still find her foolish...
> 
> I've never been independent on my own..other than living in a camper in someone's back yard for a summer when I was 18.... I had my own car & a steady job.....
> 
> I contributed near equally (if not more so) -in our early yrs/dating & into our 1st year married ... in savings & financially till we had our 1st child....then he willingly /wantingly took on the full financial burden - which to him...he never looked upon as a burden but a privilege....because he had a family he loved & wanted to be there for in every way... Good men DO this.... and I wasn't a slacker by any means sitting at home eating bon bons, though I did enjoy some Soap Operas .
> 
> I'd consider us both ..."*Inter*dependent" - not independent from each other, different roles but both valued... working together towards our goals...
> 
> Explained like this >>
> 
> 
> So in this way...never even thought about it till I landed here -but I've never been ashamed of "depending" on my husband...he's never, for a day, made Me feel this way....he tells me I am the brains of the outfit, it'd all fall apart without me. Only society does this.. posts on this forum...Men seem to do it less frequently over women even....which I understand they are speaking out of their experiences -being left by a man -or that fear....
> 
> I'd be the 1st to tell any woman... It matters SO MUCH the type of man you marry.....what kind of family did he come from...what are his values, has he proven how deeply he feels about family, honor, is he a man of integrity...and this goes for both sides of the aisle.. ....as women can screw men too - and badly...never jump in too quick... Test each character with sweet TIME...
> 
> I still believe GOOD men like that exist...though they are drowning...when they look around & not feel appreciated
> 
> We are doing our best to raise 5 of them... Though we are an older fashioned family in many regards... it's like going against the wind in this society.. .
> 
> But all you hear today from others is ...."Why would you want to get married, it all goes to hell after that ?"...they are told they aren't mature till almost 30... live it up... meanwhile people are making in grained lifestyle habits that may be a struggle to break when they find a compatible match.
> 
> Just my 2 cents from a Happy wife & SAHM..


Thanks for taking the time to compose and share this post ,SA.
I agree with what was said , and I can see that you spoke from your heart.
I agree with you that much of the problems existing today in the marriage construct may not even exist if we simply did our due diligence . First, lay a proper foundation, align values and expectations and work towards them, together._Interdependence._

And yes,there is absolutely no monetary value that can be placed on the contribution of a SAHM to society.
I think one of the greatest mistakes we have made in the 19th century was the undervaluing of women's [ SAHM ] contribution to society in the post modern era.
The reality is that without their contribution, we would not have gotten this far.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> Thanks for taking the time to compose and share this post ,SA.
> I agree with what was said , and I can see that you spoke from your heart.
> I agree with you that much of the problems existing today in the marriage construct may not even exist if we simply did our due diligence . First, lay a proper foundation, align values and expectations and work towards them, together._Interdependence._
> 
> And yes,there is absolutely no monetary value that can be placed on the contribution of a SAHM to society.
> I think one of the greatest mistakes we have made in the 19th century was the undervaluing of women's [ SAHM ] contribution to society in the post modern era.
> The reality is that without their contribution, we would not have gotten this far.


Thank you CB....and StarstarFish... I came close to deleting that post.....I just don't feel like I belong in this discussion ... ..we are too far out in left field somewhere.... If my husband had his way, I'd never work a day....(though I've always had a few small jobs)......it has nothing to do with him wanting me under his thumb, controlling , trying to keep his woman down & dependent.. (oh my No!)...

It's just how HE envisions the family running smoothly - with us enjoying as much time as we can together... growing together. Otherwise, "why get married at all" - he said this to me once...in regards to spending too much time with your spouse.

And really I just admire him for that ....makes me WANT to *DO* for him...it's important I don't abuse his Goodness of course, instead I am filled with gratitude for the way he has always treated us & cared for us. 

It just seems so awfully complicated ...so much hurt and expectations on both sides......I guess no easy answers for many of today's marriages / families.

Yes, I am big on the *Interdependent *Thing...what other defense do I have towards my seemingly "lowliness" ... I am being sarcastic now... excuse me. 

It was AFEH (now gone from TAM) that 1st introduced an INTERdependent communication article on here...it was just so good.. no matter if it's communication, or doing your part in marriage, working together, listening, owning your own hand... this is the answer for all.....really. 

Whether 2 work outside the home or not... we all have our specific roles we are responsible for - to help the other...and darn it, don't lay down on the job...whether that be sex, taking out the garbage, housework, cooking , repairs...homework help with the kids... be Fair... be giving.....and hopefully it will be returned -and then some!


----------



## john_lord_b3

Fallen Leaf said:


> You pretty much just said what I had said earlier, except I didn't make the distinction between who said what, and you did.
> 
> *Have you met any American women?* If so, what do you think of them? Are they different from women from your country? How do they come across to you?


Yes I have met American women during my years in the University, one of my lecturer was an American woman. Since I live in the capital at that time, I think my lecturer rather closely resembles her colleagues, other professores and lecturers, both male and female, native Indonesians and foreigners. All of them are very highly intellectual, polite and knowledgeable. Maybe it is because of the culture of the intellegentsia/educators. I am learning a lot from her about multi-culturalism, which is very fascinating for me, and the concept of e-pluribus-unum, which are very similar between USA and my country.



> I guess because you're looking at American women from a completely different angle, you may see what I'm trying to say differently then what an American man (and women) might see. When I said women have it better then men in our (American) society, I'm saying that *women have more choices and the freedom to do pretty much whatever they want*.


I think that is correct. As I have mentioned above, I live in the capital. Women here, both natives and foreigner, has freedom of choice. In fact we always have female ministers in our government, and one of our former president was a woman (madame Megawati Sukarnoputri). So maybe in this aspect, it is similar between my country and USA.



> They don't have to marry at a certain age to a certain guy. They don't even have to ever marry. They can pursue their careers until the end of the world.


Ah, here our country differs a bit. Indeed, many women in our country also does not marry and put career above clan/family obligations, and there are no law against their freedom of choices. But still, in certain ethnic/religious groups, these kind of choices are "alien concepts" and deemed not ideal. 



> They can have a baby or babies without a father


. 

Unfortunately there are such cases, for example, there are cases of our migrant workers to Middle EaStern countries, came back pregnant out of wedlock. They are lucky that our family/clan system are still strong, thus these fatherless children are usually taken into the clan, even without fathers. But as I said above, we have different ethnic/religious groups with different cultures, with different ideas and norms.



> They can even have two husbands...yes, if you've watched Dateline or 20/20 I think they did an episode on that but normally, most women don't want that (I hope).


This is not common; what is more common (but not considered proper) are women whose husbands are away, are taking lovers while the husband are absent. But of course this is against cultural norms. 



> They can dress however they want and be fat or skinny or whatever and they can still have a great career, a family, etc.


We have larger women (including our former president), we have skinnier women, there are no differences, all have equal rights to be what they wish to be.

What are different is the matter of dress. Dress protocols differs between one province or regency to another. In the capital, native women are free to dress like sexy celebrities, but not on the streets (in big parties such as weddings etc, it's ok). It is also worth mentioning that little by little, we begin to see women and men dresses like Asian celebrities, mostly like Korean and Japanese pop singers, and this is increasingly tolerable. So we are in a step towards a more liberal direction.

In Aceh province, however, all women must dress according to religious customs.

*
In a divorce, they often get custody of the kids, the house, the car, the money, etc.*

Similar only in the "(women) often get custody of the kids" part. The rest different. In case of divorce the husband usually are given court order to give support to the children until age 18. But the rest (house, car, money) etc are called "Harta Gono Gini" in our law, and thus the law said every asset obtained during marriage divided equally 50-50. This does not include inherited assets. 



> You probably will never hear of a single man pursuing his career and then in his late 40's wanting to adopt a child on his own or have a surrogate carry his child. The belief is that a man will always be able to find a wife and have kids with her but that is so untrue. That's just one example of unfairness. It is equally difficult for a man to find a wife as it is for a woman to find a husband and focusing on a career into one's late 30's or 40's (whether man or woman) does limit one's ability/exposure to finding the right person.


In my country, a single man on his 40s wanting to adopt a child, is almost unheard of, and if there is, this person will be considered a joke. As for finding the right person to marry in the age beyond 30s or 40s, this is very correct in rural areas but not on the cities and/or the capital. For example: I married in my mid 30s, my wife is a bit older. But this is the capital. In rural areas, women age 30++ is already considered "perawan tua" (old maid/past prime), that is why many move to the capital, and some married Westerners, who has no objections in terms of age.



> Where did you get that women were oppressed? I'd like to know about that because it's obviously not true.


I know I have the feeling that is not 100% true. I read quotes by feminists such as Andrea Dworkin. Then I read quotes by Tom Leykis, Warren Fareel, and read books by Christina Sommers and also by Suzanne Venker, and get exactly opposites. So, I turn to other source to make sense out of conflicting information.



> Maybe you're referring to women who consider themselves "victims" of everything? If so, it's probably because of their upbringing. Maybe their parents taught them to be victims but as a society, women are not oppressed and are not victims.


Maybe this is useful for comparison: in my country, girls are always taught to be careful, to be wary, because my country used to have very high crime rate, including and especially in the capital, and most high in 1998 during Asian financial crisis. Now we are getting better, but the cautiousness still remain. Also the concept of clan and family honor are still strong in many Asian countries including mine, so girls are taught to be extra wary and extra cautious to ensure not to tarnish the honor of the clan. I hope I make sense? I know there are cultural differences between us, maybe it is difficult for non-Asian to understand.



> Btw, I was brought up in a family where I was pretty much forced to be a victim. I love my mother now but as a young teenager, I was told the worse things a child could ever hear. Was never physically abused but psychologically, yes. It was really not an every day thing but it was enough for me to have to struggle with it as a young adult. I survived it because I looked to my dad. I saw how proud and strong he was as a person. He never complained and he worked hard to put food on the table. To this day, he is still hard working. Unfortunately, he didn't pay much attention to education and making/saving money but he has been successful in other areas. As an adult now, I am able to look at the strengths of my mother and be proud of who she is. Anyway, my point is, I chose not to be a victim. I felt it was a waste of time. I realized I had freedom and the possibilities were endless.


THank you for sharing your story, and I am happy to hear that you grow up to be a balanced person, despite having a childhood full of struggles. This shows strength of character, maybe learned from your father. :smthumbup:

And also, thank you very very much for the discussions, it is a great pleasure for me to be educated by your insights. *respectful bow*


----------



## PHTlump

Tall Average Guy said:


> Or she could have seen the actual posts accusing all women of bad behavior going uncontested, and concluded that these pleas for "equal treatment" were not in good faith.


Please cite one of these posts that accused ALL women of bad behavior. I haven't seen one. I even quickly scanned the thread to see if I missed one and I didn't see it.

I think what has happened is a fairly common occurrence. See, women tend to have trouble with generalities. If I make a statement that men are taller than women, invariably, some woman will take exception to that statement. She will assume that my statement means that ALL men are taller than EVERY SINGLE woman in the world. No exceptions. But that's foolish.

We can recognize that feminism has warped our laws and customs to the point that the incentives to divorce unjustly favor women without devolving to the ridiculous stance that EVERY SINGLE woman ON EARTH is just waiting for an excuse to kick her children's father out of the house and extract cash and prizes from him. Can't we?



> The apparent acquiescence to such statements can trigger others (and perhaps it triggered her), including those who have been hurt by men, just as her statements triggered those hurt by women.


Again, the statements seemed mostly reasonable to me. And my post was a tongue in cheek retort to her efforts to marginalize anyone who disagreed with the official feminist party line. It does not follow that a preference for sexual neutrality in divorce can only result from an irrational response to an emotionally traumatic event at the hands of a woman. Some men are just naturally fair-minded. Some men are analytic enough to recognize the warped incentives that exist.



> We do ourselves no favors by conveniently ignoring the nasty posts by men about women then turning with fangs bared when the tables are turned. Being a man means taking care of our side of the street and not excusing poor behavior, period. We lose credibility with those women who could support real change. It turns women into the enemy. That is wrong and it helps no one.


I haven't seen any personal attacks besides Catherine's. So I'm not sure exactly how nasty you consider general posts that are disapproving of the official feminist party line to be. Personally, I don't consider them that nasty.

But I think you're wrong about seeing the debate as between sexual lines. It is. The fact is that the radical feminist agenda is largely responsible for warping our government and culture and harming marriage. And that agenda didn't just sprout up unbidden. Women, as a group, are the ones responsible for crafting that agenda, implementing it, and perpetuating it. Yes, some men helped. So any attempt to reverse the harmful affects of the radical feminist agenda must recognize that women (as a group) will largely resist the attempt. If you want to pretend otherwise, I think you're kidding yourself.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Can someone please tell me what the official feminist party line is ?


----------



## Faithful Wife

PHT said: "The fact is that the radical feminist agenda is largely responsible for warping our government and culture and harming marriage."

Wow.

I guess it is good to know some men feel this way.

It is good to also know some women blame men for warping our government and culture and harming marriage.

I honestly didn't know these things before coming to TAM. Am I the only one on this thread who has worked in a family law office and personally seen the workings behind divorces, how they turn out, what judges have said, how custody was handled, etc? Because honestly...it is odd to read some of these comments that are all about blaming one gender or the other.

I'm so glad my husband doesn't subscribe to these blame games. He loves and respects women and doesn't think they are largely responsible for warping our government and culture and harming marriage. And I love and respect men and don't think they did that, either.

Personally, I blame aliens. Damn aliens! I just know it was them...

.


----------



## TiggyBlue

PHTlump said:


> Please cite one of these posts that accused ALL women of bad behavior. I haven't seen one. I even quickly scanned the thread to see if I missed one and I didn't see it.
> 
> I think what has happened is a fairly common occurrence. See, women tend to have trouble with generalities. If I make a statement that men are taller than women, invariably, some woman will take exception to that statement. She will assume that my statement means that ALL men are taller than EVERY SINGLE woman in the world. No exceptions. But that's foolish.


So it would be fine for me to say most men are lazy deadbeats who don't care about their children.
I said MOST I didn't say ALL so it's ok


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Personally, I blame aliens. Damn aliens! I just know it was them...
> 
> .


Those " X- Files" are supposed to be stored somewhere either in Area 51 or Roswell, New Mexico.


----------



## PHTlump

TiggyBlue said:


> Can someone please tell me what the official feminist party line is ?


Oh, you probably know much of it by heart. The belief that a female kindergarten teacher who makes less than a male surgeon is a victim of the gender wage gap. The belief that women are simply men with breasts. The belief that all (or most) of the differences between the sexes are simply cultural constructs. The belief that men contribute little or nothing beyond paychecks to the family. The belief that shareholders of public companies, such as Coca-Cola will willingly forego millions of dollars in dividends in order to perpetuate the patriarchy by ensconcing a male CEO over a more qualified female. The belief that being a housewife is a waste of a woman's skills. The belief that children are communal property and that society should interfere with families in raising their children. The belief that women should enjoy a 4 to 1 advantage in being the custodial parent after divorce. Things like that.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

PHTlump said:


> Please cite one of these posts that accused ALL women of bad behavior. I haven't seen one. I even quickly scanned the thread to see if I missed one and I didn't see it.


Easily done. The following was originally posted on this thread:



> I know a lot of women, and not a few men, think I'm a sexist jerk of a man, but look in the mirror when you wonder why I'm such a jerk at times. I know Catherine wants to say I'm making women pay for what my wife puts me though, but it's hardly just her. I've been around women my whole life.* All different ilks from your poor trailer women to your country-club stepford wives; and you all think alike- that men owe you something, everything.*


The poster has since deleted it (based on another thread, I think because he realized it was wrong), but you can see me quoting it and responding to it. No one else did. I did not see a single other man raise any objection to it. Yet a fair number jumped on Catherine's.



> I think what has happened is a fairly common occurrence. See, women tend to have trouble with generalities. If I make a statement that men are taller than women, invariably, some woman will take exception to that statement. She will assume that my statement means that ALL men are taller than EVERY SINGLE woman in the world. No exceptions. But that's foolish.


Men make that jump as well.



> We can recognize that feminism has warped our laws and customs to the point that the incentives to divorce unjustly favor women without devolving to the ridiculous stance that EVERY SINGLE woman ON EARTH is just waiting for an excuse to kick her children's father out of the house and extract cash and prizes from him. Can't we?


Sure. But we also should recognize that some women abuse this without devolving to the stance that all women are out to screw men over. 



> Again, the statements seemed mostly reasonable to me. And my post was a tongue in cheek retort to her efforts to marginalize anyone who disagreed with the official feminist party line. It does not follow that a preference for sexual neutrality in divorce can only result from an irrational response to an emotionally traumatic event at the hands of a woman. Some men are just naturally fair-minded. Some men are analytic enough to recognize the warped incentives that exist.


So who gets to chose which statements are tongue and cheek or hyperbole, and which are offensive from the get go? Again, when broad statements are made painting all women as believing they are owed something by men, it does not seem like a stretch to interpret other statements through that lens. Can you honestly say that you won't view future comments of Catherine's differently because of what she said, even if there words on their face are more neutral? Of course not, and to see those statements ignored (if not tacitly approved of) on this thread will natural alter how other comments are interpreted.



> I haven't seen any personal attacks besides Catherine's. So I'm not sure exactly how nasty you consider general posts that are disapproving of the official feminist party line to be. Personally, I don't consider them that nasty.


It is not merely disapproving of "official feminist party line", as loaded a term as that is. Attacks on women are not necessary. They are unbecoming and unmanly. They reek of scared victims lashing out. We are better than that.



> But I think you're wrong about seeing the debate as between sexual lines. It is. The fact is that the radical feminist agenda is largely responsible for warping our government and culture and harming marriage. And that agenda didn't just sprout up unbidden. Women, as a group, are the ones responsible for crafting that agenda, implementing it, and perpetuating it. Yes, some men helped. So any attempt to reverse the harmful affects of the radical feminist agenda must recognize that women (as a group) will largely resist the attempt. If you want to pretend otherwise, I think you're kidding yourself.


I am not the one making it a debate along sexual lines. Rather, the comments here dismissing any concern voiced by women unless it meets the "official men's rights party line' (as you and others define it) is met be derision at best, and an attack at worst, are doing so.

You are advocating a victimist ideology, where men (as a group) are hapless beings with no ability to take care of ourselves and with all women fighting against us. Yet that is not true. But if we continue to attack any woman who does not signing on to every plank in your hypothetical platform, you doom yourself to insignificance.

In the 1800s, women were not allowed to vote. They could have railed against the unfairness and branded all men as hateful patriarchs. But they did not. Rather, they understood that there were a whole lot of good and decent men who recognized that things were not fair and needed to change. They enlisted those men in achieving fairness. And they got their vote. It is not different here. Women (as a whole) are not the enemy any more than men (as a whole) are the enemy of women. We are in this together and blaming one group is never productive.


----------



## PHTlump

TiggyBlue said:


> So it would be fine for me to say most men are lazy deadbeats who don't care about their children.
> I said MOST I didn't say ALL so it's ok


Well, you would be wrong. But, I wouldn't respond to your argument by assuming you meant that ALL men were deadbeats, and since I am one man who is not a deadbeat, I must have proven your argument to be false.

But I think it is all beside the point. The original point was that divorce incentives favor women. I don't really understand how that is seen as an attack on women.


----------



## TiggyBlue

PHTlump said:


> Oh, you probably know much of it by heart. The belief that a female kindergarten teacher who makes less than a male surgeon is a victim of the gender wage gap. The belief that women are simply men with breasts. The belief that all (or most) of the differences between the sexes are simply cultural constructs. The belief that men contribute little or nothing beyond paychecks to the family. The belief that shareholders of public companies, such as Coca-Cola will willingly forego millions of dollars in dividends in order to perpetuate the patriarchy by ensconcing a male CEO over a more qualified female. The belief that being a housewife is a waste of a woman's skills. The belief that children are communal property and that society should interfere with families in raising their children. The belief that women should enjoy a 4 to 1 advantage in being the custodial parent after divorce. Things like that.


I'm sorry I find it hard to see your posts any different than a than the women your complaining about, just loads of blaming and acting a victim.


----------



## TiggyBlue

PHTlump said:


> Well, you would be wrong. But, I wouldn't respond to your argument by assuming you meant that ALL men were deadbeats, and since I am one man who is not a deadbeat, I must have proven your argument to be false.
> 
> But I think it is all beside the point. The original point was that divorce incentives favor women. I don't really understand how that is seen as an attack on women.


It wasn't at first, but there has been quit a few remarks about women that where no less out of line than some a few things Catherine said (think Tall Average Guy just posted about that) but you managed to totally dismiss and excuse them and that was my point.


----------



## PHTlump

Tall Average Guy said:


> The poster has since deleted it (based on another thread, I think because he realized it was wrong), but you can see me quoting it and responding to it. No one else did. I did not see a single other man raise any objection to it. Yet a fair number jumped on Catherine's.


Well, I don't generally respond to deleted posts. However, I think it was a silly post. Does that make you feel better?



> Men make that jump as well.


Obviously.



> Sure. But we also should recognize that some women abuse this without devolving to the stance that all women are out to screw men over.


The only post that I have seen stating anything about all women is the deleted one that you referenced. Should the fact that some women will not take advantage of a biased system mean that we shouldn't try to make the system more fair? I wouldn't think so.



> Again, when broad statements are made painting all women as believing they are owed something by men, it does not seem like a stretch to interpret other statements through that lens.


You're saying that dozens of posts from various commentators should be viewed through the lens of a single, deleted post, I'll just say that I disagree.



> Can you honestly say that you won't view future comments of Catherine's differently because of what she said, even if there words on their face are more neutral? Of course not, and to see those statements ignored (if not tacitly approved of) on this thread will natural alter how other comments are interpreted.


Catherine has been consistent in her statements across various threads. She hasn't deleted her posts. One was deleted by a mod. She believes that the current system of family courts, which is biased in favor of women, is preferable to an unbiased system. She believes that any man who is in favor of a neutral legal system is being irrational as a result of being victimized by women. She has stated all of the above multiple times. And her positions affect others around her. If you ever get divorced, you will face the meat grinder of divorce court. And Catherine wants that court to be as biased against you as possible, in the name of protecting the interests of women.

The other poster, who deleted his post, wrote that all women think men owe them something. He didn't write that our legal system should advantage men over women. He didn't write that women should rarely win custody of their children. He wrote that all women have a bad attitude. And then he deleted his post. And he hasn't posted the same thing in various other posts.



> You are advocating a victimist ideology, where men (as a group) are hapless beings with no ability to take care of ourselves and with all women fighting against us.


Not at all. I have never said that men are hapless. On the contrary, I think men are very capable. And I think women are very capable. I think that women are so capable that they don't need a court system that is biased in their favor in order to gain fair settlements from divorce. I bristle at the notion that our courts must be biased against men. I disagree with the belief that men should just accept a system that is biased against them.



> In the 1800s, women were not allowed to vote. They could have railed against the unfairness and branded all men as hateful patriarchs. But they did not.


ALL of them did not. But SOME of them did. Where do you think the radical feminist agenda came from?


----------



## PHTlump

TiggyBlue said:


> I'm sorry I find it hard to see your posts any different than a than the women your complaining about, just loads of blaming and acting a victim.


You think that only victims could want a fair and unbiased legal system? Hokay.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

PHTlump said:


> Oh, you probably know much of it by heart. The belief that a female kindergarten teacher who makes less than a male surgeon is a victim of the gender wage gap. The belief that women are simply men with breasts. The belief that all (or most) of the differences between the sexes are simply cultural constructs. The belief that men contribute little or nothing beyond paychecks to the family. The belief that shareholders of public companies, such as Coca-Cola will willingly forego millions of dollars in dividends in order to perpetuate the patriarchy by ensconcing a male CEO over a more qualified female. The belief that being a housewife is a waste of a woman's skills. The belief that children are communal property and that society should interfere with families in raising their children. The belief that women should enjoy a 4 to 1 advantage in being the custodial parent after divorce. Things like that.


So there is no room for real issues in between? That, for example, it is not that some board members (not shareholders, since they don't really choose the CEO) will forego millions of dollars rather than hire a more qualified female, but rather that they never consider the possibility that a female could be more qualified. That it is either your view point or a "radical feminist agenda"? What else do you do when you are not erecting strawmen?

Sorry, but your attempt to villainize any women who disagrees with your world view of oppression of men certainly undercuts your claim to fairness.


----------



## TiggyBlue

PHTlump said:


> You think that only victims could want a fair and unbiased legal system? Hokay.


I never said that at all or even implied that.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Tall Average Guy said:


> Sorry, but your attempt to villainize any women who disagrees with your world view of oppression of men certainly undercuts your claim to fairness.


:iagree:


----------



## Tall Average Guy

PHTlump said:


> You're saying that dozens of posts from various commentators should be viewed through the lens of a single, deleted post, I'll just say that I disagree.


That is not what I am saying. Your mischaracterization is unfortunately, though it clearly helps your agenda. That post was not deleted for a number of days. Yet in that time, no other man thought it necessary to step up and object. Rather, additional posts complaining about women abusing the system were added. 




> Catherine has been consistent in her statements across various threads. She hasn't deleted her posts. One was deleted by a mod. She believes that the current system of family courts, which is biased in favor of women, is preferable to an unbiased system. She believes that any man who is in favor of a neutral legal system is being irrational as a result of being victimized by women. She has stated all of the above multiple times. And her positions affect others around her. If you ever get divorced, you will face the meat grinder of divorce court. And Catherine wants that court to be as biased against you as possible, in the name of protecting the interests of women.


I disagree with Catherine's post. It is not clear that the position you ascribe to her is accurate, or that it has been that consistent. But that does not matter, in that I think that position is wrong.



> The other poster, who deleted his post, wrote that all women think men owe them something. He didn't write that our legal system should advantage men over women. He didn't write that women should rarely win custody of their children. He wrote that all women have a bad attitude. And then he deleted his post. And he hasn't posted the same thing in various other posts.


So what? None of the men here had a problem with his post. No one said that was too far, that all women are not like that. Rather, his other posts were cheered on. So when that happens, do you expect someone to read them and parse through that fine detail? To expect that is not realistic, but rather grasping at straws to avoid responsibility.




> ALL of them did not. But SOME of them did. Where do you think the radical feminist agenda came from?


:rofl: Why don't you just provide a link to your political talking points and stop the "radical feminist agenda" baiting? You state that men are not powerless, yet have posted about all the laws that harm men, that women as a group will fight them being changed, and ignore that there are inequalities for women just as there are for men. 

You clearly are playing the victim card on this, despite your protestations to the contrary. You also clearly would rather rail against the wind rather than convince others of the appropriateness of your goals. It is contrary to what a man should do, and, however inadvertently, I think you have provided a keen insight into the difficulties some men have. I will leave you to that and wish you luck.


----------



## PHTlump

Tall Average Guy said:


> So there is no room for real issues in between? That, for example, it is not that some board members (not shareholders, since they don't really choose the CEO) will forego millions of dollars rather than hire a more qualified female, but rather that they never consider the possibility that a female could be more qualified. That it is either your view point or a "radical feminist agenda"? What else do you do when you are not erecting strawmen?
> 
> Sorry, but your attempt to villainize any women who disagrees with your world view of oppression of men certainly undercuts your claim to fairness.


Another poster raised the issue of female CEOs. I didn't raise the issue out of thin air. But the fact remains that many feminists, including the prior poster on this thread, believe that men would rather oppress women than make more money by using a woman as the leader of a company. I think that's silly.

If you think I'm being unfair by responding to a point raised by a feminist on this thread as an example of something silly that feminists believe, then I'll just disagree again.


----------



## Faithful Wife

PHT said: "Oh, you probably know much of it by heart. The belief that a female kindergarten teacher who makes less than a male surgeon is a victim of the gender wage gap. The belief that women are simply men with breasts. The belief that all (or most) of the differences between the sexes are simply cultural constructs. The belief that men contribute little or nothing beyond paychecks to the family. The belief that shareholders of public companies, such as Coca-Cola will willingly forego millions of dollars in dividends in order to perpetuate the patriarchy by ensconcing a male CEO over a more qualified female. The belief that being a housewife is a waste of a woman's skills. The belief that children are communal property and that society should interfere with families in raising their children. The belief that women should enjoy a 4 to 1 advantage in being the custodial parent after divorce. Things like that."

Again just, wow.

I've never heard any woman in my life say she believed any of these items. Not one. I read that list several times over and nope, never heard even one of them ever stated.

This all just makes me sad.

.


----------



## Deejo

TiggyBlue said:


> Can someone please tell me what the official feminist party line is ?


"We're not happy, 'til you're not happy."


----------



## Deejo

I don't expect to change anyone's mind ... well maybe those of a few dudes. If a few of the ladies tweak to it as well, then all the better.

I want good outcomes for everyone. I believe most folks on either side of this yawning, precipitous, swirling vortex of death chasm ... wants the same.

Things need to change. I don't believe those changes are going to come along without a good deal of pain and disquiet.

For me? This was personal ... not as in having an agenda ... as in it was for me. Just me.

I firmly believe that many men do need to ACTIVELY think and behave differently than their current frame of reference allows.

I have said it, many times and many ways over my tenure here. My entire frame of reference in how I perceive myself, women, relationships, marriage, and my role in any and all of those has changed over the last few years.

Am I on team 'Dude'? No. I'm on team 'Me'. I want to help those who want to be helped. I come to the discussion with a specific set of experiences, and bias ... just like everyone else.

On the whole I firmly believe that men need far more guidance about what being a man means, and what their place in the order of things is, and what roles that entails ... and they should perform and always strive to perform admirably.

Not because doing so will make women open her legs, or stroke his hair with maternal approval, but because it is simply the thing that needs to be done, and it is the thing that is right.

Personally, I don't like where either gender is currently heading. It's schizophrenic. There is this overwhelming sense in the west to remove differences between the two genders. We're like a gender smoothie. A bunch of items mixed together and heterogenized (awesome word I just made up there). You lose the entire character of what it was that went into it in the first place.

We are different. We fundamentally serve different roles. That's why we have 2 genders in the first place. And I know in no uncertain terms, those words I just typed make some people squirm.

Doesn't bother me. That's fine. Go get yourself a smoothie and relax.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

PHTlump said:


> Another poster raised the issue of female CEOs. I didn't raise the issue out of thin air. But the fact remains that many feminists, including the prior poster on this thread, believe that men would rather oppress women than make more money by using a woman as the leader of a company. I think that's silly.


I am not claiming you raised it out of thin air. I am claiming that asserting that there is only one concern being raised (and conveniently the one that is most easily dismissed) calls into question your true motive.



> If you think I'm being unfair by responding to a point raised by a feminist on this thread as an example of something silly that feminists believe, then I'll just disagree again.


So now it is just feminists, rather than "radical feminists"? 

Again, what is unfair is you flippantly dismissing real concerns that some women rightfully have. What is unfair is you painting every issue that a woman may have as "radical feminism" that seeks to oppress men. 

But what is really unfair, and what is my issue, is holding men to a lesser standard than women. We let nasty comments from men pass, then jumped on the attack when a woman did the same. She should not get a pass, but neither should any man when they do the same. If we want to be taken seriously and respected, we have to stand up for what is right. We don't get to let it go "because Catherine did the same thing." It does not work for my five year old and it sure as hell does not work for a man. It is unbecoming and beneath us.


----------



## PHTlump

Tall Average Guy said:


> That is not what I am saying.


My mistake. I thought that was exactly what you were saying. You wrote, "when broad statements are made painting all women as believing they are owed something by men, it does not seem like a stretch to interpret other statements through that lens." It seemed like you were advocating using that single post to color many other posts. If you were simply excusing using the post to color the many other posts, then I apologize. I missed the subtle difference.



> That post was not deleted for a number of days. Yet in that time, no other man thought it necessary to step up and object. Rather, additional posts complaining about women abusing the system were added.


The post you objected to seemed more crankish and less worthy of reply to me than it did to you. I often don't feel the need to respond to posts that are obvious claptrap. The difference between the poster who stated that all women feel that they are owed something by men and Catherine602, is that Catherine's posts are sober. They are reasoned. They reflect the position of a respectable woman who firmly believes that the only just and moral position on divorce court is that women should be able to use the coercive power of government to hose men. And it is the duty of fathers to just shut up and take it, or report to jail. To me, that's much more concerning than some dude who posts that all women feel entitled, and then deletes his post.



> I disagree with Catherine's post. It is not clear that the position you ascribe to her is accurate, or that it has been that consistent. But that does not matter, in that I think that position is wrong.


I think I have fairly portrayed her views. At least that has been my intention. And I'm certainly glad that we agree that she is wrong and that the courts should be unbiased.



> So what? None of the men here had a problem with his post. No one said that was too far, that all women are not like that.


You're confusing silence with agreement. If someone posts that the Earth is flat, I will disagree with that person. But I probably won't respond. His views don't really affect me. It goes without saying that not ALL women are a certain way. If our standard for debate is going to be that ALL generalizations, even when worded as universal statements, MUST be disputed, then we will spend all our time disputing generalizations rather than discussing whatever issue is at hand. If that is your desire, then I will leave you to it.



> :rofl: Why don't you just provide a link to your political talking points and stop the "radical feminist agenda" baiting?


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...sh-bill-to-close-wage-gap-between-sexes/?_r=0
UNICEF - Early Childhood - Early Gender Socialization
Mum's the word now that fatherhood's redundant - Opinion - www.smh.com.au
Discrimination Against Women - Gender Discrimination Against Women, From Cradle to CEO



> You state that men are not powerless, yet have posted about all the laws that harm men, that women as a group will fight them being changed, and ignore that there are inequalities for women just as there are for men.


Do you think that laws that harm men make them powerless? I don't. Let's do a thought experiment. Say I play Michael Jordan one on one in basketball. The first one to score 50 points wins. But, I insist on starting with a 47-0 lead. Now, is that fair? Not really. Does that mean Michael Jordan is powerless against me in a basketball game? Absolutely not. He would probably win some games. Let's say he wins 18% of the games I play against him. Would he have a legitimate beef against the rules that dictate that he starts at a disadvantage? I would say so. Or would you tell him to just shut up and be grateful that he is allowed to win the 18% that he currently does? Or would you suggest that any complaining about the rules would constitute an unfair attack on me?



> You clearly are playing the victim card on this, despite your protestations to the contrary. You also clearly would rather rail against the wind rather than convince others of the appropriateness of your goals. It is contrary to what a man should do, and, however inadvertently, I think you have provided a keen insight into the difficulties some men have. I will leave you to that and wish you luck.


If you think that advocating for an unbiased and neutral court system means playing the victim card, then I suppose I am guilty as charged. I don't have the stones to tell a man that has bankrupted himself by fighting for access to his children that he should just shut up and go along to get along. We might anger the womyn if we point out the problems that exist in the system.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> I've never heard any woman in my life say she believed any of these items. Not one. I read that list several times over and nope, never heard even one of them ever stated.
> 
> This all just makes me sad.


Great. You're hanging with the right crowd. Personally, I've seen most of those views advocated on TAM threads.


----------



## PHTlump

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am not claiming you raised it out of thin air. I am claiming that asserting that there is only one concern being raised (and conveniently the one that is most easily dismissed) calls into question your true motive.


I was simply responding to a post of yours. If you don't want to discuss female CEOs, then don't post about the issue.



> So now it is just feminists, rather than "radical feminists"?


Well, these days, it's somewhat redundant. What are reasonable feminists out for? The vote? The right to own property? I'm right there with them. When is the next suffrage march?



> Again, what is unfair is you flippantly dismissing real concerns that some women rightfully have. What is unfair is you painting every issue that a woman may have as "radical feminism" that seeks to oppress men.


I'm not flippantly dismissing an issue that women may have. I'm simply acknowledging that our family court system has jumped the shark. It is unfairly biased toward women. I continue to miss how you can misconstrue that position into a hatred of women, or an attack on women. I am acknowledging the fact that divorce incentives favor women and the fact that feminism is what led us here.

I'm not saying there is no place for equal rights for women. I'm saying that feminism should stop at equal rights and not push on to disadvantage men in order to favor women. I guess that makes me a radical womyn-hater.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

PHTlump said:


> I was simply responding to a post of yours. If you don't want to discuss female CEOs, then don't post about the issue.


Actually, I just responded to your post. I never raised it before you did.



> Well, these days, it's somewhat redundant. What are reasonable feminists out for? The vote? The right to own property? I'm right there with them. When is the next suffrage march?
> 
> I'm not flippantly dismissing an issue that women may have. I'm simply acknowledging that our family court system has jumped the shark. It is unfairly biased toward women. I continue to miss how you can misconstrue that position into a hatred of women, or an attack on women. I am acknowledging the fact that divorce incentives favor women and the fact that feminism is what led us here.


Except that anything contrary to your approved world view is labeled as "radical feminism." So when you dismiss anything you don't agree with with the back of your hand and attack a poster for anti-male views but see fit to ignore a post that is clearly anti-female, it becomes difficult to parse other statements through any other lens. That is not the way anyone works, including you. 



> I'm not saying there is no place for equal rights for women. I'm saying that feminism should stop at equal rights and not push on to disadvantage men in order to favor women. I guess that makes me a radical womyn-hater.


Absolutely. Poor you. Good thing you aren't trying to play the victim. You certainly did not like women enough to stand up and object when they were attacked. It would have been easy enough to stand up and say this was too far, many women are not the enemy, and saying otherwise is self defeating. But you chose not to. It is certainly consistent with your position that if someone disagrees with you, they are a "radical feminist" trying to portray you as hating women. There is no real room for discussion and dialog. I don't live in that binary world, and as such, I don't see much point in continuing. I will leave you with the last word on this.


----------



## john_lord_b3

PHTlump said:


> You're confusing silence with agreement. If someone posts that the Earth is flat, I will disagree with that person. But I probably won't respond. His views don't really affect me. It goes without saying that not ALL women are a certain way. If our standard for debate is going to be that ALL generalizations, even when worded as universal statements, MUST be disputed, then we will spend all our time disputing generalizations rather than discussing whatever issue is at hand.


Actually Mr. Lump, at the very first page of this thread,

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-c...oles-marriage-todays-society.html#post2436289

I already made a statement that "we can't paint women's rights advocates with the same brush.." 

But I understand your point, if for everything we said, we have to qualify that "this is just generalization, surely not all like that" then yes, the debates will be very lengthy..


----------



## Fallen Leaf

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel this way also....if our daughter doesn't go to College, she will be looked upon as "less" / foolish / low class even... through society's eyes...even IF she marries the best man around, others will still find her foolish...


Yes, this is one of my reasons too why I want my girls to go to college. It is something that society has put on women, although, this could really just be something women put on each other. I felt the same way growing up too about going to college and I went because (initially) I was told that I was too stupid for college and that it would be a waste of money. It hurt but I fought it because I was afraid to end up with a husband who couldn't be a man and needed to have a degree and knowledge to go through life on my own, AND, I wanted to prove them wrong...but that was not the number one reason...it just felt like it came with it.



> I've never been independent on my own..other than living in a camper in someone's back yard for a summer when I was 18.... I had my own car & a steady job.....
> 
> I contributed near equally (if not more so) -in our early yrs/dating & into our 1st year married ... in savings & financially till we had our 1st child....then he willingly /wantingly took on the full financial burden - which to him...he never looked upon as a burden but a privilege....because he had a family he loved & wanted to be there for in every way... Good men DO this.... and I wasn't a slacker by any means sitting at home eating bon bons, though I did enjoy some Soap Operas .


I'm completely with you here. I contributed a lot more in the beginning of our marriage too. Before we married though, I was independent and my husband was still living at home, rent free and no bills except for his maxed out cc on junk. I paid off his cc and bought him a new car (he had an old clunker) so he could use to do construction work. It paid good at the time so the car was more like an investment. Good men do work hard because they want the best for their family. I love that about them. And, it does sound like we just lounge around...LOL...not the case.



> I'd consider us both ..."*Inter*dependent" - not independent from each other, different roles but both valued... working together towards our goals...
> 
> Explained like this >>
> 
> 
> So in this way...never even thought about it till I landed here -but I've never been ashamed of "depending" on my husband...he's never, for a day, made Me feel this way....he tells me I am the brains of the outfit, it'd all fall apart without me. Only society does this.. posts on this forum...Men seem to do it less frequently over women even....which I understand they are speaking out of their experiences -being left by a man -or that fear....
> 
> I'd be the 1st to tell any woman... It matters SO MUCH the type of man you marry.....what kind of family did he come from...what are his values, has he proven how deeply he feels about family, honor, is he a man of integrity...and this goes for both sides of the aisle.. ....as women can screw men too - and badly...never jump in too quick... Test each character with sweet TIME...
> 
> I still believe GOOD men like that exist...though they are drowning...when they look around & not feel appreciated
> 
> We are doing our best to raise 5 of them... Though we are an older fashioned family in many regards... it's like going against the wind in this society.. .
> 
> But all you hear today from others is ...."Why would you want to get married, it all goes to hell after that ?"...they are told they aren't mature till almost 30... live it up... meanwhile people are making in grained lifestyle habits that may be a struggle to break when they find a compatible match.
> 
> Just my 2 cents from a Happy wife & SAHM..


Agree! Although, when I first became a SAHM, I felt ashamed. I had always worked and had been independent and a provider for a long time. I felt very empowered to be able to hold a good job and to have a strong voice in what I did. It was a great feeling and when I gave that up to be a SAHM, I felt like I lost a part of me because I don't use that part of me anymore...and it's because I don't need to but just to experience that. To feel needed by both men and women equals at a company + bring income is really an empowering feeling. Watching my kids was so different that it was hard for me to grasp it all. They needed me and I gave but it wasn't the same empowering feeling. One day though, one of my kids' teacher asked husband a question and he told the teacher to talk to me because I was the CEO. It made me smile and I realized then that I really am the boss here...LOL! Now I love being a SAHM...and don't really want to go back to work outside the home unless I have to.

I do think there are good men out there...there just doesn't seem to be too many around. 

Wow... 5 boys? That's awesome. 

It's too bad what society is doing to the younger generations. Maybe someday things will turn around. Maybe it'll take one generation to stand up and prove that marriage is a beautiful thing.


----------



## treyvion

Deejo said:


> "We're not happy, 'til you're not happy."


Well when we are not "happy" then we realize that there's a problem.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> *I firmly believe that many men do need to ACTIVELY think and behave differently than their current frame of reference allows.*


:iagree:
I can understand that some women may prefer their men to be a certain way.I can understand if they might feel threatened by the notion of men doing what they want , and defining themselves how _they_ see fit , rejecting the watered down, cyberspace version of what society now says men should be.

That's their preference/ bias.
Everyone has them, so its no " biggie " for me.

But what pizzes me off is when some men try to project their own insecurities on other men who are genuinely trying to find their way, and redefine themselves using a different term of reference.

When I was in my 20's and married, I struggled to build a business. It took years, even though I was qualified , our country was deep in recession.Today I'm in a much better position.

Now in my 40's and doing well, I look around and see young men half my age , well qualified , owning their businesses and living the lifestyle I could have only dreamed of when I was their age.
Things are better now, they have more opportunities.
I genuinely feel glad to see them trying and succeeding, so I show them respect, and offer help wherever it might be needed, even though I might not fully agree with their methods.

Civilizations are built on the shoulders of the generations that went before.


----------



## Suspecting

I think at some point human females will evolve into parthenogenesis and males are not needed for anything except maybe as workforce.


----------



## PHTlump

Tall Average Guy said:


> Except that anything contrary to your approved world view is labeled as "radical feminism." So when you dismiss anything you don't agree with with the back of your hand and attack a poster for anti-male views but see fit to ignore a post that is clearly anti-female, it becomes difficult to parse other statements through any other lens. That is not the way anyone works, including you.


Not at all. One can have a preference on taxes (higher, lower, income, consumption) without having any feminist implications. But, if one thinks that divorce courts should be biased in favor of women, well there's not really any way to portray that view except as radically feminist.

Also, there have been several cranky posts on this thread that I have not responded to. Those posts have been made by women and by men. For you to insist that I should either respond to all of the posts, or none of the posts is a silly position to take.



> Absolutely. Poor you. Good thing you aren't trying to play the victim.


Advocating for equal treatment means playing the victim? I'll just say that I disagree. I see nothing inherent in women to make me feel that we must handicap our court system to ensure that they win the majority of the cases.



> You certainly did not like women enough to stand up and object when they were attacked.


Your objection is that I wasn't chivalrous enough? Seriously? I guess I don't view women as weakly as you do. I think they can stand up for themselves, or even ignore a crankish statement and not get their panties in a twist about it. I guess you disagree. Whatever would the ladies do without a big strong man to stand up and stifle any offensive opinions? Why we might have to break out the fainting couches.


----------



## norajane

Suspecting said:


> I think at some point human females will evolve into parthenogenesis and males are not needed for anything except maybe as workforce.


That sounds horrifying.

And I don't think it will ever happen. 

There are women who actually love and appreciate the men in their lives, who do not see them as paychecks with sperm but as awesome companions, and wouldn't trade them for anything. We appreciate men for who they are, not for what we can use them for.


----------



## ocotillo

Suspecting said:


> I think at some point human females will evolve into parthenogenesis and males are not needed for anything except maybe as workforce.



Parthenogenesis is interesting with lizards, but higher mammals are different inasmuch as they have gender specific inheritance mechanisms where genetic sequences are expressed or suppressed depending upon the parent of origin. 

That's why gender of the two species makes such a huge difference with mammalian hybrids. A mule and a hinny for example are two very different animals

Parthenogenetic embryos in higher mammals are rarely viable because they receive a double dose of maternally imprinted genes. With humans, the process is pretty much limited to stem cell research.


----------



## Deejo

Suspecting said:


> I think at some point human females will evolve into parthenogenesis and males are not needed for anything except maybe as workforce.


Or as targets to complain at when that inevitable need arises in the female.


----------



## john_lord_b3

norajane said:


> That sounds horrifying.
> 
> And I don't think it will ever happen.
> 
> There are women who actually love and appreciate the men in their lives, who do not see them as paychecks with sperm but as awesome companions, and wouldn't trade them for anything. We appreciate men for who they are, not for what we can use them for.


:iagree::smthumbup:


----------



## Fallen Leaf

john_lord_b3 said:


> I know I have the feeling that is not 100% true. I read quotes by feminists such as Andrea Dworkin. Then I read quotes by Tom Leykis, Warren Fareel, and read books by Christina Sommers and also by Suzanne Venker, and get exactly opposites. So, I turn to other source to make sense out of conflicting information.
> 
> Maybe this is useful for comparison: in my country, girls are always taught to be careful, to be wary, because my country used to have very high crime rate, including and especially in the capital, and most high in 1998 during Asian financial crisis. Now we are getting better, but the cautiousness still remain. Also the concept of clan and family honor are still strong in many Asian countries including mine, so girls are taught to be extra wary and extra cautious to ensure not to tarnish the honor of the clan. I hope I make sense?
> 
> THank you for sharing your story, and I am happy to hear that you grow up to be a balanced person, despite having a childhood full of struggles. This shows strength of character, maybe learned from your father. :smthumbup:
> 
> And also, thank you very very much for the discussions, it is a great pleasure for me to be educated by your insights. *respectful bow*


There doesn't seem to be much difference between your country and America. Even in America, there are families who hold on to their cultures and clan.

I looked a few of those authors up. I think they are koo-koo but to each his/her own. Believe them with a grain of salt, if you should. 

When I said "victim," I meant, not taking charge of their life and always blaming men and society for their problems. What you are talking about is a different situation all together and similar here as well. Women are taught to be careful here. There are ghetto places in America where a woman does not need to be by herself. In fact, it doesn't have to be a ghetto place. It could be almost anywhere. I'm pretty sure it's like that around the world. But, I'd have to say, it might be less safe for women where you are because if a women got raped, it would be tough luck for the women, whereas here, there is a chance the guy could go to jail for a long time.

You stated: *I know there are cultural differences between us, maybe it is difficult for non-Asian to understand.*

Just wanted to clarify that you can't distinguish race in America. An American is an American whether he/she is Asian, Hispanic, Black, White, Mixed, or any other color. What you said is what separates people. You've set boundaries right there. How do you know I'm not Asian? How do you know that some of the other posters are not Asian? It's not about the race, but cultural differences. Just something to think about.

...and thank you too for the conversation. You've enlightened me.


----------



## Nynaeve

Faithful Wife said:


> Am I the only one on this thread who has worked in a family law office and personally seen the workings behind divorces, how they turn out, what judges have said, how custody was handled, etc? Because honestly...it is odd to read some of these comments that are all about blaming one gender or the other.


I'm a family law attorney.

In my experience, I've never seen the anti-male bias described in this thread.

Divorce laws and precedent vary from state to state. So I can't say for sure that it doesn't happen.

But I've never seen it. When fathers want to get custody, they usually get at least 50/50. Even when the father doesn't seek primary custody, the normal custody and visitation arrangement grants visitation every other weekend, alternating holidays and 6 to 8 weeks in the summer.

Alimony is highly disfavored in my state (Wyoming). It takes extraordinary circumstances to get an award of alimony. The courts favor a one time division of assets. If one party worked and the other was a SAHP, the SAHP may be compensated with a larger award in the form of one or two lump payments. 

Our statutes specifically say that custody cannot be awarded to a parent on the grounds of the parent's gender alone. And we have adopted the "uniform" code which means that most states probably have the same language in their codes/statutes.

Child support is calculated according to presumptive guidelines which determine the combined net monthly income of the parents and determine what percentage of that should go to the children. The presumptive guidelines are evaluated every 4 years (by Federal mandate) to take into account the real world costs of raising children. Child support doesn't go to the wife. It goes to the custodial parent. I've personally seen just as many fathers as mothers get primary custody when it has been contested.

The primary consideration of the courts is what is in the best interest of the children. They have a series of factors that they look at to help them determine this. One thing they weigh heavily is which parent has provided the majority of the every-day care of the children (who is the primary caregiver). This is because they recognize that children need stability. Divorce destabilizes their lives, so courts try to keep as much of the status quo as possible for the children. So if the mom did most of the diaper changing, feeding, clothing, morning and evening routines, taking care of the kids when sick (including leaving work to do that), taking them to daycare or school, etc, the mom is most likely to be awarded primary custody because that is seen as less of a drastic change for the children.

And let's face it - that is the woman's traditional "role". Someone said early in this thread that women always have that role of mother and so we aren't having this existential crisis that men are facing by the loss of their traditional role. And yet, if women's role is "mother" (which translates to primary caregiver of the children) then of course women are more often going to get primary custody. 

Most of the time, people settle. And when they do, they either opt for 50/50 or both parties agree to the mother having primary custody. TBH, most of the men who went for visitation, IME, may have wanted more than every other weekend, but they didn't really want to be responsible for the kids full time. After all, their role is to work and bring home a paycheck and they were happy with that role as a mark of their masculinity. It was the wife's role to care for the kids. Their concept of what their role was in their children's lives didn't change post-divorce. They paid child support which is essentially the same thing they had been doing before by being the primary earner in the marriage.


Also: Hi, I'm new here. Am really enjoying this discussion as it's (for the most part) quite friendly.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Fallen Leaf said:


> I looked a few of those authors up. I think they are koo-koo but to each his/her own. Believe them with a grain of salt, if you should.


Indeed! I agree that we should always be comparing one author with another to get the broader perspectives.



> When I said "victim," I meant, not taking charge of their life and always blaming men and society for their problems.


Ah yes, this I could understand. We as adult must be responsible for our own choices.



> What you are talking about is a different situation all together and similar here as well. Women are taught to be careful here. There are ghetto places in America where a woman does not need to be by herself. In fact, it doesn't have to be a ghetto place. It could be almost anywhere. I'm pretty sure it's like that around the world. But, I'd have to say, it might be less safe for women where you are because if a women got raped, it would be tough luck for the women, whereas here, there is a chance the guy could go to jail for a long time.


Oh, it's same here. Rape is considered a serious crime, punishable by maximum of 12 years prison time for the criminal, according to our Canon Law section 285. And this could be accumulative depending on the case, for example: rape+breaking in+robbery, that would certainly be more than 12 years. And if the victim died, the criminal could face a life sentence or a firing squad, usually the latter.

Last year we just executed this person for rape and murder of a college student. Oleng, pembunuh dan pemerkosa mahasiswi UIN divonis hukuman mati | merdeka.com

I tried to translate with google translate here :Google Translate but translation not perfect.



> Just wanted to clarify that you can't distinguish race in America. An American is an American whether he/she is Asian, Hispanic, Black, White, Mixed, or any other color. What you said is what separates people. You've set boundaries right there. How do you know I'm not Asian? How do you know that some of the other posters are not Asian? It's not about the race, but cultural differences. Just something to think about.
> 
> ...and thank you too for the conversation. You've enlightened me.


Ah yes. I must remind myself constantly that not all Westerners are white! 

*standing bow* thank you again!


----------



## wilderness

Nynaeve said:


> I'm a family law attorney.
> 
> In my experience, I've never seen the anti-male bias described in this thread.


I don't believe you. Sorry to be so blunt, but this statement deeply offends me because I know that it is not true. How do I know this? Because I know that where you practice law (just like everywhere else), men do not have the option of using restraining orders to establish a custody advantage. Until you- or anyone else- can provide me with verifiable caselaw that demonstrates that in your area (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter) men get restraining orders at the same rate as women in divorce, it is _obvious_ that this is untrue.



> Divorce laws and precedent vary from state to state. So I can't say for sure that it doesn't happen.
> 
> But I've never seen it. When fathers want to get custody, they usually get at least 50/50. Even when the father doesn't seek primary custody, the normal custody and visitation arrangement grants visitation every other weekend, alternating holidays and 6 to 8 weeks in the summer.


The standard schedule (aka 'the EOW screwjob') is a disgrace. There is no way one can raise a child while only seeing the child every other weekend. It is managing one parent out of the child's life. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe you that 'most' men that want custody get at least 50/50. T.



> Alimony is highly disfavored in my state (Wyoming). It takes extraordinary circumstances to get an award of alimony. The courts favor a one time division of assets. If one party worked and the other was a SAHP, the SAHP may be compensated with a larger award in the form of one or two lump payments.


Right, an 'equity' state where the 'equity' is anything but equitable. It's also standard for the non custodial parent to be awarded most to all of the debt as well, though you failed to mention that important tidbit.



> Our statutes specifically say that custody cannot be awarded to a parent on the grounds of the parent's gender alone. And we have adopted the "uniform" code which means that most states probably have the same language in their codes/statutes.


Courts may _say_ that they don't award custody based on gender. The reality is that they do. In every state.



> Child support is calculated according to presumptive guidelines which determine the combined net monthly income of the parents and determine what percentage of that should go to the children. The presumptive guidelines are evaluated every 4 years (by Federal mandate) to take into account the real world costs of raising children. Child support doesn't go to the wife. It goes to the custodial parent. I've personally seen just as many fathers as mothers get primary custody when it has been contested.


Important to note re: federal guidelines. The non custodial parent is forced to work and provide child support or go to jail. The custodial parent may have their income 'imputed' to slightly alter the amount of child support awarded, but the custodial parent is never forced to financially support their child. In fact, custodial parents can use the child support money for whatever they want without consequence.



> The primary consideration of the courts is what is in the best interest of the children.


The courts _say_ that the primary consideration is the best interest of the children. In reality, the courts _harm_ children everyday. If the courts truly cared about children, they would abolish no fault divorce, they would not allow mother's to gain custody advantages and remove innocent men from their homes via false restraining orders, and they wouldn't consistently remove children from parents lives via EOW screwjob.



> They have a series of factors that they look at to help them determine this. One thing they weigh heavily is which parent has provided the majority of the every-day care of the children (who is the primary caregiver). This is because they recognize that children need stability.


The courts _say_ that they recognize that children need stability. Problem is, one parent divorcing the other over another woman or man is one of the most destabilizing events that could possibly happen in a child's life...yet the courts _support_ this. And what do the court's do to promote stability? They often almost totally remove one parent from children's lives. 
And of course, we all know about the matching federal funds that child support collected nets for the state. Can you say 'conflict of interest'?
Sorry, the evidence is overwhelming that courts do not care about children.




> Divorce destabilizes their lives, so courts try to keep as much of the status quo as possible for the children. So if the mom did most of the diaper changing, feeding, clothing, morning and evening routines, taking care of the kids when sick (including leaving work to do that), taking them to daycare or school, etc, the mom is most likely to be awarded primary custody because that is seen as less of a drastic change for the children.


This is the company line but it's not the reality. The reality is that temporary orders are what almost always determine custody. As such, the preferred legal strategy of most divorce lawyers is to file for a restraining order, get the man out of the house, and then file for temporary exclusive use of the home. In the temporary hearing in this scenario, men don't stand a chance. Once the trial comes along, long after the restraining order has been dropped, the 'status quo' is used as the pretense to make the order permanent.

In the event that the restraining order tactic fails (men are getting wise to it and recording everything these days), a temporary hearing normally lasts _minutes_. Witnesses are usually not allowed to be called, evidence is not allowed to be presented, and both sides are given a chance to give the judge an 'elevator pitch'. If the man works outside the home at a professional job, _regardless of whether he was the primary caregiver or not_, the woman usually wins based on the 'he works all the time' argument. Once the temporary orders are secure, they almost always become permanent.



> And let's face it - that is the woman's traditional "role". Someone said early in this thread that women always have that role of mother and so we aren't having this existential crisis that men are facing by the loss of their traditional role. And yet, if women's role is "mother" (which translates to primary caregiver of the children) then of course women are more often going to get primary custody.


Now we are talking. The courts _assume_ that the mother is the primary caregiver of the children. That's called presumption, and it directly contradicts what you said earlier about lack of gender bias. Furthermore, men are never _practically_ given the real opportunity to rebut that presumption. The temporary hearings are short and devoid of evidence and witnesses. The courts claim that they don't have the time for evidence and witnesses! Which begs the question, how do you remove a parent from a child's life based on a 5-10 minute temporary hearing without evidences and witnesses?
Question for you, counselor- what does that say about what you do for a living?



> Most of the time, people settle.


We made him an offer he couldn't refuse.



> And when they do, they either opt for 50/50 or both parties agree to the mother having primary custody. TBH, most of the men who went for visitation, IME, may have wanted more than every other weekend, but they didn't really want to be responsible for the kids full time. After all, their role is to work and bring home a paycheck and they were happy with that role as a mark of their masculinity. It was the wife's role to care for the kids. Their concept of what their role was in their children's lives didn't change post-divorce. They paid child support which is essentially the same thing they had been doing before by being the primary earner in the marriage.


No way. Most men are not happy with being removed from children's lives, they just felt they had no better practical alternative and they didn't want to put their kids through a custody battle.


----------



## Red Sonja

This thread (IMHO) started with a valid premise for discussion and has devolved into a lot of emotional- experience-based gender bashing. And that is sad but seems to be the way of things these days. For context, I am a 56 year old married (26 years) woman and I am not a “feminist”.

The problems arising in marriage and divorce are not caused by “all men” or “all women”; rather it is people (of either gender) who are either character disordered, exceedingly self-centered and/or have a sense of entitlement in life. In my experience it is the “entitlement factor” that is most relevant problem in today’s marriages/divorces and in society in general … it is of almost epidemic proportions. I see it in people of all ages, genders, and income levels.

As to divorce, yes I agree that marriage and divorce laws could do with a major overhaul … bottom line for me is 50/50 child custody and 50/50 split of marital assets and debt, and then post-divorce people support themselves separately and support their children jointly … period.

That said: I must take issue with one horrendous misstatement of fact in the thread:



Battle_Cats said:


> And I'm asking again because you still haven't answered, if women are getting the majority degrees and better grades, then how come they aren't building companies like crazy? Where is the female Google or Facebook or Apple or Ford? Certainly no one is stopping them. So where are they?


The fact is that women do start companies and build businesses and have been doing it for many decades … 10’s of millions of business in the current market, look at the pertinent .gov website if you want the statistics. I personally have started four companies in my life-time, all engineering businesses employing 65+ employees making above median USA salaries. If you are using the internet at this moment you are using one of my inventions … a certain high-speed fiber-optic data bus. When you order food at any of 5 major fast-food chains in the USA, the fact that you can communicate with your server without the interference of ambient noise (from your car, the kitchen, etc.) is due to another of my inventions … a certain digital receiver.

I AM NOT UNIQUE OR SPECIAL, I am an ordinary educated woman who saw a need and an application and a market for which I had an invention (idea). Men and women do this all the time. It is more due to motivation, drive and know-how than gender.


----------



## wilderness

Where I live (Northeast, USA) it is very common for men to start companies and put them in their wives or mother's names. Why? Because of the perks. It seems that many companies have quotas in dealing with minority owned companies as vendors. Woman are considered minorities in this respect. Also, press releases are easier to come by for female owned companies; it's easier to get memberships and face time with trade groups in general; and it's an advantage when bidding on government contracts.
All of this I can personally verify to be true based on my experience with 3 startups in the past. One was female owned (though run by the husband), 2 were male owned.

Mothers, and women in general, are a protected class in today's world.

This is not an indictment on women in general, but it is a political and social reality.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Nynaeve said:


> I'm a family law attorney.
> 
> In my experience, I've never seen the anti-male bias described in this thread.
> 
> Divorce laws and precedent vary from state to state. So I can't say for sure that it doesn't happen.
> 
> But I've never seen it. When fathers want to get custody, they usually get at least 50/50. Even when the father doesn't seek primary custody, the normal custody and visitation arrangement grants visitation every other weekend, alternating holidays and 6 to 8 weeks in the summer.
> 
> Alimony is highly disfavored in my state (Wyoming). It takes extraordinary circumstances to get an award of alimony. The courts favor a one time division of assets. If one party worked and the other was a SAHP, the SAHP may be compensated with a larger award in the form of one or two lump payments.
> 
> Our statutes specifically say that custody cannot be awarded to a parent on the grounds of the parent's gender alone. And we have adopted the "uniform" code which means that most states probably have the same language in their codes/statutes.
> 
> Child support is calculated according to presumptive guidelines which determine the combined net monthly income of the parents and determine what percentage of that should go to the children. The presumptive guidelines are evaluated every 4 years (by Federal mandate) to take into account the real world costs of raising children. Child support doesn't go to the wife. It goes to the custodial parent. I've personally seen just as many fathers as mothers get primary custody when it has been contested.
> 
> The primary consideration of the courts is what is in the best interest of the children. They have a series of factors that they look at to help them determine this. One thing they weigh heavily is which parent has provided the majority of the every-day care of the children (who is the primary caregiver). This is because they recognize that children need stability. Divorce destabilizes their lives, so courts try to keep as much of the status quo as possible for the children. So if the mom did most of the diaper changing, feeding, clothing, morning and evening routines, taking care of the kids when sick (including leaving work to do that), taking them to daycare or school, etc, the mom is most likely to be awarded primary custody because that is seen as less of a drastic change for the children.
> 
> And let's face it - that is the woman's traditional "role". Someone said early in this thread that women always have that role of mother and so we aren't having this existential crisis that men are facing by the loss of their traditional role. And yet, if women's role is "mother" (which translates to primary caregiver of the children) then of course women are more often going to get primary custody.
> 
> Most of the time, people settle. And when they do, they either opt for 50/50 or both parties agree to the mother having primary custody. TBH, most of the men who went for visitation, IME, may have wanted more than every other weekend, but they didn't really want to be responsible for the kids full time. After all, their role is to work and bring home a paycheck and they were happy with that role as a mark of their masculinity. It was the wife's role to care for the kids. Their concept of what their role was in their children's lives didn't change post-divorce. They paid child support which is essentially the same thing they had been doing before by being the primary earner in the marriage.
> 
> 
> Also: Hi, I'm new here. Am really enjoying this discussion as it's (for the most part) quite friendly.


I think this is a great post.

What really baffles me is men who or women ( but statistically more men) who left the child rearing to the other parent yet suddenly want 50/50 when it comes to divorce.


----------



## Caribbean Man

john_lord_b3 said:


> Oh, it's same here. Rape is considered a serious crime, punishable by maximum of 12 years prison time for the criminal, according to our Canon Law section 285. And this could be accumulative depending on the case, for example: rape+breaking in+robbery, that would certainly be more than 12 years. And if the victim died, the criminal could face a life sentence or a firing squad, usually the latter.


Interesting.

In our country, the maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment.And it does include marital rape.

In legal terms, rape [ female ] is considered as the penetration of the mouth , anus , vagina of a female with the penis , finger or an instrument without that woman's consent.
Also ,in a strict legal sense, a drunk woman , a mental challenged woman cannot give consent for sex. If a man has sexual intercourse with a drunk woman and she claims rape , he cannot win his case, especially if she reports it and she is tested by a professional in the police station.
By law, every police stations must have these rape kits , and there must be a female police office to perform the tests. If there are no kits , or a WPC 
[ woman police officer ] present , the victim can sue the state.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*LittleDeer* said:


> I think this is a great post.
> 
> What really baffles me is men who or women ( but statistically more men) who left the child rearing to the other parent yet suddenly want 50/50 when it comes to divorce.


If the concept of marriage is based on the egalitarian 50/50 concept, then the divorce must be the same.
That's why IMO, the 50/50 concept can only be an ideal to be aspired 
to ,but it is not something that is practical in every single case.
Different marriage models are workable but each couple should custom tailor the fundamentals on which their marriages are based.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Red Sonja said:


> The problems arising in marriage and divorce are not caused by “all men” or “all women”;* rather it is people (of either gender) who are either character disordered, exceedingly self-centered and/or have a sense of entitlement in life. In my experience it is the “entitlement factor” that is most relevant problem in today’s marriages/divorces and in society in general … it is of almost epidemic proportions. I see it in people of all ages, genders, and income levels.*


Could not have said it^^^ better myself.
Irish poet,William Butler Yeates said it best in this early 19 th century poem, 

The Second Coming .

_"..Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.."_

Narcissism seems to be the disease eating away at the institution of marriage , which is the very root of modern society.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Caribbean Man said:


> Interesting.
> 
> In our country, the maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment.And it does include marital rape.
> 
> In legal terms, rape [ female ] is considered as the penetration of the mouth , anus , vagina of a female with the penis , finger or an instrument without that woman's consent.
> Also ,in a strict legal sense, a drunk woman , a mental challenged woman cannot give consent for sex. If a man has sexual intercourse with a drunk woman and she claims rape , he cannot win his case, especially if she reports it and she is tested by a professional in the police station.
> By law, every police stations must have these rape kits , and there must be a female police office to perform the tests. If there are no kits , or a WPC
> [ woman police officer ] present , the victim can sue the state.


Ah, our legal terms for rape are similar, only the specific punishment (numbers of years) differs. Indeed, our respective countries deemed rape as a serious crime, and our laws reflects this. 

BTW, Mr. CM, when was the last time a person faced the firing squad due to rape-related crime in your country? Did it made it to the top news? Our government just executed one rapist last year (see my post in the preceding page), and it made top news.


----------



## Caribbean Man

john_lord_b3 said:


> Ah, our legal terms for rape are similar, only the specific punishment (numbers of years) differs. Indeed, our respective countries deemed rape as a serious crime, and our laws reflects this.
> 
> BTW, Mr. CM, when was the last time a person faced the firing squad due to rape-related crime in your country? Did it made it to the top news? Our government just executed one rapist last year (see my post in the preceding page), and it made top news.


No.
We don't have a firing squad.
But the death sentence is given to convicted murderers only, and this consist of death by hanging.

Convicted rapist get life imprisonment maximum sentence based on the severity of the offence.
If a man abducts a woman and rapes her, or if he breaks into her home , beats and rapes her ,most likely he will be sentenced for life. But most rapists , and pedophiles are beaten to death in prison by other inmates.
So its really like a death sentence.
If a man has " consensual " sex with an under aged girl [ under 18 ] it is considered rape, and carries a minimum sentence of about 15 years. Even if there was no actual penetration , but the girl admitted to performing oral sex on him or vice versa, or handjob or any sexual contact , he will be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years.
However , if a man rapes [ non consensual sex ] a girl below 18 years, he will be imprisoned for life. 

Those cases are stacked heavily against the offender because the magistrates that adjudicate over those type of offences are usually female.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you for the voice of reason, Nynaeve. And Welcome!


----------



## Nynaeve

wilderness said:


> I don't believe you. Sorry to be so blunt, but this statement deeply offends me because I know that it is not true. How do I know this? Because I know that where you practice law (just like everywhere else), men do not have the option of using restraining orders to establish a custody advantage. Until you- or anyone else- can provide me with verifiable caselaw that demonstrates that in your area (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter) men get restraining orders at the same rate as women in divorce, it is _obvious_ that this is untrue.


I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Protective orders are available to anyone regardless of their gender. We have a procedure called "ex parte protection orders" where anyone can file for an order and have it granted immediately on a prima facie showing of stalking, harassment, or FVPA (Family Violence Protection Act) violation. A hearing is then held within 72 hours to determine if the order should stick or not. I don't know that Wyoming has compiled statistics on which gender files them more. I do know that common practice amongst attorneys is to recommend that if someone has one filed against them, they should immediately get one too. The last case I worked in which protection orders were filed, both parties filed one and they ended up with 50/50 custody. Even though they lived in different towns.

I do know that protective orders don't stick after the initial 72 hours unless the person filing can bring some proof that it's warranted.

So, you've got an uphill battle to show that just because women get them more than men that it's somehow unfair to the men. That would tend to show that men commit acts of domestic violence more frequently than women do.

But I'd really interested if you could provide a source for your claim that women file them more than men in Wyoming. Otherwise, I don't think anyone is obligated to believe your assertion.




> The standard schedule (aka 'the EOW screwjob') is a disgrace. There is no way one can raise a child while only seeing the child every other weekend. It is managing one parent out of the child's life. And I'm sorry, but I don't believe you that 'most' men that want custody get at least 50/50. T.


Well I can't make you believe anything you don't want to believe.

That's been my experience, though.

And I agree that the every other weekend visitation is not enough time with the non-custodial parent. I think that as long as both parents are fit, 50/50 should be the norm. It's not favored when custody is contested in my state because our Supreme Court has reasoned that if parents can't cooperate with one another 50/50 custody becomes a nightmare for the kids. Joint custody requires a lot of parental cooperation and if they're not willing, it makes it tricky. The problem that I see with this is that it allows one parent to be a jerk and sabotage any chance of 50/50 if that parent thinks he or she has a better chance at primary custody. However, if it can be shown that one parent is being uncooperative and the other is trying to cooperate, the cooperative parent has a better chance at primary. That's one of the factors the legislature wrote into the statutes that courts should look at in determining the issue.





> Right, an 'equity' state where the 'equity' is anything but equitable. It's also standard for the non custodial parent to be awarded most to all of the debt as well, though you failed to mention that important tidbit.


LOL, I didn't mention it because that's not true. The division of assets is a separate consideration from custody. The spouse with the higher income is generally left with the most debts because that is equitable.

But even if it were true, for the sake of argument, I still don't see that as inequitable. The custodial parent has a lowered earning potential because of the demands placed on him or her by raising the kids. Having to take time off work when kids are sick, having a less flexible working schedule because of when school starts and ends. These things all tend to make a custodial parent less able to work overtime or even regular 8 to 5 schedule.

But, no, division of assets is a separate matter entirely from the custody and child support determinations. 



> Courts may _say_ that they don't award custody based on gender. The reality is that they do. In every state.


I don't think this is true. I think it _looks_ that way because people don't understand how important a consideration the "primary caregiver" status is to courts. Because of our cultural concept of male and female roles (i.e. men as financial providers, women as caretakers of home and children) it works out that women more often get primary custody. But it's not based on gender. It's based on which parent did the most actual parenting pre-divorce.



> Important to note re: federal guidelines. The non custodial parent is forced to work and provide child support or go to jail. The custodial parent may have their income 'imputed' to slightly alter the amount of child support awarded, but the custodial parent is never forced to financially support their child. In fact, custodial parents can use the child support money for whatever they want without consequence.


You've repeated this several times. But do you have any evidence that custodial parents are neglecting their children's needs and not spending child support on their children?

Just because one parent is providing a check each month for child support, doesn't mean that the custodial parent isn't spending money above and beyond that amount on their children.

The custodial parent is paying for food, housing, utilities, clothing, and extra-curriculars for the children. Children generally cost more to care for than the amount that is coming in for child support. The child support calculation is based on both parent's income. The percentage of the combined net income that should go to taking care of the children is calculated. Then each parent is assigned their proportionate share. So if one parent's income accounts for 60% of the combined net then that parent is responsible for 60% of the amount determined to be for the children. So, if mom is the custodial parent and she makes more than dad...his child support payment will be less than what she is responsible for. Just because she doesn't write a check to anyone for child support doesn't mean that she's not paying her fair share for the children's care.

Just because no one monitors what the custodial parent is spending his or her money on, doesn't mean that he or she is not spending it on the children.

If the children's needs are being neglected, the non-custodial parent needs to keep a record of that and report it to the family services/protection department and file to get primary custody. 



> The courts _say_ that the primary consideration is the best interest of the children. In reality, the courts _harm_ children everyday. If the courts truly cared about children, they would abolish no fault divorce, they would not allow mother's to gain custody advantages and remove innocent men from their homes via false restraining orders, and they wouldn't consistently remove children from parents lives via EOW screwjob.


Courts can't abolish no fault divorce. You need to take that up with legislatures. Courts have to follow the laws enacted by duly elected legislatures.

I don't know what EOW means. Not familiar with that acronym. 

As far as no-fault divorce. I don't think a lot of people really understand what that is. It just means that people don't have to prove that there was adultery or abuse in order to get a divorce. In other words, the courts will not deny a divorce - make people stay married - if there is no proof of wrongdoing. It doesn't have anything to do with custody disputes. The courts will look at evidence of wrongdoing in determining which parent is best fit to have primary custody.



> The courts _say_ that they recognize that children need stability. Problem is, one parent divorcing the other over another woman or man is one of the most destabilizing events that could possibly happen in a child's life...yet the courts _support_ this. And what do the court's do to promote stability? They often almost totally remove one parent from children's lives.


Well, this is not true. First, the courts aren't out there making people get divorce. They're not the ones who destabilize children's lives. The parents are the ones making that decision. Second, they very rarely "totally remove one parent from the children's lives." The right to associate with one's children is a fundamental, constitutional right. Unless there is really good reason (e.g. abuse), visitation is going to be awarded to the non-custodial parent. Yes, every other weekend is not enough time... but it's not "totally removed" either. The non-custodial parent is still very much a part of their children's lives.



> And of course, we all know about the matching federal funds that child support collected nets for the state. Can you say 'conflict of interest'?
> Sorry, the evidence is overwhelming that courts do not care about children.


How is that a conflict of interest? The states spend a lot of money to enforce child support orders. So the Federal government gives states an incentive to spend those funds.

Have you looked at the stats of how many people don't pay child support that they're ordered to pay? It's overwhelming.




> This is the company line but it's not the reality. The reality is that temporary orders are what almost always determine custody. As such, the preferred legal strategy of most divorce lawyers is to file for a restraining order, get the man out of the house, and then file for temporary exclusive use of the home. In the temporary hearing in this scenario, men don't stand a chance. Once the trial comes along, long after the restraining order has been dropped, the 'status quo' is used as the pretense to make the order permanent.


Nah. That's not the normal practice. 95% of divorces settle out of court. The vast majority do not involve restraining orders. I think perhaps you've looked at a biased sample. You see, the cases that make it to the supreme courts (the ones that end up being "case law") are the extremes. They don't represent most cases because most cases never even get decided by a judge, let alone appealed to the upper courts.



> In the event that the restraining order tactic fails (men are getting wise to it and recording everything these days), a temporary hearing normally lasts _minutes_. Witnesses are usually not allowed to be called, evidence is not allowed to be presented, and both sides are given a chance to give the judge an 'elevator pitch'. If the man works outside the home at a professional job, _regardless of whether he was the primary caregiver or not_, the woman usually wins based on the 'he works all the time' argument. Once the temporary orders are secure, they almost always become permanent.


Again, that has not been my experience. I've done a handful of protective order hearings and they all lasted a whole day. Both sides called witnesses and introduced exhibits. What you're describing is a clear violation of due process. It's not happening at nearly enough frequency to be called the norm. I have no doubt that it happens sometimes. Unfortunately, there are bad judges out there. But it just doesn't happen nearly as much as you claim.

And rulings at protective order hearings do often stick in custody matters because the evidence doesn't change.

As far as the "he works all the time" argument... again, that goes to who has been the primary caregiver and what is in the best interest of the children.



> Now we are talking. The courts _assume_ that the mother is the primary caregiver of the children. That's called presumption, and it directly contradicts what you said earlier about lack of gender bias.


No, there is no such presumption. I wish it were that easy sometimes, it would make my job easier when I represent the mother. But no, we have to provide evidence.

A few months ago I represented a father in a custody modification matter. The mom claimed she was the primary caregiver. But we offered testimony that dad did just as much of the day to day care of the kids. We got primary custody in that one.



> Furthermore, men are never _practically_ given the real opportunity to rebut that presumption. The temporary hearings are short and devoid of evidence and witnesses. The courts claim that they don't have the time for evidence and witnesses! Which begs the question, how do you remove a parent from a child's life based on a 5-10 minute temporary hearing without evidences and witnesses?


I don't know why you think the majority of custody cases are decided at protective order hearings. That's just not the truth. Most cases that are contested have full trials that can last days.



> Question for you, counselor- what does that say about what you do for a living?


LOL. It says nothing because what you describe is not, in fact, what I experience.



> We made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
> 
> No way. Most men are not happy with being removed from children's lives, they just felt they had no better practical alternative and they didn't want to put their kids through a custody battle.


I really don't think that's the case. The men that I have represented feel torn about it, for sure. But they often don't want to have to stop working overtime or stop traveling for work. They recognize, because they love their children, that mom is in the best position to have primary custody. These men don't _want_ to see their kids less, but they love them enough to realize that being with mom is better than being with a babysittter or daycare while dad does his two weeks at the oil rig (lot of roughnecks around here).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank god you're here, NY. I mean, seriously. I have wanted to say all the same things, but not being an attorney I knew no one would listen. However, having worked for several attorneys and judges, I have seen everything you are saying.

Judges are portrayed as people who are, for some inexplicable reason, just going to rampantly screw over men because they are men, and "give everything" to women just because they are women. Of course the only reason anyone ever gives for this supposedly happening is "the radical feminists made this happen".

What I have seen is fair judges and fair attorneys...who sometimes have fair clients but who sometimes have clients who are out for blood. It is the clients, not the attorneys and judges, who decide if they are out for blood or out for a divorce that is fair to all parties.

.


----------



## Nynaeve

Faithful Wife said:


> Thank god you're here, NY. I mean, seriously. I have wanted to say all the same things, but not being an attorney I knew no one would listen. However, having worked for several attorneys and judges, I have seen everything you are saying.
> 
> Judges are portrayed as people who are, for some inexplicable reason, just going to rampantly screw over men because they are men, and "give everything" to women just because they are women. Of course the only reason anyone ever gives for this supposedly happening is "the radical feminists made this happen".
> 
> What I have seen is fair judges and fair attorneys...who sometimes have fair clients but who sometimes have clients who are out for blood. It is the clients, not the attorneys and judges, who decide if they are out for blood or out for a divorce that is fair to all parties.
> 
> .



Yep. And thanks for the warm welcome! 

Also, most judges are men, still. Most of them are fathers, even. It's popular to demonize them and forget that they are people, too. Most have compassion, they try to be fair, they try to follow the law if for no other reason than it's a blow to their ego to get overturned on appeal, lol.

Every judge I know - and it's a small state, so I know a lot of them and regularly practice in front of all of them in my district as well as socialize with them - cares deeply about children. They are fiercely protective of children. They see so many cases of neglect, abandonment and abuse that when they have a case where the father actually _wants_ to care for his children, they bend over backwards to craft a custody order that honors that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, the judges I have seen in action are kind and fair and they don't take kindly to clients who are deliberately trying to screw each other over OR who are trying to keep custody away from each other. I have seen both men and women reprimanded for this...judges have seen everything. They know what happens. They end up taking the blame for the fact that these people are in crisis (during divorce) and are not thinking clearly - - these clients are out for blood because the emotional backlash creates a monster out of some people. The legal process is fair. It is people who want to specifically harm each other, not the courts. The judges make their decisions based on so much court experience, and each client who comes in only has their own experience...so they all feel so special and like the judge won't catch on to any petty games they are playing. This is not the case. Judges seen them coming a mile away. Judges also recognize clients who are sincerely NOT trying to screw each other over and they have compassion for them.

I have also seen bogus protective orders placed by MEN against WOMEN. When the hearing occurs, if a judge can determine the order was a bogus attempt to withhold custody or whatever, the spouse who filed it gets their hand slapped, not shaken.

.


----------



## wilderness

I'd like to preface my response with a statement to anyone that happens to be reading this that does not have a full opinion formed on this important issue: It is my sincere belief that Nynaeve has made a couple of extremely misleading and disingenuous posts. In my mind this is irresponsible and just plain wrong. Certain women have already come out in support of her posts, which disappoints me greatly. Please, carefully read my responses to her posts and try and apply logic and critical thinking to what both of us have written. 




Nynaeve said:


> I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Protective orders are available to anyone regardless of their gender. ).


Restraining orders may be _technically_ available to both genders but they are only _practically_ available to women. In other words the technical availability is of no use to real men going through real divorces.



> We have a procedure called "ex parte protection orders" where anyone can file for an order and have it granted immediately on a prima facie showing of stalking, harassment, or FVPA (Family Violence Protection Act) violation. A hearing is then held within 72 hours to determine if the order should stick or not. I don't know that Wyoming has compiled statistics on which gender files them more. I do know that common practice amongst attorneys is to recommend that if someone has one filed against them, they should immediately get one too. The last case I worked in which protection orders were filed, both parties filed one and they ended up with 50/50 custody. Even though they lived in different towns.


I have a feeling you know full well that men don't- and _can't_- get restraining orders against women without meeting a _much_ higher burden than women. To anyone reading this post, I'd recommend that you ask everyone you know that is divorced whether there was a restraining order involved in the divorce, and if so, who took it out (man or woman). .



> I do know that protective orders don't stick after the initial 72 hours unless the person filing can bring some proof that it's warranted.


It depends. If you are considering the testimony of a witness that has a clear incentive to gain a custody advantage as 'proof', than yes. Outside of that, no. There is a practical reasoning behind this; which is that no judge wants to make a mistake and end up on channel 4 when a man kills a woman after he refused to grant a restraining order. In other words, the judge often feels he has everything to lose and nothing to gain by refusing the order. Even if this is understandable, it's a miscarriage of the justice system regardless.



> So, you've got an uphill battle to show that just because women get them more than men that it's somehow unfair to the men. That would tend to show that men commit acts of domestic violence more frequently than women do.


It absolutely does NOT show men commit domestic violence more than women. First of all, restraining orders do not allege domestic violence. Second, you ignore that women have no burden to overcome to get these orders, and men do.
Also important to note that false claims of domestic violence against men are very common in divorces as well. Again, these are used to establish status quo. Women are rarely prosecuted for these claims. In fact they are rewarded for them, as like restraining orders, long after the charges are dropped the custody advantage remains.



> But I'd really interested if you could provide a source for your claim that women file them more than men in Wyoming. Otherwise, I don't think anyone is obligated to believe your assertion.


I thought you said that they don't keep those statistics? Again, to anyone reading this, anywhere, please ask the people you know that are divorced. You will very quickly discover that restraining orders are not a weapon that men have at their disposal.



> Well I can't make you believe anything you don't want to believe.
> 
> That's been my experience, though.


I don't believe you.



> And I agree that the every other weekend visitation is not enough time with the non-custodial parent. I think that as long as both parents are fit, 50/50 should be the norm. It's not favored when custody is contested in my state because our Supreme Court has reasoned that if parents can't cooperate with one another 50/50 custody becomes a nightmare for the kids. Joint custody requires a lot of parental cooperation and if they're not willing, it makes it tricky. *The problem that I see with this is that it allows one parent to be a jerk and sabotage any chance of 50/50 if that parent thinks he or she has a better chance at primary custody*.


Yes, this is one thing we are in agreement with.



> *However, if it can be shown that one parent is being uncooperative and the other is trying to cooperate, the cooperative parent has a better chance at primary*. That's one of the factors the legislature wrote into the statutes that courts should look at in determining the issue.


Again, I feel you are being disingenuous. While the bolded is certainly true, your insinuation makes it look like this is much more of a silver bullet/factor than it is in real life. In real life, anything and everything can- and is- used as the pretense to give the children to the mother even if she has executed the legal tactic you alluded to earlier.



> LOL, I didn't mention it because that's not true. The division of assets is a separate consideration from custody. *The spouse with the higher income is generally left with the most debts because that is equitable.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I certainly don't see it that way. As another poster aply pointed out earlier in this thread, marriage is the only contract that is financially rewarded for breaking. The equitable solution is NOT to reward the negligent party with less debt. (no, I'm not saying the higher earner is always the negligent party, I'm pointing out the flaw in the company line that Nynaeve is espousing) Furthermore, the problem with this type of 'equity' is that it invariably ignores the adjusted after divorce calculated incomes of both parties accounting for taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even if it were true, for the sake of argument, I still don't see that as inequitable. The custodial parent has a lowered earning potential because of the demands placed on him or her by raising the kids. Having to take time off work when kids are sick, having a less flexible working schedule because of when school starts and ends. These things all tend to make a custodial parent less able to work overtime or even regular 8 to 5 schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> And you simply ignore that the custodial parent is often (NOT always, please don't misunderstand me here) the party that was negligent in the marriage contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, no, division of assets is a separate matter entirely from the custody and child support determinations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, this is what the courts _say_ but not what they _do_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is true. I think it _looks_ that way because people don't understand how important a consideration the "primary caregiver" status is to courts. Because of our cultural concept of male and female roles (i.e. men as financial providers, women as caretakers of home and children) *it works out that women more often get primary custody*. But it's not based on gender. It's based on which parent did the most actual parenting pre-divorce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are referring to even if you don't acknowledge it as such, is presumption. "Because our cultural concept of male and female roles..." -that's presumption. It's bad enough that the courts have this presumption, which is clearly discriminatory. But worse that that, as I've mentioned in my previous post, is that men NEVER get the practical opportunity in most cases to rebut this presumption. I'll explain this in greater detail later in my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've repeated this several times. But do you have any evidence that custodial parents are neglecting their children's needs and not spending child support on their children?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, the legal tactic of 'shifting the burden'. Counselor, this isn't about proof. I wasn't making a legal argument. I was making a _factual_ argument. Factually, women are not obligated to support their children with child support money. Surely it is naaive to believe that all custodial parents do the right thing with the money all the time? That's not the way the real world works. Also important to note is that this policy directly contradicts the courts stated policy of 'best interests of the children'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because one parent is providing a check each month for child support, doesn't mean that the custodial parent isn't spending money above and beyond that amount on their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant. The custodial parent is not required to use child support for children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The custodial parent is paying for food, housing, utilities, clothing, and extra-curriculars for the children. Children generally cost more to care for than the amount that is coming in for child support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is so not true. Admittedly, Wyoming's formula is more fair than most states, but if anyone wants to test this theory, you can google the child support calculator and plug in some numbers. You'll see that the child support amount is usually more than sufficient to support a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child support calculation is based on both parent's income. The percentage of the combined net income that should go to taking care of the children is calculated. Then each parent is assigned their proportionate share. So if one parent's income accounts for 60% of the combined net then that parent is responsible for 60% of the amount determined to be for the children. So, if mom is the custodial parent and she makes more than dad...his child support payment will be less than what she is responsible for. Just because she doesn't write a check to anyone for child support doesn't mean that she's not paying her fair share for the children's care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the fact remains that the custodial parent is not required to support their child with child support.
> The other fact which you didn't address is that the noncustodial parent must pay child support or go to jail, but the custodial parent is not required to work at all. _The custodial parent is not required to support their child._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because no one monitors what the custodial parent is spending his or her money on, doesn't mean that he or she is not spending it on the children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it doesn't mean they are, either. Again, they are not required to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the children's needs are being neglected, the non-custodial parent needs to keep a record of that and report it to the family services/protection department and file to get primary custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the company line that is of literally no use to non custodial parents. First of all, no one wants their child to be taken into protective custody by cps. Second, this is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts can't abolish no fault divorce. You need to take that up with legislatures. Courts have to follow the laws enacted by duly elected legislatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws- like the maxims of equity, which is supposedly the system they have to abide by? You know, 'obey all contracts'? Seems like they don't care too much about that one. And courts absolutely have it within their power to enforce negligence in divorce contracts. As courts and judges love pretense, they could simply start awarding assets and custody to the parent suffering a harm under the guise of 'wide discretion in family courts'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what EOW means. Not familiar with that acronym.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every other week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as no-fault divorce. I don't think a lot of people really understand what that is. It just means that people don't have to prove that there was adultery or abuse in order to get a divorce. In other words, the courts will not deny a divorce - make people stay married - if there is no proof of wrongdoing. It doesn't have anything to do with custody disputes. The courts will look at evidence of wrongdoing in determining which parent is best fit to have primary custody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we both know that courts don't consider 'evidence of wrongdoing' in custody. Proof of adultery, for instance, holds no water in determining custody. I believe that it should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is not true. First, the courts aren't out there making people get divorce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not quite, but what the courts do is _incentivise_ divorce. As such, the courts tacitly endorse divorce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not the ones who destabilize children's lives. The parents are the ones making that decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With the courts help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, they very rarely "totally remove one parent from the children's lives." The right to associate with one's children is a fundamental, constitutional right. Unless there is really good reason (e.g. abuse), visitation is going to be awarded to the non-custodial parent. Yes, every other weekend is not enough time... but it's not "totally removed" either. The non-custodial parent is still very much a part of their children's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EOW is _almost _totally removing a parent from their children's lives. And also important to note that when custodial parents decide to withhold visitation (which is very common), there is no practical remedy that doesn't involve considerable time, considerable expense, and considerable burden.
> To recap-
> 1. Non custodial parent doesn't pay child support, they go to jail.
> 2. Custodial parent isn't obligated to spend child support money on children.
> 3. Custodial parent isn't obligated to work to provide for the child AT ALL.
> 4. Custodial parent can withhold visitation multiple times without any practical recourse to the non custodial parent.
> 5. You've acknowledged that most custodial parents are women.
> 
> But the system isn't biased?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that a conflict of interest? The states spend a lot of money to enforce child support orders. So the Federal government gives states an incentive to spend those funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a conflict of interest because those matching child support funds are invested by the courts. The interest and dividends from these investments are used to pay judges and judges pensions. Ergo, there is a built in incentive for judges to award high child support. This is the very definition of conflict of interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you looked at the stats of how many people don't pay child support that they're ordered to pay? It's overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The dirty little secret is that most that don't pay, can't pay. Why? Because these awards often leave men with no money to personally survive. And as stated earlier in this thread, men are not eligible for social services (though women are).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. That's not the normal practice. 95% of divorces settle out of court. The vast majority do not involve restraining orders. I think perhaps you've looked at a biased sample. You see, the cases that make it to the supreme courts (the ones that end up being "case law") are the extremes. They don't represent most cases because most cases never even get decided by a judge, let alone appealed to the upper courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, most men are compelled to settle out of court for many of the factors I've alluded to. However, the incidence of restraining orders in contested divorces is extremely high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, that has not been my experience. I've done a handful of protective order hearings and they all lasted a whole day. Both sides called witnesses and introduced exhibits. What you're describing is a clear violation of due process. It's not happening at nearly enough frequency to be called the norm. I have no doubt that it happens sometimes. Unfortunately, there are bad judges out there. But it just doesn't happen nearly as much as you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Restraining order hearings? I wasn't referring to restraining order hearings, I was referring to _temporary hearings_. I noticed you have left out this important part of the divorce process, so allow me to reiterate to anyone that may not know-
> Temporary hearings establish status quo.
> Temporary orders almost always become permanent.
> Temporary hearings last minutes. Normally witnesses and evidence are not allowed in these hearings. Each side gets a couple of minutes to do an 'elevator pitch'.
> So the practical result is that men never get the opportunity to rebut the presumption of 'primary caregiver'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And rulings at protective order hearings do often stick in custody matters because the evidence doesn't change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence that was never presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the "he works all the time" argument... again, that goes to who has been the primary caregiver and what is in the best interest of the children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that 'primary caregiver' is a designation that is presumed to be the mother. That's bad enough, but the presumption is impossible to rebut when in the temporary hearing, the man is not given the time to present evidence and call witnesses to the contrary. Translation- the 'primary caregiver' designation is assigned to the mother based on what the mother's lawyer _claims._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is no such presumption. I wish it were that easy sometimes, it would make my job easier when I represent the mother. But no, we have to provide evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You see, it's a fine distinction here. I have a feeling what you refer to as 'provide evidence' is simply the mother's _claim_ that she is the primary caregiver. After all, how can anyone prove that they are primary caregiver in a 10 minute hearing? And once that designation has been assigned by the judge, even if it can be rebutted in a long trial the court then moves onto the 'status quo' claim. That's how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few months ago I represented a father in a custody modification matter. The mom claimed she was the primary caregiver. But we offered testimony that dad did just as much of the day to day care of the kids. We got primary custody in that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This sounds like an oversimplification. What was the claimed 'significant change in circumstance'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you think the majority of custody cases are decided at protective order hearings. That's just not the truth. Most cases that are contested have full trials that can last days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most custody cases are decided at temporary hearings. Those that are contested and go to trial almost always end with the temporary orders becoming permanent. The system is done backwards- at the trial the evidence and witnesses are called and both sides get an opportunity to make a case. But the status quo has already been established. So, this is the way divorce works:
> 
> 1. Woman files for divorce.
> 2. Woman wins temp hearing based on either restraining order or claim of 'primary caregiver'. You've aknowledged the presumption that women are the primary caregivers.
> 3. Men have an overwhelming burden to overcome at trial- status quo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think that's the case. The men that I have represented feel torn about it, for sure. But they often don't want to have to stop working overtime or stop traveling for work. They recognize, because they love their children, that mom is in the best position to have primary custody. These men don't _want_ to see their kids less, but they love them enough to realize that being with mom is better than being with a babysittter or daycare while dad does his two weeks at the oil rig (lot of roughnecks around
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon, now. The majority of men don't travel for work. The majority of men don't even work overtime.
Click to expand...


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Judges are portrayed as people who are, for some inexplicable reason, just going to rampantly screw over men because they are men, and "give everything" to women just because they are women. Of course the only reason anyone ever gives for this supposedly happening is "the radical feminists made this happen".


Without commenting on how equitable divorce proceedings in America actually are, (I'm not qualified to comment) I do not think the reasons for this _perception _are inexplicable at all.

It is a documented social phenomenon (And there are entire books on the subject) that public perceptions of the role of husband and father were devalued during the twentieth century. 

For example, the comedic vehicle of the husband/father as the irresponsible, self absorbed buffoon who goes off the reservation, gets into a (Usually humorous) predicament which requires benevolent intervention by his more sensible, more practical and much more intelligent wife was rampant in 20th century entertainment. From Ralph Kramden to Fred Flintstone this idea was targeted at both adults and children alike.

It gradually become the dominant theme in American situational comedy and comparable portrayals of women (Like Gracie Allen and Lucille Ball) faded away. Shows like _Everybody Loves Raymond, Yes Dear, Still Standing, My Wife And Kids, King Of Queens, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Married With Children, Malcolm In The Middle_, and _According To Jim_ became the norm and again, they're targeted at both adults and children alike.

We can say this is all just for fun and that the portrayal of men and especially fathers as the most maladroit, inept, bumbling, domestic disasters imaginable does not affect people's perceptions, but more than a few sociologists disagree. It could also be argued that the portrayal of strict gender roles with the male gender not being able to hold up their end of the bargain was necessary to raise public consciousness of the value of women and especially stay at home moms. I can see the argument, but then we shouldn't be surprised when men start losing interest in marriage altogether as a natural corollary. 

At a higher academic level, the gloves pretty much come off. Books with titles like, _Are Men Necessary?_ and _Men Are Not Cost Effective _and articles like _Who Needs Men?_ pretty much speak for themselves, don't you think?

So again, without commenting on what family courts actually do in real life, the _perception _that the scales are weighted against men and that they are fighting a negative stereotype right out of the starting gate does not originate in a vacuum.


----------



## wilderness

Nynaeve said:


> Yep. And thanks for the warm welcome!
> 
> Also, most judges are men, still. Most of them are fathers, even. It's popular to demonize them and forget that they are people, too. Most have compassion, they try to be fair, they try to follow the law if for no other reason than it's a blow to their ego to get overturned on appeal, lol.
> 
> Every judge I know - and it's a small state, so I know a lot of them and regularly practice in front of all of them in my district as well as socialize with them - cares deeply about children. They are fiercely protective of children. They see so many cases of neglect, abandonment and abuse that when they have a case where the father actually _wants_ to care for his children, they bend over backwards to craft a custody order that honors that.


Oh, puh-leaze. The _last_ group of people that care about children are judges. These are the same people that rip children out of parents live and abrogate parental rights for no reason whatsoever other than what one person claims in an elevator pitch.


----------



## john_lord_b3

ocotillo said:


> Without commenting on how equitable divorce proceedings in America actually are, (I'm not qualified to comment) I do not think the reasons for this _perception _are inexplicable at all.
> 
> It is a documented social phenomenon (And there are entire books on the subject) that public perceptions of the role of husband and father were devalued during the twentieth century.
> 
> For example, the comedic vehicle of the husband/father as the irresponsible, self absorbed buffoon who goes off the reservation, gets into a (Usually humorous) predicament which requires benevolent intervention by his more sensible, more practical and much more intelligent wife was rampant in 20th century entertainment. From Ralph Kramden to Fred Flintstone this idea was targeted at both adults and children alike.
> 
> It gradually become the dominant theme in American situational comedy and comparable portrayals of women (Like Gracie Allen and Lucille Ball) faded away. Shows like _Everybody Loves Raymond, Yes Dear, Still Standing, My Wife And Kids, King Of Queens, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Married With Children, Malcolm In The Middle_, and _According To Jim_ became the norm and again, they're targeted at both adults and children alike.
> 
> We can say this is all just for fun and that the portrayal of men and especially fathers as the most maladroit, inept, bumbling, domestic disasters imaginable does not affect people's perceptions, but more than a few sociologists disagree. It could also be argued that the portrayal of strict gender roles with the male gender not being able to hold up their end of the bargain was necessary to raise public consciousness of the value of women and especially stay at home moms. I can see the argument, but then we shouldn't be surprised when men start losing interest in marriage altogether as a natural corollary.
> 
> *At a higher academic level, the gloves pretty much come off. Books with titles like, Are Men Necessary? and Men Are Not Cost Effective and articles like Who Needs Men? pretty much speak for themselves, don't you think?*
> 
> So again, without commenting on what family courts actually do in real life, the _perception _that the scales are weighted against men and that they are fighting a negative stereotype right out of the starting gate does not originate in a vacuum.


:scratchhead: Seriously? Those titles you referred above are actual books? Not some kind of parody? Are the books seriously written, targeted for serious readers? Surely those are humor books, right?


----------



## COguy

I can't believe there is a practicing family attorney here who doesn't agree on the gender bias. In every consultation I went on I got told that I would lose custody to my wife because I had a penis. That included men and women.

Look at the facts in my case, before my first temporary hearing:

1. Split time with kids, every other day, alternating weekends
2. I had proof that I scheduled and went to all the doctors and dental visits and counselor visits
3. Proof that I was a competent and involved parent, even by her affidavits
4. Written testimony from our child's counselor that they were being verbally and emotionally abused as well as physical violence.
5. Recordings of said abuse was allowed into court
6. Ex cheated, left the house, and then moved back in the day she retained an attorney.
7. Absolutely no testimony that I was in any way an unfit parent.

Temporary hearing, 5 minutes long, and I get every other weekend. For me to get 50/50 I have to pay for a guardian ad lidem and $10-15K in legal fees to continue fighting, otherwise the permanent order would stick with the temporary ruling.

During this time, she doesn't fill out any paperwork with her guardian. She denigrates me in front of the children. She talks about her boyfriends and immoral behavior in front of the children. She never shows up on time. She never picks up the kids, I ALWAYS drop them off. She doesn't buy them clothes with the money she gets for child support. She still doesn't take them to appointments or is in anyway involved in school.

Does she get in trouble with the court? Nope...because she's "a stay at home mom"

If I did ONE of those things above I would be lucky to see my kids every other weekend.

I know people that are in my exact same situation who weren't fortunate enough to gather evidence pre-divorce, or have the tens of thousands of dollars to fight, or who had a TRO before the temporary. They got to see their kids every other weekend until the final trial, while the mothers bad mouthed the father the entire time. As soon as the custody was set, many of them moved out of state, and case closed, you never see your kids again.

I've never heard of that happening to a woman once.....ever......

To get primary custody of a child as a father at a temporary hearing, your ex has to be a crackhead, or abuse the children to the point of hospitalization.


----------



## wilderness

Totally indefensible. First of all, let's leave the bias out of it totally. How do you remove a child from _either_ parent's life based on a 5 minute hearing? And again, the dirty little secret is that the temporary orders become permanent unless some miracle happens (read: status quo).

I was naaive when I went to my temporary hearing. I was aware that the hearing would last 5 minutes, but I had no clue of the gender bias. This is what the opposing council's argument was:
"We are seeking full custody, your honor."
THAT'S IT!

I thought to myself- that was the weakest argument I've ever heard of in my life, this is a slam dunk for me. I did my elevator pitch and was absolutely in shock when I got the order saying I lost.

But the judges care about children, right?


----------



## Nynaeve

wilderness said:


> I'd like to preface my response with an important statement to anyone that happens to be reading this that does not have a full opinion formed on this important issue: It is my sincere belief that Nynaeve has made a couple of extremely misleading and disingenuous posts. In my mind this is irresponsible and just plain wrong. Certain women have already come out in support of her posts, which disappoints me greatly. Please, carefully read my responses to her posts and try and apply logic and critical thinking to what both of us have written.


This is called poisoning the well. It's a logical fallacy and lazy argument tactic.



> Restraining orders may be _technically_ available to both genders but they are only _practically_ available to women. In other words the technical availability is of no use to real men going through real divorces.


How so? This requires explanation. How are restraining orders impractical for men?



> I have a feeling you know full well that men don't- and _can't_- get restraining orders against women without meeting a _much_ higher burden than women.


I don't know that. I don't think it's true. Based on my experience, the burden of proof is the same, regardless of gender.

As you're the one making the claim of bias, even though the laws on their face are unbiased, the burden in this conversation is on you to prove it. Just making claims without evidence to support it is not credible.



> To anyone reading this post, I'd recommend that you ask everyone you know that is divorced whether there was a restraining order involved in the divorce, and if so, who took it out (man or woman). I also ask that reread the above paragraph written by Nynaeve. It is very cleverly written, very misleading, and very subtle.


More poisoning the well. This is boring.



> It depends. If you are considering the testimony of a witness that has a clear incentive to gain a custody advantage as 'proof', than yes. Outside of that, no. There is a practical reasoning behind this; which is that no judge wants to make a mistake and end up on channel 4 when a man kills a woman after he refused to grant a restraining order. In other words, the judge often feels he has everything to lose and nothing to gain by refusing the order. Even if this is understandable, it's a miscarriage of the justice system regardless.


But what evidence do you have that granting restraining orders that are not warranted is the norm?

Do you presume that in all cases involving children that the wife is lying just because it may give her an edge in the custody action? Just because she may have that incentive it does not necessarily follow that she is not telling the truth about domestic violence.

In all cases that I have seen, proof beyond her testimony alone was presented. Medical records, police reports, witnesses.



> It absolutely does NOT show men commit domestic violence more than women. First of all, restraining orders to not allege domestic violence.


In my state ex parte protection orders are only entered in cases of stalking, harassment or under FVPA. They absolutely do allege domestic violence. They must make a prima facie showing of some form of violence, stalking or harassment before the judge will enter the order. You can't get a restraining order "just because," you have to allege facts that warrant the order.



> Second, you ignore that women have no burden to overcome to get these orders, and men do.


That's absurdly false.



> Also important to note that false claims of domestic violence against men are very common in divorces as well.


Thery're not as common as you seem to think. They're not unheard of but the reason we know this is because they've been proven to be unsubstantiated in court. Which means that the legal system worked and the defendant was given an opportunity to be heard and prevailed.



> Again, these are used to establish status quo. Women are rarely prosecuted for these claims. In fact they are rewarded for them, as like restraining orders, long after the charges are dropped the custody advantage remains.


You think women are the only ones who play dirty in divorce? I assure you, men and women are equally prone to lying about their spouses in these situations.



> I thought you said that they don't keep those statistics?


I said I don't think they do. But you claimed affirmatively that women file them more than men. I was simply asking for you source for that claim. It could be that my state does compile those stats. If so, I'd be interested to see them.

Otherwise, I'd like to see what other source you have to support your conclusions.



> Again, to anyone reading this, anywhere, please ask the people you know that are divorced. You will very quickly discover that restraining orders are not a weapon that men have at their disposal.


This is full of non-sequitors. For the sake of argument, let's say your claim that more women file ROs than men is true. It doesn't necessarily follow that ROs were unavailable to the men. It could be they didn't try to get one. If people ask their friends whether they tried to get a RO but were denied then you may have he beginnings of a weak argument.

But you have to presume, a priori, that the court is biased. Otherwise, you'd realize that sometimes men don't get ROs because they can't prove that an RO is warranted.



> I don't believe you.


That sounds like a personal problem to me. I think that you are an extreme example of confirmation bias. You've decided what you believe and if you're presented with contradictory facts, you simply disregard them. That's not critical thinking.




> Again, I feel you are being disingenuous.


I feel like you don't really know what that word means. Or that you're projecting. I've shared my knowledge of the law and my experience. The fact that it doesn't match your preconceived notions, which you openly admit you do not believe anything contrary to, doesn't mean I'm the one being disingenuous here.



> While the bolded is certainly true, your insinuation makes it look like this is much more of a silver bullet/factor than it is in real life. In real life, anything and everything can- and is- used as the pretense to give the children to the mother even if she has executed the legal tactic you alluded to earlier.


Do you think that the mother is never the best parent to have primary custody of the children?

Because the way you're coming across to me is that you think that any time a mother is awarded primary custody that is proof that she got it just because she's the woman.

You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that there is a correlation here but not causation.

No one has argued that women don't get primary custody more than men. But there are other factors that CAUSE that. Being the woman is correlated but it is not the sole cause.



> LOL, I didn't mention it because that's not true. The division of assets is a separate consideration from custody. *The spouse with the higher income is generally left with the most debts because that is equitable.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I certainly don't see it that way. As another poster aply pointed out earlier in this thread, marriage is the only contract that is financially rewarded for breaking. The equitable solution is NOT to reward the negligent party with less debt. (no, I'm not saying the higher earner is always the negligent party, I'm pointing out the flaw in the company line that Nynaeve is espousing).
> 
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting the courts should be punishing people for filing divorce? Or are you suggesting that it would be equitable to award the majority of the debt to the person less able to pay it?
> 
> Marriage is rightfully treated as different than other contracts. If you knew anything about contract law, you'd be glad of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, the problem with this type of 'equity' is that it invariably ignores the adjusted after divorce calculated incomes of both parties accounting for taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would think you would be behind this. Seeing as how men tend to fare better than women financially post-divorce.
> 
> Men become richer after divorce | Life and style | The Observer
> 
> Men v. Women: Who does better in a divorce? | LegalZoom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you simply ignore that the custodial parent is often (NOT always, please don't misunderstand me here) the party that was negligent in the marriage contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if that is true, which I absolutely don't agree with, that doesn't mean that the person was negligent toward the children.
> 
> For the sake of understanding, what do you mean by "negligent in the marriage contract?" How do you determine which party was negligent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is what the courts _say_ but not what they _do_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So _you_ say. But that has not been my experience. And all you seem to have is bald assertions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are referring to even if you don't acknowledge it as such, is presumption. "Because our cultural concept of male and female roles..." -that's presumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The cultural roles lead to the women actually doing more of the parenting than the men. Thus, the woman is able to prove at court that she did more of the parenting. It's fact, not presumption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's bad enough that the courts have this presumption, which is clearly discriminatory. But worse that that, as I've mentioned in my previous post, is that men NEVER get the practical opportunity in most cases to rebut this presumption. I'll explain this in greater detail later in my post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've represented several men who got plenty of opportunity to prove they were primary caregiver.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, the legal tactic of 'shifting the burden'. Counselor, this isn't about proof. I wasn't making a legal argument. I was making a _factual_ argument. Factually, women are not obligated to support their children with child support money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, it's so funny when non-lawyers try to use legalese and get it so completely wrong. Burden of proof is about facts. Legal arguments don't have a burden of proof. Legal argument is when you cite the law and argue that when the law is applied to the facts, a certain outcome should be reached. To establish facts, one must meet a certain burden of proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely it is naaive to believe that all custodial parents do the right thing with the money all the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no doubt that there are some custodial parents who neglect their children's financial needs.
> 
> But it is ridiculous to believe that all custodial parents neglect their children's financial needs.
> 
> My point is not that it _never_ happens. My point is that it does not _always_ happen. And, in fact, most of the time I don't believe it happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way the real world works. Also important to note is that this policy directly contradicts the courts stated policy of 'best interests of the children'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so? Do you really think the courts should be responsible for monitoring the spending habits of all custodial parents? Do you have any idea how burdensome that would be on state resources? Talk about naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. The custodial parent is not required to use child support for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is assumed that the child support payment goes into the household funds from which the children are provided for. It would be silly to require a separate bank account or something. Child support payments compensate the custodial parent for the money they regularly spend on the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is so not true. Admittedly, Wyoming's formula is more fair than most states, but if anyone wants to test this theory, you can google the child support calculator and plug in some numbers. You'll see that the child support amount is usually more than sufficient to support a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It depends on the income of the parents, really. Admittedly, higher income parents will spend more in child support than what the bare essentials of child care cost. But married parents of higher income spend more on their children than bare essentials, too. It's more to do with keeping the children at the level they are accustomed to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact remains that the custodial parent is not required to support their child with child support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they are required to support their children financially. If they don't, child services gets involved for neglect. And again, just because no one is monitoring them, doesn't mean that they're all being jerks and neglecting their children's needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The other fact which you didn't address is that the noncustodial parent must pay child support or go to jail, but the custodial parent is not required to work at all. _The custodial parent is not required to support their child._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The noncustodial parent will only go to jail if he or she willfully refuses to pay when he or she is able to pay.
> 
> If the custodial parent doesn't work, he or she is still required to use government benefits to buy food, clothing, etc, for the children or that person will be facing neglect and parental rights termination proceedings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it doesn't mean they are, either. Again, they are not required to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, no one monitors married couples' spending to make sure they are spending money on their kids but no one presumes, without any evidence, that no married people spend any money on their kids.
> 
> This is ridiculous. Just because they are not required to account for ever dime they spend, doesn't mean they are not using the money for their children.
> 
> And, again, if a custodial parent is not caring for the children, is spending all of his or her money on him/herself, then the non-custodial parent needs to alert child protective services and file for primary custody. Because, I assure you, they actually ARE required to take care of their children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the company line that is of literally no use to non custodial parents. First of all, no one wants their child to be taken into protective custody by cps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In most cases when the non-custodial parent reports to CPS, the children are placed with that parent. In many, many cases, just because something is reported and investigated doesn't mean the children are taken into CPS custody. At least that's how it is in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second, this is extremely difficult if not impossible to prove.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it's not. If the kids don't have food, they're malnourished. If they don't have new clothes, it's obvious. If they don't have toys. If they don't ever get to do extra-curriculars. These things are easy to prove. Not to mention that if you file with the court, you have subpoena power and can get bank records to prove where money is being spent. And if you report to CPS, they have investigative power. A GAL can be appointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws- like the maxims of equity, which is supposedly the system they have to abide by? You know, 'obey all contracts'? Seems like they don't care too much about that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obey all contracts is not a legal maxim I'm familiar with. There are many reasons why contracts can be found to be void and unenforceable.
> 
> Not sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And courts absolutely have it within their power to enforce negligence in divorce contracts. As courts and judges love pretense, they could simply start awarding assets and custody to the parent suffering a harm under the guise of 'wide discretion in family courts'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they don't have that power. When the legislature specifically writes that fault in divorce isn't a consideration for property division, if the judge bases the division on fault, he or she will get overturned. Wide discretion cannot be without factual basis. Judges decisions are routinely reversed for abuse of discretion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we both know that courts don't consider 'evidence of wrongdoing' in custody. Proof of adultery, for instance, holds no water in determining custody. I believe that it should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've seen it brought up. It's unclear how much weight the judge put on it. Serial unfaithfulness and the children witnessing that is certainly relevant. But evidence of wrongdoing in the form of abuse (physical, emotional, mental, verbal) is absolutely a consideration in custody actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite, but what the courts do is _incentivise_ divorce. As such, the courts tacitly endorse divorce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if you guys remember 9th grade. Separation of powers, anyone? Legislatures write the laws. Courts enforce them.
> 
> If the laws do create incentive to divorce, it's the legislatures you guys have a beef with, not the courts.
> 
> I don't think it creates an incentive. I think it has simply removed unfair disincentives for divorce. It used to be that people would not file for divorce because proving adultery or abuse was cost-prohibitive, and shameful - airing dirty laundry in public. Those disincentives have been removed by no-fault divorce laws. I think that's a good thing. It means that people in abusive marriages can get out more readily.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the courts help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If necessary. But that doesn't mean the courts made them do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EOW is _almost _totally removing a parent from their children's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's really not. Every other weekend, alternating holidays, 6-8 weeks in the summer. That's still a lot of time. And there's nothing stopping most men from calling their kids in between times, texting, emailing, Facebooking and otherwise increasing the time involved in their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And also important to note that when custodial parents decide to withhold visitation (which is very common), there is no practical remedy that doesn't involve considerable time, considerable expense, and considerable burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true, but what alternative is there? If one parent is going to be a jerk about it, then that sucks but what else would you suggest? What can the court do? They already will take refusal to allow visitation into consideration if the non-custodial parent files a motion to modify. People can be jerks, but it doesn't matter what the law is, they are going to find a way to be a jerk.
> 
> There are non-custodial parents who kidnap their children when they are giving visitation and take them to another state or country. Should we disallow visitation for all because some abuse it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To recap-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, seriously? Your post wasn't long enough already?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a conflict of interest because those matching child support funds are invested by the courts. The interest and dividends from these investments are used to pay judges and judges pensions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Just, no. The funds go back into the child support enforcement programs. Judges' salaries are paid with taxes just like every other public official.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ergo, there is a built in incentive for judges to award high child support. This is the very definition of conflict of interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nonsense. Judges award child support based on the presumptive guidelines calculation which the legislature enacts. Judges have to give a reason in their ruling for a departure from the presumptive amount.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dirty little secret is that most that don't pay, can't pay. Why? Because these awards often leave men with no money to personally survive. And as stated earlier in this thread, men are not eligible for social services (though women are).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? You're just making stuff up now. Men and women are both eligible for social services. WTH nonsense is this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, most men are compelled to settle out of court for many of the factors I've alluded to. However, the incidence of restraining orders in contested divorces is extremely high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Restraining order hearings? I wasn't referring to restraining order hearings, I was referring to _temporary hearings_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops, I apologize. I misread you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed you have left out this important part of the divorce process, so allow me to reiterate to anyone that may not know-
> Temporary hearings establish status quo.
> Temporary orders almost always become permanent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Temporary hearings don't always happen. They may be rarer here than elsewhere. But I agree that they establish status quo and usually become permanent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Temporary hearings last minutes. Normally witnesses and evidence are not allowed in these hearings. Each side gets a couple of minutes to do an 'elevator pitch'.
> So the practical result is that men never get the opportunity to rebut the presumption of 'primary caregiver'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not here anyway. Temporary hearings usually last at least a day. I had one last 2. Witnesses, exhibits and all that jazz are allowed. We sometimes do paper hearings by submitting affidavits instead of calling witnesses so those hearings won't last as long. But the witness testimony is entered into evidence, just in the form of affidavits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that 'primary caregiver' is a designation that is presumed to be the mother. That's bad enough, but the presumption is impossible to rebut when in the temporary hearing, the man is not given the time to present evidence and call witnesses to the contrary. Translation- the 'primary caregiver' designation is assigned to the mother based on what the mother's lawyer _claims._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah. The father always gets to file a written response. He can file an affidavit, he can file affidavits of others to counter the mother's allegations. If the father's lawyer didn't file a response to the motion for temporary custody order, then father needs to get a better lawyer. And I'm sorry for him.
> 
> But no, what you claim is just not how it works, at least in my state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, it's a fine distinction here. I have a feeling what you refer to as 'provide evidence' is simply the mother's _claim_ that she is the primary caregiver. After all, how can anyone prove that they are primary caregiver in a 10 minute hearing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They present affidavits prior to the hearing from friends and family who have personal knowledge of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And once that designation has been assigned by the judge, even if it can be rebutted in a long trial the court then moves onto the 'status quo' claim. That's how it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just don't think you're representing the "temporary hearing" the way it really is. I mean, if it is that way in other states - which I think I'd need to see some proof of beyond your bare assertions - then that's atrocious. But that's not what happens in my experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds like an oversimplification. What was the claimed 'significant change in circumstance'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course I didn't give all the details. Significant change in circumstances in that one was that dad's living circumstances improved a great deal and mom's got a lot worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most custody cases are decided at temporary hearings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, now this is getting really repetitive. So I'm gonna skip some...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've aknowledged the presumption that women are the primary caregivers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I acknowledged no such thing. See above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, now. The majority of men don't travel for work. The majority of men don't even work overtime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed anything about the majority of men. But the men I've represented have. I'm sharing my experience here, not trying to claim I know everything about every divorce in every state. That would be silly.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nynaeve

COguy said:


> I can't believe there is a practicing family attorney here who doesn't agree on the gender bias. In every consultation I went on I got told that I would lose custody to my wife because I had a penis. That included men and women.


Hey, I've heard it from lawyers too.

But the thing is... the judges have been hearing it too. And they're being vigilant about it, IME.

Also, I think that's a cop-out by lawyers a lot of the time.


----------



## Nynaeve

COguy said:


> I've never heard of that happening to a woman once.....ever......
> 
> To get primary custody of a child as a father at a temporary hearing, your ex has to be a crackhead, or abuse the children to the point of hospitalization.


I have. My friend worked on a case last year where the dad was loaded, really rich. They took a family vacation to the Bahamas or something and he left her there, brought the kids home, filed for custody claiming she had abandoned them. It took her years of fighting before she got her kids back. When the dad died, the court gave the kids to step-mom. It was a mess.

But yeah, injustices happen. I just don't think they're as heavily weighted against men as a lot of you all seem to think.


----------



## wilderness

Nynaeve said:


> I have. My friend worked on a case last year where the dad was loaded, really rich. They took a family vacation to the Bahamas or something and he left her there, brought the kids home, filed for custody claiming she had abandoned them. It took her years of fighting before she got her kids back. When the dad died, the court gave the kids to step-mom. It was a mess.
> 
> But yeah, injustices happen. I just don't think they're as heavily weighted against men as a lot of you all seem to think.


Tell the truth...
are you really a practicing female attorney, or are you an eye doctor?
I think I know who this is.


----------



## Nynaeve

wilderness said:


> Tell the truth...
> are you really a practicing female attorney, or are you an eye doctor?
> I think I know who this is.


An eye doctor? lol I wish I'd have gone that route some days. Or dentist. Seems like easier money.

I'm a lawyer.

Right out of law school I swore I'd never do divorces. But somehow or other that's what my practice has ended up being primarily.


----------



## COguy

Nynaeve said:


> Hey, I've heard it from lawyers too.
> 
> But the thing is... the judges have been hearing it too. And they're being vigilant about it, IME.
> 
> Also, I think that's a cop-out by lawyers a lot of the time.


Your experience is about as meaningful to me as one of the hairs stuck in my keyboard. I don't believe you're a practicing attorney, and your personal comments are inflammatory and insulting. If what you're saying from your experience is actually true, it is a far cry from the rest of the entire country. Given that wyoming is the most sparsely populated state in the US, using it as an example doesn't say much anyway (even though I think you are full of sh*t).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sorry Nynaeve...sometimes if your opinion doesn't match others', they will simply accuse you of lying and/or being a troll. That is the easiest way of shutting someone down. Good luck and thanks for trying. Stick around! Check out some other threads. Do you have a thread somewhere to discuss your sitch?

.


----------



## ocotillo

Nynaeve said:


> Right out of law school I swore I'd never do divorces. But somehow or other that's what my practice has ended up being primarily.


Nynaeve

What is your take on the following quote from the Legal Zoom article you cited above:


"Women are typically awarded custody of the children. Because our predominant social values suggest that children are best situated with their mothers, women often do the lion's share of child rearing in divorced families, even in shared custody cases."​

I'm especially curious since this premise was pivotal to the assertion.


----------



## Nynaeve

ocotillo said:


> What is your take on the following quote from the Legal Zoom article you cited above:
> 
> 
> "Women are typically awarded custody of the children. Because our predominant social values suggest that children are best situated with their mothers, *women often do the lion's share of child rearing* in divorced families, even in shared custody cases."​
> I'm especially curious since this premise was pivotal to the conclusion.



I thing the determining factor is what I've put in bold. 

It's what I've been saying. Women still do most child care because our society views that as "women's work." Thus they are more likely to get primary custody. I think the lesson men should take from this is to maybe start valuing and doing child care during marriage if they're afraid divorce will lose them their children.

And I think there is a shift in our society toward that end that is happening and gaining ground. More men are SAHDs than ever before. It's becoming less stigmatized for men to share 50/50 in work around the house. As this trend increases, I expect we'll see more joint/shared custody arrangements and more men with primary custody.


----------



## Nynaeve

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry Nynaeve...sometimes if your opinion doesn't match others', they will simply accuse you of lying and/or being a troll. That is the easiest way of shutting someone down. Good luck and thanks for trying. Stick around! Check out some other threads. Do you have a thread somewhere to discuss your sitch?
> 
> .


That's okay. I expected it. No one has any obligation to believe me. I know I'm telling the truth but I'm not going offer proof because I prefer anonymity. 

I don't have a thread. Don't really have a "sitch" per se. Some friends from another forum post here and I got to looking around and enjoy a hearty debate so joined up.


----------



## wilderness

COguy said:


> Your experience is about as meaningful to me as one of the hairs stuck in my keyboard. I don't believe you're a practicing attorney, and your personal comments are inflammatory and insulting. If what you're saying from your experience is actually true, it is a far cry from the rest of the entire country. Given that wyoming is the most sparsely populated state in the US, using it as an example doesn't say much anyway (even though I think you are full of sh*t).


I don't believe it, either. I've been studying the divorce process for 3.5 years and I've never heard of a temporary hearing that takes 2 days. I'm sure I've come across Wyoming cases, too. But do I really feel like wasting an hour tracking them down? As Nynaeve would say, nah (not a syntax that most females that I know would use, btw).

Also the bizarre response to my comments about temporary hearings that "restraining order hearings"... (multiple times). And then the assertion that "temporary hearings rarely happen here..."

And on top of that, let's just say I know someone that talks curiously like Nynaeve. He's from NY. Ny-naeve, NY (new york).


----------



## Nynaeve

wilderness said:


> I don't believe it, either. I've been studying the divorce process for 3.5 years and I've never heard of a temporary hearing that takes 2 days. I'm sure I've come across Wyoming cases, too. But do I really feel like wasting an hour tracking them down? As Nynaeve would say, nah (not a syntax that most females that I know would use, btw).
> 
> Also the bizarre response to my comments about temporary hearings that "restraining order hearings"... (multiple times). And then the assertion that "temporary hearings rarely happen here..."
> 
> And on top of that, let's just say I know someone that talks curiously like Nynaeve. He's from NY. Ny-naeve, NY (new york).


LOL, you think I'm a man? Haha. 

Nynaeve is the name of my favorite character from my favorite fantasy series, the Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan.

It's pronounced Nigh-Neeve.


And it's funny that you've studied the laws for that long and still haven't figured out how case law works. Unless you've come to Wyoming and gone to the courthouses to read decision letters, there's no way you've read even a fraction of the cases that get decided in Wyoming. You've possibly read reported decisions from the Supreme Court. But that doesn't represent the majority of cases, just the extremes.


----------



## ocotillo

Thank you, Nynaeve



Nynaeve said:


> And I think there is a shift in our society toward that end that is happening and gaining ground. More men are SAHDs than ever before. It's becoming less stigmatized for men to share 50/50 in work around the house. As this trend increases, I expect we'll see more joint/shared custody arrangements and more men with primary custody.


Don't 'traditional' married couple households consisting of a working father and stay at home mom account for about 13% of that demographic today?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Something that doesn't seem to get discussed when debating about divorce situations is the fact that going through a divorce CAUSES a mental and emotional crisis in some people...therefore, the nasty and mean things that can go down in a divorce are typically happening due to this state of crisis. Very few people who are going through a divorce are prepared for this crisis, very few get the crisis care they need, and all the focus in their lives ends up being on "winning" this divorce.

This is a normal and natural thing happening in our emotional lives...the big life change of a divorce causes this crisis and grief. Yet the spouses themselves do not recognize this state for what it is.

There is also a general belief that the divorce process is something like a contest, where a judge bangs a gavel and just "picks a side". People who hold this belief are shocked when they find out that isn't how it happens. A divorce is not a contest, it is a legal proceeding to divide assets and create a custody arrangement. But spouses typically WANT a judge to bang a gavel and declare one of them "right" and the other "wrong". Spouses think that the emotional pain they are experiencing should "count for the win" and that it should be part of any decision a court makes. When that doesn't occur, these spouses, who are already going through a mental crisis, then get stuck on what they see as an inequity in the process.

I'm not going to dispute that anyone here got a bad deal...if they say they got a bad deal, then I believe them. I also got a bad deal. But I settled for my own bad deal due to the fact that I just didn't want to fight about money anymore and just let him have it.


----------



## Nynaeve

ocotillo said:


> Thank you, Nynaeve
> 
> 
> 
> Don't 'traditional' married couple households consisting of a working father and stay at home mom account for about 13% of that demographic today?



I don't know. That sounds about right, but I'm honestly just guestimating.

I think that particular model has never been the norm as far as numbers go, despite what our perceptions have been.

Most families have dual incomes. But all the statistics I've seen indicate that even when both parents work outside the home, women do the lions share of the child care and housework.

Although, I do think this is changing.


----------



## Nynaeve

Faithful Wife said:


> Something that doesn't seem to get discussed when debating about divorce situations is the fact that going through a divorce CAUSES a mental and emotional crisis in some people...therefore, the nasty and mean things that can go down in a divorce are typically happening due to this state of crisis. Very few people who are going through a divorce are prepared for this crisis, very few get the crisis care they need, and all the focus in their lives ends up being on "winning" this divorce.
> 
> This is a normal and natural thing happening in our emotional lives...the big life change of a divorce causes this crisis and grief. Yet the spouses themselves do not recognize this state for what it is.
> 
> There is also a general belief that the divorce process is something like a contest, where a judge bangs a gavel and just "picks a side". People who hold this belief are shocked when they find out that isn't how it happens. A divorce is not a contest, it is a legal proceeding to divide assets and create a custody arrangement. But spouses typically WANT a judge to bang a gavel and declare one of them "right" and the other "wrong". Spouses think that the emotional pain they are experiencing should "count for the win" and that it should be part of any decision a court makes. When that doesn't occur, these spouses, who are already going through a mental crisis, then get stuck on what they see as an inequity in the process.
> 
> I'm not going to dispute that anyone here got a bad deal...if they say they got a bad deal, then I believe them. I also got a bad deal. But I settled for my own bad deal due to the fact that I just didn't want to fight about money anymore and just let him have it.



Yes! People are looking for validation. That's one of the first things I tell my clients - you're not going to get the judge to say you're right and your spouse is wrong. It's not going to happen, so get it out of your mind now.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nynaeve...do you recommend divorce crisis care/counseling to your clients? Do they do it?


----------



## COguy

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not going to dispute that anyone here got a bad deal...if they say they got a bad deal, then I believe them. I also got a bad deal. But I settled for my own bad deal due to the fact that I just didn't want to fight about money anymore and just let him have it.


Who's talking about money? We're talking about children.

It would be really awesome to not give a sh*t and just pay $1000 a month and not have to deal with the crap anymore. Except I actually care about my kids.


----------



## Nynaeve

Faithful Wife said:


> Nynaeve...do you recommend divorce crisis care/counseling to your clients? Do they do it?


You know, I never have but it's something to consider.

The courts here require mandatory mediation when a divorce is filed. The mediators they use are fantastic and they do address some of this stuff during mediation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

COguy...I am sorry about your sitch and I totally believe you got screwed and it totally sucks. Please don't interpret any of my comments to mean that I don't have sympathy for your case or any other father that got screwed over.

I definitely got off easy in that my kids were older and custody was not an issue. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have liked to have half of the money my ex-h hid from me since I ended up totally broke. However, you are right that I would rather take that ending than a crappy custody arrangement.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

ocotillo said:


> So again, without commenting on what family courts actually do in real life, the _perception _that the scales are weighted against men and that they are fighting a negative stereotype right out of the starting gate does not originate in a vacuum.


Unfortunately, there is real life evidence to support this perception, even if there is disagreement on the extent:

Amid fury, Clorox pulls post insulting new dads - CNN.com


----------



## Faithful Wife

Doesn't that actually show a positive move in the right direction, TAG? I mean, it clearly shows that the company behind the ad was forced into seeing that is was in poor taste and they immediately removed it. So....that's good, right?

I do agree that all the examples of idiot bumbling dads is a poor AND untrue message. I can easily say my ex-h was a GREAT dad, even though he bilked me out of some money...that has literally nothing to do with his parenting skills.

Most dads I know are great dads.

The more outcry there is about stupid bad messages in the media, the better.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Doesn't that actually show a positive move in the right direction, TAG?



I'm not TAG, but yes, it does. If equality is to mean anything, then we have to be consistent.


----------



## Wiserforit

Nynaeve said:


> This is called poisoning the well. It's a logical fallacy and lazy argument tactic.


No, it wasn't. He made a direct claim pertaining to your arguments and went about giving his reasons/evidence. 

Poisoning the well would be something like saying you were a stripper once or had a shoplifting charge and then using that disparaging issue to dismiss points of argument illegitimately.

You either don't know this fallacy or you are disengenuous. 

That was the first thing I saw of your writing, and given the nature of it I'm not reading more without that being determined.


----------



## wilderness

Nynaeve said:


> This is called poisoning the well. It's a logical fallacy and lazy argument tactic.


I simply asked people that read these posts and counterposts to try and be objective. I also gave my opinion. That is not poisoning the well.



> How so? This requires explanation. How are restraining orders impractical for men?


They are impractical for men because judges won't order them.



> I don't know that. I don't think it's true. Based on my experience, the burden of proof is the same, regardless of gender.


The reason I don't think you are being truthful is that what you say your experience is, is so wildly divergent from everything I've seen, everything I've studied, everything I've experienced, and what everything that people I know that I trust have told me about restraining orders. I can also logically deduce that it isn't likely that your particular locale is the one place in the industrialized world where men are likely to get a fair shake in this area; because if that were true it would be posted all over the father's forums and men would be moving there in droves as a result.



> As you're the one making the claim of bias, even though the laws on their face are unbiased, the burden in this conversation is on you to prove it. Just making claims without evidence to support it is not credible.


I don't like posting links in this type of argument. That type of 'evidence' is not compelling to most people in my experience. However, what I've done is to try and reason with people to get them to see the truth. In my last post, which I stand by, I requested that readers directly ask people they know that are divorced. I did this because I am 100% confident that the numbers are so overwhelmingly in favor of my argument, that just about everyone that tries this will discover the truth on their own.



> But what evidence do you have that granting restraining orders that are not warranted is the norm?


Already answered earlier in this post.



> Do you presume that in all cases involving children that the wife is lying just because it may give her an edge in the custody action? Just because she may have that incentive it does not necessarily follow that she is not telling the truth about domestic violence.


No, but I do assume that in most cases the woman is lying. I assume this because, well, the witness isn't credible because the witness stands to gain a ton from lying. Also important to note that many of these restraining orders don't even contain allegations of wrongdoing. "I am afraid of him" is not an allegation of wrondoing or breaking of the law, it's a statement of feelings that has no place in law enforcement in any shape or form imo.



> In all cases that I have seen, proof beyond her testimony alone was presented. Medical records, police reports, witnesses.


Again, it's a fine distinction. I'm willing to acknowledge that in _some_ of these cases, there is the existence of what you say is evidence. But I believe you are using the terms 'evidence' and/or 'proof' dishonorably to obfuscate the reality of what these things usually are in these cases in real life. For example, police reports are just another form the same claim by the same person, so they are worthless in this context. 'Witnesses' could be the mother or sibling of the person making the claim that usually had no firsthhand knowledge of the allegation anyway, which as stated a lot of the time isn't even an allegation of wrongdoing in the first place.



> In my state ex parte protection orders are only entered in cases of stalking, harassment or under FVPA. They absolutely do allege domestic violence. They must make a prima facie showing of some form of violence, stalking or harassment before the judge will enter the order. You can't get a restraining order "just because," you have to allege facts that warrant the order.


Again, using language to obfuscate the reality. 'Just because' to me is the same thing as 'alleging facts' because in both cases, the whole complaint hinges simply on what a non credible witnesses _says_.



> Thery're not as common as you seem to think. They're not unheard of but the reason we know this is because they've been proven to be unsubstantiated in court. Which means that the legal system worked and the defendant was given an opportunity to be heard and prevailed.


Actually, the _really_ unjust part of the system is that 'when the legal system works' (as you say), it still helps the false accuser gain a custody advantage. You see, it takes _time_ for the legal system to work and the false allegation to be properly adjudicated. This time is included in the building of status quo. Now one would think that once these matters are adjudicated in the favor of the accused, the accused could then use the false allegation as justification to modify custody- or at least abrogate the factor of 'status quo' that was built based on a false allegation. But it doesn't work that way. The courts actually allow the despicable strategy of using false allegations to build status quo. Words can't describe how revolting this part of the system is.

Yo


> u think women are the only ones who play dirty in divorce? I assure you, men and women are equally prone to lying about their spouses in these situations.


Maybe so, but women are the only gender that get the full force of the state to back their lying. That's the problem.



> This is full of non-sequitors. For the sake of argument, let's say your claim that more women file ROs than men is true. It doesn't necessarily follow that ROs were unavailable to the men. It could be they didn't try to get one. If people ask their friends whether they tried to get a RO but were denied then you may have he beginnings of a weak argument.


Most men know the score of the game. They know they aren't going to be granted ROs, so they don't try for one. To put it back on you, just because 'it doesn't necessary follow', it also 'doesn't necessarily not follow'. Seems to me that you are trying to complicate the simple (which is a very reliable hallmark of disinformation, incidentally).



> But you have to presume, a priori, that the court is biased. Otherwise, you'd realize that sometimes men don't get ROs because they can't prove that an RO is warranted.


I realize no such thing. 'Proof' is not required for women to get restraining orders when 'proof' is defined as something that most reasonable people would consider 'proof'. You know, stuff like independent witnesses, evidence outside of personal allegations made by people with a stake in the game, etc...
However, the opposite extreme is true when men try to get ROs. _Even with_ this type of proof, they often can't get them.



> That sounds like a personal problem to me. I think that you are an extreme example of confirmation bias. You've decided what you believe and if you're presented with contradictory facts, you simply disregard them. That's not critical thinking.


Actually, when I first started researching this stuff years ago (when it looked like I was headed for divorce), I had the opposite type of confirmation bias that you allude to. I never would have believed in my wildest dreams that the system is as biased as it is. That's why, imo, you often see people that have never been through the system be so disbelieving of it. In this day and age, I would have never guessed it could be this bad. It is, though.



> I feel like you don't really know what that word means. Or that you're projecting. I've shared my knowledge of the law and my experience. The fact that it doesn't match your preconceived notions, which you openly admit you do not believe anything contrary to, doesn't mean I'm the one being disingenuous here.


I'm not being disingenuous. If you haven't noticed, I'm very passionate about this subject because I believe the system harms children.



> Do you think that the mother is never the best parent to have primary custody of the children?


Of course not. Why would you suggest such a thing?



> Because the way you're coming across to me is that you think that any time a mother is awarded primary custody that is proof that she got it just because she's the woman.


Oh, I think I've posted quite a few facts (many of which you have simply chosen to ignore as they don't support your argument) that support my position.



> You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge that there is a correlation here but not causation.


No, you are trying to turn correlation and causation on it's head. To be clear, I'm not 100% sure what the root cause of this unjust system is but I suspect that it's based primarily in money. As in, the system is set up to make as much of it as possible.



> No one has argued that women don't get primary custody more than men. But there are other factors that CAUSE that. Being the woman is correlated but it is not the sole cause.


We just don't agree on the factors. I believe they are money, gender bias, and feminism, among others.




> So are you suggesting the courts should be punishing people for filing divorce? Or are you suggesting that it would be equitable to award the majority of the debt to the person less able to pay it?


I believe those that break the marriage contract should be held accountable in the same way people are held accountable for breaching other contracts. In other words, if you want out to be with another woman or another man, you walk away with nothing. This would solve a lot of the problems in modern day society, imo, as there would no longer be a financial incentive to dump your husband. This is not necessarily the same thing as the person that _files_ for divorce, however. 



> Marriage is rightfully treated as different than other contracts. If you knew anything about contract law, you'd be glad of this.


I don't believe there is anything right about the system.



> I would think you would be behind this. Seeing as how men tend to fare better than women financially post-divorce.
> 
> Men become richer after divorce | Life and style | The Observer
> 
> Men v. Women: Who does better in a divorce? | LegalZoom


And this is why I hate links to support this type of argument. The notion that men fair better than women post divorce is a flat out_ lie_. It's all about the method these studies use to measure income and/or standard of living. Child support and sometimes alimony is not counted as income for the women, and is counted as income for the man even though it goes to the woman. And as stated multiple times, men are not eligible for most social services and women are. That income is not factored into those equations, either.


> Even if that is true, which I absolutely don't agree with, that doesn't mean that the person was negligent toward the children.


I disagree. To put a child's stability at stake (remember, the courts claim to care about children's stability), to harm a child's mother or father emotionally, these are not the actions of a loving parent. Furthermore, children learn by example and this is not a good example for children.

To be clear, I don't want to get carried away with this. I know people make mistakes and I'm not saying someone that gets drunk and has a ONS should lose their children. I'm mainly referring to affair here, where the guilty party won't stop seeing their lover. This is incredibly damaging to children.



> For the sake of understanding, what do you mean by "negligent in the marriage contract?" How do you determine which party was negligent?


Just look at the precepts of marriage and you have your answer-

Till death do us part.
For better or for worse.
Forsaking all others.
In sickness and in health.



> No. The cultural roles lead to the women actually doing more of the parenting than the men. Thus, the woman is able to prove at court that she did more of the parenting. It's fact, not presumption.


It is presumption. And the reason for this lies in your statement "thus, the woman is able to prove at court that she did more of the parenting".
Problem is, women don't have to _prove_ this at all. They just have to claim it. And, to go a little further (because I know you will claim that you happen to live in the one place on earth that temporary hearings last for 2 days instead of 10 minutes, which I've never heard of, but whatever) with this- the things courts ask for that supposedly 'prove' primary caregiver DON'T prove a thing. Just because someone may drive their kids to the doctors twice a year proves _nothing_, for example. The truth of the matter is that the only ones that can know for sure who the primary caregiver really was are the people in the family. It is ludicrous to remove one parent from a child's life because one of the parents drove to doctor's visits. It's nuts. 



> I've represented several men who got plenty of opportunity to prove they were primary caregiver.


And again, what you say is your experience is wildly divergent from what men that have been through the system have learned. Which is why I don't believe you are on the level.



> LOL, it's so funny when non-lawyers try to use legalese and get it so completely wrong. Burden of proof is about facts. Legal arguments don't have a burden of proof. Legal argument is when you cite the law and argue that when the law is applied to the facts, a certain outcome should be reached. To establish facts, one must meet a certain burden of proof.


I think you know what I was trying to say. I was not stating an opinion (which I equated to 'legal argument'). I stated a fact. For the record, the fact that I stated is that _custodial parents are not obligated to support their children with child support funds._



> I have no doubt that there are some custodial parents who neglect their children's financial needs.
> 
> But it is ridiculous to believe that all custodial parents neglect their children's financial needs.


Strawman. I never stated nor implied as such. I do believe, however, that custodial parents should have to account for the child support money.



> My point is not that it _never_ happens. My point is that it does not _always_ happen. And, in fact, most of the time I don't believe it happens.


False dichotomy. It isn't that it either happens, or it doesn't. It could be that it happens with some of the money some of the time.



> How so? Do you really think the courts should be responsible for monitoring the spending habits of all custodial parents? Do you have any idea how burdensome that would be on state resources? Talk about naive.


I believe the court should order 50/50 with no money changing hands. But if the court is going to continue to engage in the despicable practice of managing father's out of children's lives, of course they have the resources to do this. The court has no problem setting up gigantic child support collection systems, but then again they are getting matching federal funds for their trouble. 



> It is assumed that the child support payment goes into the household funds from which the children are provided for. It would be silly to require a separate bank account or something. Child support payments compensate the custodial parent for the money they regularly spend on the children.


A lot of these custodial parents have _proven_ that they can't be trusted. (those that breached the marriage contract)




> But they are required to support their children financially. If they don't, child services gets involved for neglect. And again, just because no one is monitoring them, doesn't mean that they're all being jerks and neglecting their children's needs.


They are not required to work to support their children financially, though. How is it that you can hold jail over the head of one parent (non custodial), claiming that "you need to support your children", and allow the other parent (custodial) to sit around and watch soap operas all day? You don't recognize the lack of crebibility and hypocrisy there?



> The noncustodial parent will only go to jail if he or she willfully refuses to pay when he or she is able to pay.


This is just flat out not true. 



> If the custodial parent doesn't work, he or she is still required to use government benefits to buy food, clothing, etc, for the children or that person will be facing neglect and parental rights termination proceedings.


Sort of, but it's not nearly the same level of accountability that non custodial parents face. Non custodial parents face the child support collection agents. These people don't need proof or evidence to levy bank account, garnish wages, suspend driver's license, even send people to jail. It's shoot first and ask questions later. 




> Well, no one monitors married couples' spending to make sure they are spending money on their kids but no one presumes, without any evidence, that no married people spend any money on their kids.


Exactly. Why should the government get involved for divorced parents, either?



> And, again, if a custodial parent is not caring for the children, is spending all of his or her money on him/herself, then the non-custodial parent needs to alert child protective services and file for primary custody. Because, I assure you, they actually ARE required to take care of their children.


I don't have nearly the level of confidence in CPS that you do. Regardless, the point remains that the onus is squarely upon the NCPs shoulders to prove their allegations. But custodial parents never had to prove a thing. A matter of presumption and lack of practical accountability.




> In most cases when the non-custodial parent reports to CPS, the children are placed with that parent. In many, many cases, just because something is reported and investigated doesn't mean the children are taken into CPS custody. At least that's how it is in my state.


Assuming CPS takes the children, which is unusual. Many (including me) don't trust CPS. 



> No it's not. If the kids don't have food, they're malnourished. If they don't have new clothes, it's obvious. If they don't have toys. If they don't ever get to do extra-curriculars. These things are easy to prove. Not to mention that if you file with the court, you have subpoena power and can get bank records to prove where money is being spent. And if you report to CPS, they have investigative power. A GAL can be appointed.


These things aren't easy to prove and they certainly aren't cheap. 



> No, the don't have that power. When the legislature specifically writes that fault in divorce isn't a consideration for property division, if the judge bases the division on fault, he or she will get overturned. Wide discretion cannot be without factual basis. Judges decisions are routinely reversed for abuse of discretion.


Sure they have the power. They can do anything they want and use pretense to justify what they've done. 




> Sometimes I wonder if you guys remember 9th grade. Separation of powers, anyone? Legislatures write the laws. Courts enforce them.


This is not how the real world works.



> If the laws do create incentive to divorce, it's the legislatures you guys have a beef with, not the courts.


It's both.



> I don't think it creates an incentive. I think it has simply removed unfair disincentives for divorce. It used to be that people would not file for divorce because proving adultery or abuse was cost-prohibitive, and shameful - airing dirty laundry in public. Those disincentives have been removed by no-fault divorce laws. I think that's a good thing. It means that people in abusive marriages can get out more readily.


I knew this would be coming- the _abuse_ card. For the record, abuse of any kind is most certainly a clear violation of the marital contract. No fault divorces didn't change that at all.



> No, it's really not. Every other weekend, alternating holidays, 6-8 weeks in the summer. That's still a lot of time. And there's nothing stopping most men from calling their kids in between times, texting, emailing, Facebooking and otherwise increasing the time involved in their lives.


There is something that's stopping most kids from calling their children- the custodial parent. And really, I can't believe you'd defend the EOW screwjob as 'a lot of time'. It's a disgrace for anyone that loves their kids. 



> That's true, but what alternative is there? If one parent is going to be a jerk about it, then that sucks but what else would you suggest? What can the court do? They already will take refusal to allow visitation into consideration if the non-custodial parent files a motion to modify. People can be jerks, but it doesn't matter what the law is, they are going to find a way to be a jerk.


What alternative is there? Here are a few:
1. jail
2. immediate loss of custody, children given to the NCP
3. forfeiture of alimony



> No. Just, no. The funds go back into the child support enforcement programs. Judges' salaries are paid with taxes just like every other public official.


You are absolutely wrong about this. Each court is their own independent corporation. They are required to file a CAFR (comprehensive annual financial report). You can often request these to verify where the money is really going.




> That's nonsense. Judges award child support based on the presumptive guidelines calculation which the legislature enacts. Judges have to give a reason in their ruling for a departure from the presumptive amount.


Judges _say_ that they award child support based on the presumptive guidelines. However, there is a conflict of interest because they get paid from the monies that they order.



> What? You're just making stuff up now. Men and women are both eligible for social services. WTH nonsense is this?


No, they are not. Men are not eligible for food stamps in most states (unless they are part of a family). Men are normally not eligibile for housing. Men are often not eligible for daycare vouchers.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> Doesn't that actually show a positive move in the right direction, TAG? I mean, it clearly shows that the company behind the ad was forced into seeing that is was in poor taste and they immediately removed it. So....that's good, right?
> 
> I do agree that all the examples of idiot bumbling dads is a poor AND untrue message. I can easily say my ex-h was a GREAT dad, even though he bilked me out of some money...that has literally nothing to do with his parenting skills.
> 
> Most dads I know are great dads.
> 
> The more outcry there is about stupid bad messages in the media, the better.


Yes and no. Yes, because it was forced to pull it. I do think that is a positive, particularly at how quickly it was pulled. No because it got by the company in the first place. I don't see that one portraying women in a similar negative light would have gotten through in the first place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAG....I don't want to stir up crap but...I personally see a lot of ads that make fun of women too or that I, personally, feel are just ridiculous. Such as, groups of women stampeding to a shoe sale. I also find it insulting that there are still so many sparkling clean kitchens with a housewife selling me something in her hands (cleaning supplies, usually). I mean, what century is this? There are not a lot of SAHM's who also have sparkling clean houses and look like stepford wives. I am also offended at some other ads, such as birth control and pregnancy test ads...the women MUST wear a wedding ring in the ads. AND I don't like the lack of ads that show bi-racial couples.

Anyway, yes I agree the ad you posted yesterday was stupid and it is sad it was created to begin with and that anyone at that ad agency would think it was ok. But honestly....there are so many ads that are offensive, IMO.


----------



## Faithful Wife

wilderness said: _"No, they are not. Men are not eligible for food stamps in most states (unless they are part of a family)."_

Sheesh, what are you talking about guy? My son who recently became unemployed and had zero income, a 25 y/o single guy, was immediately granted food stamps because that is what they are for. When you have zero income, you are eligible for them. They don't make sure you are sans penis. Why are you making stuff up?


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Anyway, yes I agree the ad you posted yesterday was stupid and it is sad it was created to begin with and that anyone at that ad agency would think it was ok. But honestly....there are so many ads that are offensive, IMO.


Being offensive is one way to get the message lodged in your head and sometimes advertisers go way too far. A particularly egregious example was a 1970 advert for a brand of men's dress pants called 'Mr. Leggs' which showed a tiger skin rug with a woman's head attached to it instead of a tiger's. The slogan read, "It's nice to have a girl around the house." and a man was depicted using her head for a footrest. This ad was horribly offensive to women because of its blatant sexism and 43 years later, people still remember it. Dolce Gabbana, Calvin Klein, Duncan Quinn and American Apparel (All clothiers) have all run fairly recent ads that strongly imply sexual violence against women, so I'm not saying that women don't also have valid complaints when it comes to advertising.

What I'm talking about _vis à vis_ this thread is the denigration of the role of husband/father in the media; advertising being only one facet of a larger pattern. And from Nintendo's brain age ad that showed the father with a brain the size of a walnut to a Kimberly Clark ad suggesting that fathers are absolutely incapable of changing a baby, this is a pretty consistent pattern spanning multiple generations and hundreds of brands. 

This is not just my own personal observation; (Although I'm pretty familiar with advertising) sociologists collect and tabulate this stuff and there are scholarly articles on the subject.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo...Is there any kind of counter campaign? Like boycotting certain brands? Is there any movement to counter-act this stereo-typing?


----------



## Viseral

Yes, men who advocate for men's rights. However, men's rights advocates are derided as unmanly, privileged, complainers. The mere notion that men have legitimate issues to be concerned with such as family law, fathers rights, and depiction in the media is considered heresy by many.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"However, men's rights advocates are derided as unmanly, privileged, complainers."

Where, and by whom?

I don't doubt you, I just don't know where you are seeing this happen?


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> ocotillo...Is there any kind of counter campaign? Like boycotting certain brands? Is there any movement to counter-act this stereo-typing?


There does seem to be more of a backlash lately when it comes to particularly offensive adverts, but this typically comes for either a father's advocacy or ultra conservative Christian group. In other words, it's not mainstream 

Personally, I think it's something that will get worse before it gets better. If the public did not have an appetite for this sort of thing, it would not get fed.

We've ended up in a sadly humorous situation where on one hand, writers like Kay Hymowitz in the article, _Where Have All The Good Men Gone?_ laments the fact that an alarming number of young men don't seem terribly motivated today. 

On the other hand, few seem terribly worried over whether sending young boys the message that husbands and fathers are useless and not worthy of respect starting from before they can even read might be a bad thing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo...This is difficult for me, because I *do* care...

...I have spent a lot of personal time trying to un-mommy-fy my son

...gave him NMMNG

...am having my husband, his step-father, teach him manly things (thankfully my husband is a wonderful step-dad and has a lot to offer in this area, teaching him work ethic and other skills)

...trying to encourage him in manning up all the time...

...and yet no matter what my beliefs are in this area, no matter how much I am doing work to personally "fix" this situation in the only way I can (ie: within MY family)...I will still be regarded as a "radical feminist" here at TAM apparently because I am female, and everything I say will be immediately painted with a "don't bother hearing her...she's a woman and therefore, a radical feminist, and therefore, she is part of the problem".


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> ...I have spent a lot of personal time trying *to un-mommy-fy* my son
> 
> 
> 
> .


:rofl:

Couldn't help, I just laughed!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yeah I made up a word on the spot! Funny.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> ...and yet no matter what my beliefs are in this area, no matter how much I am doing work to personally "fix" this situation in the only way I can (ie: within MY family)...I will still be regarded as a "radical feminist" here at TAM apparently because I am female, and everything I say will be immediately painted with a "don't bother hearing her...she's a woman and therefore, a radical feminist, and therefore, she is part of the problem".


Well I hope I haven't given that impression. I've said over and over on this thread that this is a direction that society as a whole (Men and women) took; that men have been willing participants from day one; that this was part of the post-war social upheaval we experienced in America and that this is not a male vs. female dispute at all. The example I gave earlier on this thread from Disney was chosen in part, because all of the writers were male. Men need to own this problem and fix it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you, ocotillo. No, you haven't made me feel like that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

You are a radical woman, which is good

I never saw the feminist part though.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG....I don't want to stir up crap but...I personally see a lot of ads that make fun of women too or that I, personally, feel are just ridiculous. Such as, groups of women stampeding to a shoe sale. I also find it insulting that there are still so many sparkling clean kitchens with a housewife selling me something in her hands (cleaning supplies, usually). I mean, what century is this? There are not a lot of SAHM's who also have sparkling clean houses and look like stepford wives. I am also offended at some other ads, such as birth control and pregnancy test ads...the women MUST wear a wedding ring in the ads. AND I don't like the lack of ads that show bi-racial couples.
> 
> Anyway, yes I agree the ad you posted yesterday was stupid and it is sad it was created to begin with and that anyone at that ad agency would think it was ok. But honestly....there are so many ads that are offensive, IMO.


Sure, there are some silly ads out there, and some social conventions that seem out dated. But even with the shoe stampede, I can't remember seeing a commercial recently were the women were portrayed as stupid and incompetent (which this ad did). That is part of what we as men sometime perceive - that society believes respect for men is optional.

I can give another example. This Father's Day, the Washington Post included an article from a women describing her mixed feelings about the day because earlier in the year she found out that her deceased father had a long term affair. It was certainly an interesting piece, and I can imagine it invokes some confusion emotions. But the article's I recall for Mother's Day all celebrated motherhood and were positive. I struggle to imagine someone thinking that a similar piece about a mother being run on Mother's Day would be a good idea.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAG, I understand your example...but it would not bother me in the least for such a piece to be run on Mother's day.

So while I can agree that "we" have a ways to go....but why can't those of us who are "on the side of men's rights" be heard if we are female? How can any of us females get past the "radical feminist" paintbrush?


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> "However, men's rights advocates are derided as unmanly, privileged, complainers."
> 
> Where, and by whom?
> 
> I don't doubt you, I just don't know where you are seeing this happen?


Best of the Web Today: Sex, Lies and the War on Men - WSJ.com
Here's an example. James Taranto, of the WSJ, wrote a piece on Sen McCaskill placing a permanent hold on the promotion of Gen Helms as punishment for her granting clemency to a man convicted of aggravated sexual assault. Taranto laid out the facts of the case, published a link to the PDF of the trial transcript, and made a decent argument that the government had not proved the charges of which the officer was convicted. Helms did accept a plea bargain of a lower charge and the man was involuntarily discharged. But, he won't face jail time and won't be a registered sex offender.

As a result of the column, which mentioned the "war on men" twice, several mainstream media outlets published histrionic attacks on Taranto, personally. I'm sure Taranto would be happy to only be portrayed as a privileged complainer.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok that is a good example PHT....however, I can see how it would be a bit of "bait" for grumbling when you are writing a story about a possible male sex offender and then talking about the "war on men" in the same story.

Not saying I agree, but anytime a sex offender is the main part of a story, you are going to have sex crime victims being very touchy about it, right?

Again...good example. Possibly too touchy of a subject though? Unless I am not understanding what happened.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But PHT...don't get me wrong!

I don't like the problems in the media that are occuring. I love and respect men. I just want to be accepted as a female who doesn't have a "radical feminist agenda", but that doesn't seem possible for me here.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> ...I have spent a lot of personal time trying to un-mommy-fy my son


Kudos.



> ...and yet no matter what my beliefs are in this area, no matter how much I am doing work to personally "fix" this situation in the only way I can (ie: within MY family)...I will still be regarded as a "radical feminist" here at TAM apparently because I am female, and everything I say will be immediately painted with a "don't bother hearing her...she's a woman and therefore, a radical feminist, and therefore, she is part of the problem".


I have used the phrase "radical feminism" on this thread. I may have been the one to introduce it. So I think I can speak to this. As a believer in the existence of radical feminism, I can say that I certainly don't think that all women are radical feminists.

And when I posted my list of examples of tenets of radical feminism, I left off unobjectionable goals like equal access to education, or equal treatment under the law and in the court system. I fully support those kinds of goals. And, thankfully, I think most of these kinds of unobjectionable goals have been accomplished.

Unfortunately, many of the silly tenets that I posted, such as the belief that a female teacher should earn the same amount as a male physician, are very real goals that sober, respectable men and women currently advocate. Those are the radicals. So, unless you fall into the latter camp, I wouldn't worry about being mistook for a radical feminist.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But PHT, you implied Tiggy Blue believed the items on that list....based on what? What had she ever said that put her in that camp? (Maybe I missed something but I never heard her say anything close to kindergarten teacher making doctor's salary).


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok that is a good example PHT....however, I can see how it would be a bit of "bait" for grumbling when you are writing a story about a possible male sex offender and then talking about the "war on men" in the same story.
> 
> Not saying I agree, but anytime a sex offender is the main part of a story, you are going to have sex crime victims being very touchy about it, right?
> 
> Again...good example. Possibly too touchy of a subject though? Unless I am not understanding what happened.


Sure. Sexual assault is a touchy subject. But that's exactly why criminal cases on the matter need to be dispassionately reviewed. That's where the war on men came into play.

The reason McCaskill is punishing Helms for doing her statutory duty and reviewing the facts of the conviction is because the resulting decision to grant clemency doesn't jibe with the war on men. As Taranto said in his column, treating a reckless man as a criminal and a reckless woman as a victim makes a mockery of equality of the sexes. Justice should be blind.

And I can certainly forgive some of the outrage over Taranto's column from victims. But these are mainstream journalists and writers who make a living out of writing that is supposed to be considered and rational. And there were hundreds of columns, notes, and tweets decrying his criticism of McCaskill's actions.

It seems reasonable to me to connect it to some hostility toward men, in general.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Understood, PHT.


----------



## PHTlump

Faithful Wife said:


> But PHT, you implied Tiggy Blue believed the items on that list....based on what? What had she ever said that put her in that camp? (Maybe I missed something but I never heard her say anything close to kindergarten teacher making doctor's salary).


I didn't mean to imply that she believed those things. I don't know if she does, or not. I was only trying to use those as examples of radically feminist things that mainstream people believe.

As for the teacher/doctor example, that's really the only way the wage gap holds up. A female doctor makes the same as a male doctor, assuming comparable experience, hours worked, etc. Ditto for almost every field. The only way the wage gap exists is to compare all the women against all the men, and ignore that men are better paid because they work more valuable jobs, work longer hours, etc.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG, I understand your example...but it would not bother me in the least for such a piece to be run on Mother's day.


What bother's me is the different standard, if you will. That is would be acceptable for a father, but not for a mother seems wrong. Perhaps they would have run it had there been an article like that, but my perception, colored though it may be, is that they would not. That is what bothers me.



> So while I can agree that "we" have a ways to go....but why can't those of us who are "on the side of men's rights" be heard if we are female? How can any of us females get past the "radical feminist" paintbrush?


I don't think you should not be heard, and certainly hope I have not conveyed that. As I noted before, women are not the enemy and we will not figure things out if men and women view each other as the opposing team. I welcome ideas from all, and just because someone does not agree with my approach or my characterization does not mean they are ill-intentioned (even though they are wrong )

I do get frustrated is when those that read about men voicing their concerns, immediately point out all the awful things women have to deal with and tell me to just be quiet because it could be worse. By that token, we all should shut up because we are not starving in war-torn Somalia.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Tall Average Guy said:


> I do get frustrated is when those that read about men voicing their concerns, immediately point out all the awful things women have to deal with and tell me to just be quiet because it could be worse. By that token, we all should shut up because we are not starving in war-torn Somalia.


:iagree:
It turns into mudslinging rather than a discussion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok well you guys, I totally get what you all are saying. I hope maybe you are getting some of what I am saying, too. Which is basically that there are women who are smart, educated, work for a living, and love and respect men all at once!

In an upcoming blog post, I'm going to write about how I wonder if some women find it offensive that I call my husband a Sex God....and I'm going to pose the question something like ... can you even let yourself see your husband as one or would that seem like you are saying he is "above" you or "controls" you or "is better" than you? Some of my blog posts get heated reactions from some women....which is funny because some of the most 50 Shades of Gray loving women have read some of it and then come back with "sounds like your husband is a controlling psycho".

I know that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here....I am just expressing some of my thoughts on this topic.

It almost seems like the main thing behind some of these issues is that people of both genders don't like feeling controlled or beneath someone else....but I wonder why people feel that way so much?

I don't feel above or beneath anyone, and I openly worship my Sex God husband.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

PHTlump said:


> Best of the Web Today: Sex, Lies and the War on Men - WSJ.com
> Here's an example. James Taranto, of the WSJ, wrote a piece on Sen McCaskill placing a permanent hold on the promotion of Gen Helms as punishment for her granting clemency to a man convicted of aggravated sexual assault. Taranto laid out the facts of the case, published a link to the PDF of the trial transcript, and made a decent argument that the government had not proved the charges of which the officer was convicted. Helms did accept a plea bargain of a lower charge and the man was involuntarily discharged. But, he won't face jail time and won't be a registered sex offender.
> 
> As a result of the column, which mentioned the "war on men" twice, several mainstream media outlets published histrionic attacks on Taranto, personally. I'm sure Taranto would be happy to only be portrayed as a privileged complainer.


I think what Taranto is missing is that it is highly unusual for an appeals judge (and that is what Helms was acting as) to draw conclusions about the truthfulness of a witness. The fact finder, because they can see the witness, their demeanor, hear their voice, and otherwise interpret all of the non-verbal communication, is typically given a lot of deference in deciding which witnesses are truthful. I don't know any more about this case than what I have read, but it is certainly possible that the man who contradicted the alleged victim was evasive, nervous and otherwise looked like a person who was lying. So it is judges usually want to see a whole lot of evidence on the other side before overturning things. That Helms did not certainly raises questions as to why she made her decision and whether it was the best thing to do. I don't think questioning Helms means there is a war on men.

Having said that, I disagree greatly with the personal attacks against him. I can disagree with his analysis of the facts without resulting to that.


----------



## PHTlump

Tall Average Guy said:


> I think what Taranto is missing is that it is highly unusual for an appeals judge (and that is what Helms was acting as) to draw conclusions about the truthfulness of a witness.


In a normal court, that's correct. But this was a military court-martial. As such, Helms was obligated to review the case to determine its factual sufficiency.



> I don't think questioning Helms means there is a war on men.
> 
> Having said that, I disagree greatly with the personal attacks against him. I can disagree with his analysis of the facts without resulting to that.


I think that's the key. I agree that reasonable people can disagree reasonably on the issues and want more information. But McCaskill isn't merely questioning Helms, she is blocking her promotion as retribution for her actions in this case. And she's justifying it by falsely reporting the facts behind Helms's actions (that she went against her legal counsel's recommendation). But aside from all of that, simply writing that the accused had not been proven guilty of aggravated sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when the facts of the case were as dubious as these appear to be, shouldn't generate the kind of caterwauling that it has.


----------



## john_lord_b3

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok well you guys, I totally get what you all are saying. I hope maybe you are getting some of what I am saying, too. Which is basically that *there are women who are smart, educated, work for a living, and love and respect men all at once!*


I never ever doubted this.. found many woman with great views on equality just in this board alone. :smthumbup:



> In an upcoming blog post, I'm going to write about how I wonder if some women find it offensive that I call my husband a Sex God....and I'm going to pose the question something like ... can you even let yourself see your husband as one or would that seem like you are saying he is "above" you or "controls" you or "is better" than you? Some of my blog posts get heated reactions from some women....which is funny because some of the most 50 Shades of Gray loving women have read some of it and then come back with "sounds like your husband is a controlling psycho".
> 
> I know that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here....I am just expressing some of my thoughts on this topic.
> 
> It almost seems like the main thing behind some of these issues is that people of both genders don't like feeling controlled or beneath someone else....but I wonder why people feel that way so much?
> 
> I don't feel above or beneath anyone, and* I openly worship my Sex God husband*.


he is a lucky person! :smthumbup:


----------



## john_lord_b3

Tall Average Guy said:


> ...I do get frustrated is when those that read about men voicing their concerns, immediately point out all the awful things women have to deal with and tell me to just be quiet because it could be worse. By that token, we all should shut up because we are not starving in war-torn Somalia.


Good point! :iagree:


----------



## whitehawk

just read my post above in "Men , how do you run your families"

But basically , it all depends on what her - their - latest whim and the trend is doesn't it .
Going back to they are far more trouble than what we get out of it myself.
And then you don't know when they'll walk anyway because if you read their fads and changes , your damned if you do and damned if you don't in whatever you do. 
Waste of time even bothering these days l'm thinking !


----------



## Starstarfish

> It almost seems like the main thing behind some of these issues is that people of both genders don't like feeling controlled or beneath someone else....but I wonder why people feel that way so much?


I'd imagine there are a lot of factors that go into why various people feel that way. I'd imagine part of it is that on some level, conscious or subconscious there is an issue with trust. And that may or may not be warranted towards the spouse, depending on their past behavior (IE - obviously if someone used to be a big abusive drinker, even if they go sober, 100% trust in order to feel comfortable with them "in charge" might be really hard to come to terms with.) 

Or - it could be an issue from childhood, where if you were made to not feel important, wanted, or valid (by parents or perhaps you were bullied in school) you are easily "triggered" into feeling defensive and angry when something makes you feel that way again. 

Also - there's a difference between willingly "submitting" and wanting your spouse to be in charge - it being a mutual decision. And - your spouse taking it upon themselves to take up the mantle of superiority and use it to become kind of a tyrant - negating your input, opinions, and desires. Whether that superiority has a religious backing (Men lead, women follow), a financial one (I make the money, therefore I make the rules), or is based purely on the "leading" spouses feeling. 
And - people might fear the first situation turning into the second, "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and all of that. 

There's also the fact that some people might want their spouse to take a more active leadership role, but they can't or won't. (From again any myriad of factors - personality, upbringing, etc). Which might lead to resentment and displaced agitation and hearing about other people who do have that kind of set-up. 

As to the fact that these women can enjoy 50 Shades of Grey and still have these fears, well - that's a fantasy, the same as any good old bodice ripper romance book. Some part of them may want to be able to lose control to their husband, to have him really take charge. But - either they consciously fear the reality of that situation (see any of the reasons above) or he's incapable of acting like that - and thus it's an unfulfilled fantasy, and perhaps a source of agitation or sadness. Which again, might lead to a level of jealousy when you describe your take charge "Sex God."


----------

