# Men, would you marry...



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

...a female attorney?

I would prefer a bit of honesty and not wishy washy answers of 'it depends on her as a person.' You can probably find a Mother Theresa/Martha Stewart/Jenna Jameson lawyer somewhere. I am not talking about her.

I would not take that risk personally and it was debated quite a bit on the net in places. Female lawyers find it incredibly difficult to date, not just from their job demands but also because of stereotypes.

I think one of the largest 'issues' I would have with marrying (not dating) an attorney is that the work induced stress would cause more rifts in the relationship than many other jobs and that in the event of divorce, it would frankly be catastrophic for the man who married her.

She knows everything about you fiscally and emotionally and would point her shark in exactly the right direction to put the screws in painfully.

Now, yes men face that from ANY wife...but most women don't think like lawyers so there is a certain amount of things overlooked. Not to mention that litigators are trained to WIN at all costs.

I for one would prefer not to pay that price.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

My husband works with a guy who not only married an Attorney ...but also her Uncle is the head honcho Judge... some very powerful people we seen at his Reception, State Reps etc.... 

He knows his A$$ is cooked if he messes up THIS time.... 

What is funny is .....a few years BEFORE he married her, he married another women...she was ready to settle down and HE still wanted to party I guess......divorce came quickly...

So when my husband came home a couple yrs later saying he was getting married AGAIN ....and to the Judge's niece.... we were all joking about it - how he's gonna be finished if he messes this one up. So far so good though.


----------



## lovelygirl (Apr 15, 2012)

Being a lawyer is indeed stressful. I am a soon to be lawyer myself and to be honest that's NOT what I wanted to do in life but things got to this point.
I think it highly depends on the personality/character of the woman. I know you don't like the answer but as for every other job this is true. 
The same thing can be said for male attorneys, right? So there's not much of a difference. 
If you start talking about lawyers, you can as well talk about presidents, mayors, ministers and so on. Every one of them has a highly stressful jobs.

Tell me what job doesn't have stress and what job doesn't affect marriage?

But I don't think we should blame it on the job. It's the people that make the marriage, not the job.


----------



## Mavash. (Jan 26, 2012)

I'm a former high powered CPA who traveled a lot and had a stressful job. (I'm now a homemaker). My husband jokes I could have easily been an attorney because I could win any argument.

That said I was NOT a good wife during most of my CPA days. I had emotional issues that hadn't been dealt with, it was a stressful job, I worked with mostly men and I was unable to turn it off when I came home.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

lovelygirl said:


> Being a lawyer is indeed stressful. I am a soon to be lawyer myself and to be honest that's NOT what I wanted to do in life but things got to this point.


Not to get too far off topic, but this comment just got my attention. How did you get to be a lawyer and it not being what you wanted in life? I can understand someone getting on at McDonald's and staying longer than they planned, but doesn't becoming a lawyer require a lot of planning, money, and schooling? 

As for the original question, if I got to the point of marriage, sure i would, but my lifestyle and a lawyer's lifestyle probably wouldn't mix too well, so i doubt i would make it that far anyway.


----------



## Viseral (Feb 25, 2011)

Depends on two things: A) her career aspirations, and B) her willingness to sign a pre-nup.

If her intention was to be a high powered lawyer in a prestigious firm, and be a mother, and be a wife then I'd be concerned that as her husband I'd be put on the back burner and left with scraps.

Also, with her knowledge and connections within the already anti-male family court system, I'd be concerned I'd get eviscerated in any kind of legal settlement, so she'd have to sign an iron-clad pre-nup before marriage. Without any legal protections it'd be like living with a gun to my head.

Additionally, if she made a lot more money than me that might be a problem. Women are hypergamous and are hard-wired to be attracted to men with more status and resources than themselves, so it's quite likely that if she earned a lot more than me that she'd eventually lose attraction and then annihilate me in a divorce.

The risk vs gain equation doesn't compute on this one.


----------



## Shoto1984 (Apr 11, 2009)

So to play along with this, if she's a high powered attorney with lots of stress etc. chances are she's making more then you. So, at least in my state, when divorce time comes she gets to pay you alimony not the other way around. Additionally, being an attorney she will know how most of these cases settle any way and might approach it rationally rather then emotionally. Maybe not so bad after all.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

I would definitely marry her, contingent that money/salary differentials were not a real problem, and provided that she was as religious and empathetic as I am.

But just like any other woman, she would have to pass the intelligence, charm, wit, and visual test; just as I would have to basically pass the same in order to be able to get closer to her!


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

JCD said:


> ...a female attorney?
> 
> I would prefer a bit of honesty and not wishy washy answers of 'it depends on her as a person.' You can probably find a Mother Theresa/Martha Stewart/Jenna Jameson lawyer somewhere. I am not talking about her.
> 
> ...


A woman's occupation would not eliminate her from my consideration as a mate.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

hambone said:


> A woman's occupation would not eliminate her from my consideration as a mate.


Greatly provided, of course, that she wasn't a prostitute or a drug dealer!


----------



## Coffee Amore (Dec 15, 2011)

I asked my husband this question and his answer was "yes, if she shows me her briefs and works my bar."


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Trenton said:


> Yes, absolutely, because women in those trades also tend to know certain things and are not willing to overlook them.


Yeah! There are some pretty gnarly occupational hazards there that I don't really think that I would exactly want to be a party to!


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Trenton said:


> Wha?! What is this thread even saying?!
> 
> "Now, yes men face that from ANY wife...but most women don't think like lawyers so there is a certain amount of things overlooked." -JCD
> 
> Dear Lord please make it stop!


I am simply asking how other men saw the prospects of marrying a female attorney. I thought this was quite clear.

But to the sarcastic comment, allow me to clarify.

Say a man has an entire set of 1954 Yankees starting line up baseball cards.

Your average woman would look at the cash value and insist on $6,000 to reimburse her for his possession of same.

A female attorney would rigidly insist on owning half the cards, slashing the value of both sets and using this as a sentimental leverage point to gain far more than $6000 in recompense, not to mention all the other poison pill loopholes she can suggest. ("Insist on child custody during the baseball playoffs so his season tickets are worthless since he doesn't have enough for the kids...")

Now an intelligent woman can inform her lawyer of some of these ideas, but I'm guessing an attorney would be much better (and merciless) in this kind of thinking.

And I have to laugh at the idea of our legal system forcing a connected FEMALE lawyer to actually PAY alimony. Not very likely.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

hambone said:


> A woman's occupation would not eliminate her from my consideration as a mate.


This seems short sighted. Both peoples occupation will have huge repercussions. I doubt many husbands would sit still for a wife who is working 100 billable hours a week to make partner.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

JCD said:


> I am simply asking how other men saw the prospects of marrying a female attorney. I thought this was quite clear.
> 
> But to the sarcastic comment, allow me to clarify.
> 
> ...


If you think that a female attorney would not end up paying support when divorcing a man who earns much less than she does you are blind to reality.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

JCD said:


> This seems short sighted. Both peoples occupation will have huge repercussions. I doubt many husbands would sit still for a wife who is working 100 billable hours a week to make partner.


Yet men who work those hours expect to be able to find a woman who will marry them. 

Now why is it that a man cannot tollerate what women are expected to tolerate?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

JCD said:


> I am simply asking how other men saw the prospects of marrying a female attorney. I thought this was quite clear.
> 
> But to the sarcastic comment, allow me to clarify.
> 
> ...


And you know this why? Because you know that women are horrible, selfish, money grabbing b!tches? Why else would you make an assumption like this.


----------



## Wiserforit (Dec 27, 2012)

JCD said:


> ...a female attorney?
> 
> I would prefer a bit of honesty and not wishy washy answers of 'it depends on her as a person.'


pffft.

It would depend on her as a person.

You can't censor the best answer.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> And you know this why? Because you know that women are horrible, selfish, money grabbing b!tches? Why else would you make an assumption like this.


Her choice of career which is known for its hyper competitive nature and its focus on lucre uber alles? (for the most part...the career has some altruists)?

Just out of curiosity, but with three rather harsh posts...do you have a dog in this fight? Cause I don't.

And I'm sorry if it offends you that men like SAHMs as a general rule. And funny thing..,a lot of women feel the same way.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Wiserforit said:


> pffft.
> 
> It would depend on her as a person.
> 
> You can't censor the best answer.


You can if you are discussing a principle.

Sure, if I met a former swimsuit model who did 30 hours of pro bono work for children and wasn't horridly career driven and materialistic, yeah, I'd think twice.

I am not talking about her.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> If you think that a female attorney would not end up paying support when divorcing a man who earns much less than she does you are blind to reality.


Do you know of any specifically and are they paying at the same rates as a man of the same salary is expected to? This is a serious question because IIRC, you said you were a paralegal (and there is your dog..if you are not actually an attorney)

Follow up question since you work in a lawyers office...is it difficult for the women to find dates? I hear it but I've heard contradictory reports.

As a follow up to the tolerance question, for reasons known only to themselves, many women seem happy to make the trade of his money for her time at home.

Men are not. If this offend you, you might as well rail against the moon. It is...generally.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Most likely it won't be an issue for a man that would answer the poll with a "no". All the female Solicitors I know tend to marry at their own level, not below.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Holland said:


> Most likely it won't be an issue for a man that would answer the poll with a "no". All the female Solicitors I know tend to marry at their own level, not below.


That is a problem in itself.

A 'high status' man will marry a female doctor...or a paralegal...or a professor...or a Retail store manager...or a barmaid.

So there is a great deal of competition for 'high status' males that they seek. There have been a number of articles written about this phenomena, and the "Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" affirms your statement. This is leading a lot of depression in 'high status" women who wonder why a secretary with big bazungas is equal competition with someone with a J.D. or an M.D. behind her name. Men don't seek status in others. They WANT status for themselves. (Other cultures may vary...some...)

Women PREFER to seek males their status or higher. This is a general rule.

How many times in 'Coping with Infidelity' have we seen the phrase "She makes more than me." And guess who she is cheating with? Hint: it isn't the mailboy...


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

JCD said:


> And I'm sorry if it offends you that men like SAHMs as a general rule. And funny thing..,a lot of women feel the same way.


Was there a poll done to show this general rule?Is there any supporting information for this statement?


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

JCD said:


> Women PREFER to seek males their status or higher. This is a general rule.


Do you have statistics or some sort of poll to back this up or is this general rule based on what you've read on Tam?


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

I guess I fail to see the underlying point of this thread.

If you marry a female doctor, she could poison you and make it appear a natural death.

If you marry a female IT professional, she could plant kiddy porn on your PC and have you arrested.

If you marry a female journalist, she could print false accusations about you in the paper and ruin your reputation forever.

If you marry a female chemist, she could dissolve your body in some crazy concoction that would leave no trace of evidence.

If divorce is that big a concern, then get a prenup.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Davelli0331 said:


> I guess I fail to see the underlying point of this thread.
> 
> If you marry a female doctor, she could poison you and make it appear a natural death.
> 
> ...


A woman can only kill me once. A lawyer can make me suffer for the rest of my life. 

Besides, murder is illegal. Divorce, in certain circles, is applauded.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

My office is split almost evenly between male and female attorneys. Off the top of my head, I'm pretty certain that everybody is married, including the women, so apparently at least some folks don't have an issue with marrying female attorneys.

The husbands include a teacher, a chef, and a contractor. I'm not sure what the others do, but I'm pretty sure none are lawyers.

With one possible exception, all of the female attorneys I work with strike me as great people. Whether law attracts a disproportionate number of quasi-sociopaths may be a debatable point, but to those lawyers I know it's just a job.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

ScarletBegonias said:


> Was there a poll done to show this general rule?Is there any supporting information for this statement?


Daily Mail UK



> Women aged 25 plus in a relationship and full time jobs were polled
> 62% admitted they 'secretly' wished to be a housewife
> 74% said they felt pressure from other women to be independent
> 78% said they wouldn't mind being financially dependent on their partner


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

You marry because you love a person and assume it will be forever. Choosing to not marry a woman because her profession makes you think you have more to lose in case of divorce, well - don't marry if you're already looking at divorce!

No excuses for stress or how much time it takes... the right woman, even an attorney, will prioritize and make time for family and exercise (to reduce stress). Don't blame it on the profession; blame it on the person. 

As to argumentative - every attorney doesn't have to win an argument at home; judges have to start out as attorneys; they have the ability to see both sides of an issue and make a fair determination. 

Perhaps a female attorney would make a BETTER spouse - they earn their share, are goal oriented and disciplined, logical... these seem like good traits.

I feel only men who are intimated by women insist on a SAHM. Odds are you are both working when you meet. If you decide as a couple that once children come on the scene that it's better for the kids, then, great. But I see a lot of men on here who are divorcing that are very resentful that they have worked hard and supported someone all of these years only to have them leave.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

JCD said:


> Daily Mail UK


But you said that was how MEN felt. And that's the UK.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

I never get the point of survey's, even asking 10,000 people if you did the survey again with survey again with another 10,000 people you may get different results. Unless it's a survey asking everyone in the world they seem pointless to me.


----------



## SomedayDig (Jul 17, 2012)

Is she gonna wear a super hot suit? I mean...like the whole librarian thing.

I shall only answer after that information is provided


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

JCD said:


> Women PREFER to seek males their status or higher. This is a general rule.
> 
> How many times in 'Coping with Infidelity' have we seen the phrase "She makes more than me." And guess who she is cheating with? Hint: it isn't the mailboy...


I have seen plenty of threads saying 'he is scum, he doesn't have a job ect'. Depends what your looking out for I guess.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

ScarletBegonias said:


> Do you have statistics or some sort of poll to back this up or is this general rule based on what you've read on Tam?





> According to a report researched at the London School of Economics and published by the Centre for Policy Studies, women are more determined than ever to bag a partner who will improve their financial prospects, think Jane Austen, but with Dragon's Den venture capitalist Deborah Meaden as Mrs Bennett.
> 
> "Women's aspirations to marry up, if they can, to a man who is better-educated and higher earning persists in most European countries," says the report's author, Catherine Hakim, a senior research fellow in sociology who is no stranger to controversy, having last year coined the neologisms "erotic capital" and "beauty premium "to describe the key professional attribute of our times.
> 
> ...


And I cited "Red Queen: Sex and the nature of Human Evolution" which also asserts a good bit of research into female motivations regarding mating and 



> A recent series of articles in the New York Times has been documenting some aspects of what they term ‘The Gender Divide’. For example, they find that women are outperforming men on average throughout the educational system, some men who lack college degrees are unable to marry, and other men prefer to be unemployed rather than take a low status job. *Another aspect is that successful career women are less likely to get married, more likely to marry late, and less likely to have children. *
> 
> These journalistic observations are highly interesting and relevant, but the socio-cultural explanations offered typically ignore basic evolutionary psychology. The main root of these profound social trends among men and women is quite clear and simple. It is the increasing success of women in the economy acting upon evolved biological sexual preferences. The change in women’s status is primary, and personal problems of both women and men are secondary to this.
> 
> ...


This took a whole five minutes to find.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

SomedayDig said:


> Is she gonna wear a super hot suit? I mean...like the whole librarian thing.
> 
> I shall only answer after that information is provided












The upside of marrying one .


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

My attorney is the sweetest lady in the world. A family woman first and foremost. She's married to a friend of mine who is a successful businessman in his own right.

While being a cordial and congenial lady, in the family law circuit, she has the reputation of being feared by even the more experienced attorneys in her field.

While she does put in a fair share of hours, the weekend is prohibitively for her and her family. And they do vacation 3 to 4 times a year!


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

EnjoliWoman said:


> But you said that was how MEN felt. And that's the UK.


What? I don't understand what you are saying here.

Men don't care about status. Women do.

The NYT is also discussing "The Gender Divide" about depressed marriageless high profile career women. They don't want to have to trade down. But high status men have their pick and they can socially get away with picking up low status women if they want.


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

TiggyBlue said:


> The upside of marrying one .


I could get on board with that.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

arbitrator said:


> While being a cordial and congenial lady, in the family law circuit, she has the reputation of being feared by even the more experienced attorneys in her field.


I'm thinking her last name starts with a "b". If so, you're damn right she's feared by other family lawyers.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> I never get the point of survey's, even asking 10,000 people if you did the survey again with survey again with another 10,000 people you may get different results. Unless it's a survey asking everyone in the world they seem pointless to me.


Well, if you don't think one can get any meaningful data from a smaller sample, I guess you're excused.


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

arbitrator said:


> Greatly provided, of course, that she wasn't a prostitute or a drug dealer!


Well, yeah... you might have a point there.

I'd have to back off if I found out someone I was attracted to was a prostitute or a drug dealer.

I guess I didn't think about those because they aren't legal professions... at least not in most places.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> I have seen plenty of threads saying 'he is scum, he doesn't have a job ect'. Depends what your looking out for I guess.


I.E. low status and beneath her.


----------



## Davelli0331 (Apr 29, 2011)

There's a subtle difference between intelligent discourse and grinding an axe/pushing an agenda.

My spider senses tell me this thread has crossed that line. I'm outtie.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

JCD said:


> I.E. low status and beneath her.


The BS is saying it about the OM.


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

Davelli0331 said:


> There's a subtle difference between intelligent discourse and grinding an axe/pushing an agenda.
> 
> My spider senses tell me this thread has crossed that line. I'm outtie.


:iagree:


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

GTdad said:


> I'm thinking her last name starts with a "b". If so, you're damn right she's feared by other family lawyers.


Not a "B" but with a "W"!


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

JCD said:


> This seems short sighted. Both peoples occupation will have huge repercussions. I doubt many husbands would sit still for a wife who is working 100 billable hours a week to make partner.


'

Well, the occupation it self isn't the problem..

It's the hours she's working. That can occur in any profession.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Davelli0331 said:


> There's a subtle difference between intelligent discourse and grinding an axe/pushing an agenda.
> 
> My spider senses tell me this thread has crossed that line. I'm outtie.


I am discussing matrimonial preferences. As there aren't THAT many female lawyers (and I'm married anyway) it impinges upon my ability to find a mate very marginally.

I was wondering if there was a large bias against that group or if i was alone. So far, not many people agree with me.

What have I done to further intelligent discourse? Read about four blog posts including every single comment made by the readers on the subject that women lawyers DO have trouble getting dates and many lie about what job they have to avoid 'male insecurities'. Many of the married ones married IN law school and not after. Other had no problems. But the majority agree that they DO have problems.

It has segued into a discussion on marriage choices and status (something the UK papers and MANY MANY magazines and papers are discussing) I can't believe no one has read any of this stuff.

But buh bye.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

arbitrator said:


> Not a "B" but with a "W"!


Okay, I think I know who you're talking about. Don't know her. I was thinking about C. "take no prisoners" Borman.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

hambone said:


> '
> 
> Well, the occupation it self isn't the problem..
> 
> It's the hours she's working. That can occur in any profession.


It occurs in mine! But when yeah, the occupation IS a problem. (it isn't really MY problem). If the goal is to pile up the billables, one isn't going to do it working 40 hours a week. Same as piloting or crabbing. The company is paying for a substantial portion of your life. The more they take and the harder the tasks, the more they pay you.

Now some like arbitrator's example get enough clout to maintain a balance. I wonder what balance she had in her first three years?

Fire breathing dreaded litigators who can bring in $400 an hour generally are exceptions, not rules.


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

JCD said:


> It occurs in mine! But when yeah, the occupation IS a problem. (it isn't really MY problem). If the goal is to pile up the billables, one isn't going to do it working 40 hours a week. Same as piloting or crabbing. The company is paying for a substantial portion of your life. The more they take and the harder the tasks, the more they pay you.
> 
> Now some like arbitrator's example get enough clout to maintain a balance. I wonder what balance she had in her first three years?
> 
> Fire breathing dreaded litigators who can bring in $400 an hour generally are exceptions, not rules.


You think attorney's are the only occupation dedicated enough to work over time? That can occur in pretty much any occupation. 

I think you point is that the woman is spending more time (is more dedicated) to her occupation than her family.

Now, that would be a problem for me... regardless of the occupation.

Then again, you hear women complaining about the exact same thing...That their husband is TOO dedicated to his job.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

JCD said:


> And I'm sorry if it offends you that* men *like SAHMs as a general rule. And funny thing..,a lot of women feel the same way.





JCD said:


> Daily Mail UK
> Women aged 25 plus in a relationship and full time jobs were polled
> 62% admitted they 'secretly' wished to be a housewife
> 74% said they felt pressure from other women to be independent
> 78% said they wouldn't mind being financially dependent on their partner





EnjoliWoman said:


> But you said that was how MEN felt. And that's the UK.





JCD said:


> What? I don't understand what you are saying here.
> 
> Men don't care about status. Women do.


First you say that MEN want a SAHM. But the article you cite only has quotes from WOMEN. And that was specific to the UK so you can't apply that to the world.

And men DO care about status. Maybe not the status of their wife, but they do care about THEIR status.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

hambone said:


> You think attorney's are the only occupation dedicated enough to work over time?
> 
> REALLY???
> 
> ...


Well, while a concern, that actually WASN'T my main concern. It was the damage that could occur if the marriage went south. The fact that she works so much might be a cause of the failure...or it could be nothing. However with 30-50% divorce rates, just seems like a risky proposition.

I could be totally wrong. Those who work in legal settings: anecdotaly, do lawyers do better or worse in the division of assets compared to non lawyer divorcees?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

JCD said:


> Her choice of career which is known for its hyper competitive nature and its focus on lucre uber alles? (for the most part...the career has some altruists)?


Is there something wrong with a woman being in a very competetive field? 



JCD said:


> Just out of curiosity, but with three rather harsh posts...do you have a dog in this fight? Cause I don't.


Your post about what women will do in divorce, especially a female lawyer or an intelligent woman is rather harsh and insulting to all women. 


JCD said:


> And I'm sorry if it offends you that men like SAHMs as a general rule. And funny thing..,a lot of women feel the same way.


Apparently men do not prefer SAHMs. 

>70% of all married women work outside the home. 

<30% of married women are SAHM’s.

28% of wives earn more than their husbands.

Women’s income is at about 47% of household income. Men’s income is at about 52% of household income.

Married women contributing more to family earnings - Business - Boston.com

Wives now outearn their husbands in a record 28% of U.S. households, Census Bureau data show in USA Today analysis - NY Daily News



Wives now outearn their husbands in a record 28% of U.S. households, Census Bureau data show in USA Today analysis - NY Daily News


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

JCD said:


> Well, while a concern, that actually WASN'T my main concern. It was the damage that could occur if the marriage went south. The fact that she works so much might be a cause of the failure...or it could be nothing. However with 30-50% divorce rates, just seems like a risky proposition.
> 
> I could be totally wrong. Those who work in legal settings: anecdotaly, do lawyers do better or worse in the division of assets compared to non lawyer divorcees?


OK, then let's get back to your original point.

A women doesn't have to be an attorney to put the screws to you. All they have to do is hire attorney that will put the screws to you.

My first wife did that. Her attorney was know for taking everything a guy had. He did it routinely. He did it to me. For 2.5 years of marriage (back in the mid 80's) my wife got 50K out of me... and I got half a dog.

BUT, now, as Paul Harvey says, "the REST of the story!" He was very expensive. Yep... he owned half the houses in town. He got the wife every dime the guy had... then he sent her a bill... and he ended of with a lot of houses.

I made good money when I was working. I really didn't consider the wife's earning capacity when I was dating.. looking for a wife. I dated a CPA for 3 years and between Jan. 1 and April 15th... I didn't see her very much. She was hot, smart, making a ton of money... but I wasn't in love with her so I moved on. I was in like but not in love.


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Apparently men do not prefer SAHMs.
> 
> >70% of all married women work outside the home.
> 
> ...


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

JCD said:


> Do you know of any specifically and are they paying at the same rates as a man of the same salary is expected to?


From what I have seen a woman whose income is higher than her husband’s will pay alimony and child support at the same rate as a man would. This is especially true the higher her income is.


JCD said:


> This is a serious question because IIRC, you said you were a paralegal (and there is your dog..if you are not actually an attorney).


I do not work in a law office. I’m not a paralegal. I’m an engineer. Since I also have a degree in accounting I have a side business doing forensic accounting/audits for divorce and other legal cases. So I see the financial side of divorce quite a bit. And I see who gets what when the divorce is final. 


JCD said:


> Follow up question since you work in a lawyer’s office...is it difficult for the women to find dates? I hear it but I've heard contradictory reports.


I have heard that female lawyers and other professional women have a hard time finding dates and marrying. But most of the ones I know are married, in committed relationships or dating.

My attorney is a married woman who has her own practice. Her income is in the high 6 figures. Her husband is an engineer who earns about $130K annually. They have 4 children. The children are at the law office very often after school and on weekends. Her husband also helps in the law office.



JCD said:


> As a follow up to the tolerance question, for reasons known only to themselves, many women seem happy to make the trade of his money for her time at home.
> 
> Men are not. If this offend you, you might as well rail against the moon. It is...generally.


I said nothing about SAHMs. So why you think that was what got my goat on this thread I have no idea.

What bothered me is your post making out women, lawyers and all intelligent women to be people who would not only go after everything a man has in divorce but also try to hurt men… via your example of the baseball card collection.

It does not matter if a woman is an attorney. Her husband can hire a good attorney as well. Being an attorney does not give her an upper hand.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

You prefer a SAHM and that's cool. Nothing wrong with that. In some marriages, having a SAHM as a wife is what they jointly decided on and works for them. In others, the husbands prefer for the wife to work provided it is a respectable profession (i.e, not stripper,etc.) 

I have 5 guys who have been my lifelong friends and all of them are successful, as are their wives. Part of the attraction they had to their wives was their drive and determination. A kindred spirit kind of thing. 

Most professions today are not 40 hour work weeks, so unless the wife is a union worker/retail sales/fast food, you'll be hard pressed to find any working woman who doesn't work long hours. Doctors, accountants, nurses, engineers, teachers. My friend is a secretary to a CEO and she works 70 + hours a week in the office and is on call 24 hours a day when he is out of town. Less hours are not an option. Heck, the lady who does my nails works 9-9, 6 days a week.

As for marrying a lawyer, I'm not sure how that would be a detriment in the case of divorce. The laws regarding divorce are concrete in no-fault states (nearly all) so assets and debt would be divided 50/50. Alimony would not have to be paid to her since her income would be more than sufficient, she may even have to pay alimony to you and child custody would be split 50/50 or may even go your way due to her long hours. She would then have to pay you child support. Not sure what the downside is here. If anything, marrying a SAHM would bring you the biggest grief. No income, she has been the primary care giver.....you'd be on the hook for 18 years of child support and depending upon the length of marriage, maybe life time alimony. Yikes. Marry a lawyer!


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

Has it been pointed out yet that when your wife is a SAHM, even more of your assets and income are at risk if there's a divorce?

I guarantee you that it has occurred to me more than once.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

GTdad said:


> Has it been pointed out yet that when your wife is a SAHM, even more of your assets and income are at risk if there's a divorce?
> 
> I guarantee you that it has occurred to me more than once.


The person who is going to screw you in court is not the wife who makes six figures but the wife who doesn't earn anything being a child care giver, taxi driver, cook, maid, therapist, nurse, negotiator, stylist and teacher. She is the one who will fillet you in court. Why? She has no income and has relied solely on yours. Guess what? She still will rely on yours and the courts will as well. 

I will tailor this quite a bit as it is not meant to tick anybody off. I honestly wonder if _some_ men want it both ways. They want the Susie Q. Homemaker but then don't want to pay for that choice in the case of divorce. You simply cannot have a wife who stays at home taking care of children for years on end, out of the workforce and thus huge gaps in employment while you go out and storm the castle and then think that if the marriage ends, you have no responsibility to support her. Not sure if support is the right word but I cannot think of the right one.  What I mean is, is it reasonable to have a person stay at home for years on end raising children so that you can do your thing and while your resume grows, hers shrinks to the point of Walmart cashier? This is how the courts often see it. A woman who has sacrificed her career or potential career to take care of children so that you could secure yours. Somebody must pay and it isn't going to be welfare, that's the view of the courts.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

I used to work for a female attorney and she had other staff attorneys at the same office. All of them were happily married. That was more than 5 years ago and I am still in touch with my ex-boss and she and all the other female attorneys are still happily married.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

No, I would not.

No way in hell am I gonna marry someone who knows the laws better than me, what with them being overly anti-male in intergender situations.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

An attorney? Why not? I've married everybody else. Whatever she'd be like, I've had worse.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> No, I would not.
> 
> No way in hell am I gonna marry someone who knows the laws better than me, what with them being overly anti-male in intergender situations.


Your response doesn't surprise me at all. I've always gotten the sense that you fear strong women or at least women equal to men. You do know that in the case of divorce you would most likely have an attorney who also "knew the law", right? Anti-male? Some are, some are not. In the case of a SAHM, you bet they are anti male and yet that is what you seem to want. Odd choice my friend. 

BTW, how did your exams go?! Hopefully you didn't spend too much time here and successfully passed them.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I will tailor this quite a bit as it is not meant to tick anybody off. *I honestly wonder if some men want it both ways.* They want the Susie Q. Homemaker but then don't want to pay for that choice in the case of divorce. You simply cannot have a wife who stays at home taking care of children for years on end, out of the workforce and thus huge gaps in employment while you go out and storm the castle and then think that if the marriage ends, you have no responsibility to support her. Not sure if support is the right word but I cannot think of the right one.  What I mean is, is it reasonable to have a person stay at home for years on end raising children so that you can do your thing and while your resume grows, hers shrinks to the point of Walmart cashier? This is how the courts often see it. A woman who has sacrificed her career or potential career to take care of children so that you could secure yours. Somebody must pay and it isn't going to be welfare, that's the view of the courts.


:iagree:
There does seem to be a few on the forum who have this opinion.
Being a higher paid woman it is in a attorneys ect it is as much in her interest to have a prenup as her partners (protect her assets).


----------



## eyuop (Apr 7, 2013)

Only if the balance of power was equal or greater. In other words, on a scale of 1 to 10, being a female attorney (and if she is very beautiful) would make her like an 8. If the guy is a 5 or 6, he will struggle because she will not respect him enough. The power balance would be off. But if the guy was a professional of some kind, or owned his own company or something (made at least as much money if not more) and he was physically fit and handsome, then it could work well. I've see what happens when the balance gets off in marriages. It is called divorce. The moment one of the two becomes a "better catch", then things start going all wrong.

I once saw this with a wife who lost a lot of weight and started looking like a knockout again after 15 years of being overweight. Her husband stayed out of shape. Suddenly she was like a 7 and he was a 3. She started getting more male attention (fit guys with better jobs than her husband) and she decided she could do better and dumped him. 

When a wife makes a lot more money than the husband, things don't usually go too well unless he has a lot of other things going for him to balance the numbers out (tall, dark, handsome, fit, charisma, respected in his field of work, etc.). All I'm saying is that the man better be enough of a man to handle her.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Trenton said:


> Wha?! What is this thread even saying?!
> 
> "Now, yes men face that from ANY wife...but most women don't think like lawyers so there is a certain amount of things overlooked." -JCD
> 
> *Dear Lord please make it stop!*




:rofl:


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> There does seem to be a few on the forum who have this opinion.
> Being a higher paid woman it is in a attorneys ect it is as much in her interest to have a prenup as her partners (protect her assets).


I understand what you're saying. I do. To a degree, they have sacrificed their careers for their families and I applaud them for that. 

But, once those kids are in school... should alimony and child support be the woman's sole means of support?

Should she still be allowed to be a SAHM even if she has the credentials to get a good paying job.

I'm a retired a pharmacists. A LOT of female pharmacists go back to work part time once those kids get in school.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

JCD said:


> That is a problem in itself.
> 
> A 'high status' man will marry a female doctor...or a paralegal...or a professor...or a Retail store manager...or a barmaid.
> 
> ...


I wasn't referring to job status, more to do with who they are as a person. For an intelligent,accomplished women, there is little value in a man that is fearful of women that are intelligent and hard working.

Alimony is not something we have in my country but in divorce both side are covered by the laws pertaining to child support in which the higher earner pays. 
Are you saying that in America child support or alimony is gender based? If that is the case perhaps you could use your energy towards protesting the Govt instead of propagating the fear of intelligent, hard working women.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> No, I would not.
> 
> No way in hell am I gonna marry someone who knows the laws better than me, what with them being overly anti-male in intergender situations.


Unless she is a divorce attorney then your point is invalid. Even when Lawyers get divorced they engage others that specialise in divorce law.

I assume America is not that disimilar to Australia, the divorce laws are not gender specific.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> There does seem to be a few on the forum who have this opinion.
> Being a higher paid woman it is in a attorneys ect it is as much in her interest to have a prenup as her partners (protect her assets).


I think you fail to see the larger picture. These men don't want an equal, they want a woman who is less than them because they are so insecure that a woman who earns more is a threat, it makes their boner small and that isn't tolerated. Tale as old as time among the set. Take a man with higher intelligence and he will see what it really is: Two people working towards a common goal. Two people who take their money and pump it in to an account, Two people who work their butts off to get that vacation home. 

OP, your wife cheated on you and yet I never have in 20+ years. You are so set on your idiotology that it makes my head spin. Instead of your obvious bias towards women based on the ONE woman you married, maybe you should become a little more open minded.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Holland said:


> I wasn't referring to job status, more to do with who they are as a person. For an intelligent,accomplished women, there is little value in a man that is fearful of women that are intelligent and hard working.
> 
> Alimony is not something we have in my country but in divorce both side are covered by the laws pertaining to child support in which the higher earner pays.
> Are you saying that in America child support or alimony is gender based? If that is the case perhaps you could use your energy towards protesting the Govt instead of propagating the fear of intelligent, hard working women.


child support and alimony are not gender based in the USA. The laws in every state are the same for men and women.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> child support and alimony are not gender based in the USA. The laws in every state are the same for men and women.


Which is what I assumed EleGirl. What are these guys so afraid of then? If the higher earner pays, what is the problem?


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

hambone said:


> I understand what you're saying. I do. To a degree, they have sacrificed their careers for their families and I applaud them for that.
> 
> But, once those kids are in school... should alimony and child support be the woman's sole means of support?
> 
> ...


I guess it really depends on the situation, there's a massive difference from a woman who has 1-2 kids and a degree to a woman who had forgone education and has spent the marriage raising 5-6 kids. 
As there's a difference between a man who got to the position he is in by his wife's support or a man who made his fortune and is getting a divorce from a woman who has been a SAHM for 10-15 years with 1 kid.
I can see why temporary alimony is awarded (when a SAHM/SAHD has forgone their a career to support their spouses) to give them a chance to get a education or start to build a career.
Have heard a couple of cases where a person didn't mind getting the support of their partner through the marriage but when getting divorced they saw the house ect as solely their property.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think you fail to see the larger picture. These men don't want an equal, they want a woman who is less than them because they are so insecure that a woman who earns more is a threat, it makes their boner small and that isn't tolerated. Tale as old as time among the set. Take a man with higher intelligence and he will see what it really is: Two people working towards a common goal. Two people who take their money and pump it in to an account, Two people who work their butts off to get that vacation home.


Sorry the I agree and prenup talk were different subjects, should have done different posts


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Holland said:


> Which is what I assumed EleGirl. What are these guys so afraid of then? If the higher earner pays, what is the problem?


I don't know what the problem is. It baffles me.


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

TiggyBlue said:


> I guess it really depends on the situation, there's a massive difference from a woman who has 1-2 kids and a degree to a woman who had forgone education and has spent the marriage raising 5-6 kids.
> As there's a difference between a man who got to the position he is in by his wife's support or a man who made his fortune and is getting a divorce from a woman who has been a SAHM for 10-15 years with 1 kid.
> I can see why temporary alimony is awarded (when a SAHM/SAHD has forgone their a career to support their spouses) to give them a chance to get a education or start to build a career.
> Have heard a couple of cases where a person didn't mind getting the support of their partner through the marriage but when getting divorced they saw the house ect as solely their property.


I agree. Louisiana is a community state. What ever you've accumulated since you were married is split 50:50.

I'm not sure how you make it equitable for a woman who put a guy through law school, med school, dent. school etc.. and they guy divorces her when he get's employed. When I was that age, I was told that students applying to med school who were married lost points because of the extremely high profitability they would divorce.

If a guy is smart... and he divorces a woman with low earnings ability... he pays for her to go to school to increase her earnings... If she's willing. It also makes her a more attractive marriage prospect... get's out where she can meet some one etc.

My experience LOL is... a woman who has a love interest bugs her ex husband a lot less.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

hambone said:


> I agree. Louisiana is a community state. What ever you've accumulated since you were married is split 50:50.
> 
> I'm not sure how you make it equitable for a woman who put a guy through law school, med school, dent. school etc.. and they guy divorces her when he get's employed. When I was that age, I was told that students applying to med school who were married lost points because of the extremely high profitability they would divorce.


 I put my son’s father through medical school and supported him through residency. He had ZERO debt from medical school. We all know how expensive that is. The month he finished his residency he announced that he wanted a divorce.

We had been married 14 years. When he joined his practice he was making twice what I made as an engineer. His income has gone up a couple times that now. I did get child support. I did not get alimony and or compensation for my investment in career.

Yet if you read this thread, me an intelligent women, would have taken everything he had, right? Hardly. The law does not allow for that.



hambone said:


> If a guy is smart... and he divorces a woman with low earnings ability... he pays for her to go to school to increase her earnings... If she's willing. It also makes her a more attractive marriage prospect... get's out where she can meet some one etc.
> 
> My experience LOL is... a woman who has a love interest bugs her ex husband a lot less.


I agree with this. LOL


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> I don't know what the problem is. It baffles me.


Well, it might be that an attorney (male or female) can manipulate a situation BEFORE you get to court in such a manner that the spouse receives less than their fair share.

For example... they might shift income so that it minimizes their income as defined by the courts.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

hambone said:


> Well, it might be that an attorney (male or female) can manipulate a situation BEFORE you get to court in such a manner that the spouse receives their fair share.
> 
> For example... they might shift income so that it minimizes their income as defined by the courts.


Anyone can do that. All they have to do is to hire a smart attorney to help them figure it out.

One thing I have learned in marriage is to also make sure I know exactly what is going on with the finances so that this sort of nonsense can be caught as soon as it starts and a stop put to it.

If we go by what the OP says, no woman should marry a male lawyer either.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think you fail to see the larger picture. These men don't want an equal, they want a woman who is less than them because they are so insecure that a woman who earns more is a threat, it makes their boner small and that isn't tolerated. Tale as old as time among the set. Take a man with higher intelligence and he will see what it really is: Two people working towards a common goal. Two people who take their money and pump it in to an account, Two people who work their butts off to get that vacation home.
> 
> OP, your wife cheated on you and yet I never have in 20+ years. You are so set on your idiotology that it makes my head spin. Instead of your obvious bias towards women based on the ONE woman you married, maybe you should become a little more open minded.


My wife didn't cheat on me. I've never been divorced. Been married almost as long as you have. She's worked and is happier that way. 

And I am considering everything you are saying.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> I don't know what the problem is. It baffles me.


I do NOT assume that divorce laws are gender unbiased. I have heard many horror stories of men being assigned alimony, child support and other maintainance LARGER THAN THEIR SALARIES.

And judgie poo ordered him to get a better job or be held in contempt.

Now...I could be wrong, hence my asking questions. But if it isn't true at all, why do so many men fear divorce court with a passion?

We've had at least one man here raped by this system. There are a lot more.

And brighteyes...you sure you got the right guy? And if you DO have the correct guy, are you able to differentiate between banter and serious discussion?


----------



## hambone (Mar 30, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Anyone can do that. All they have to do is to hire a smart attorney to help them figure it out.
> 
> One thing I have learned in marriage is to also make sure I know exactly what is going on with the finances so that this sort of nonsense can be caught as soon as it starts and a stop put to it.
> 
> If we go by what the OP says, no woman should marry a male lawyer either.


I made that exact point in an earlier post. 

You might know everything that goes on with the finances in the house. But, how would you know what goes on in his business if he's self employed or is a partner in a law,dental, accounting, etc firm? People can hide income... 

You don't have to be a lawyer to engage in this sort of behavior.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Trenton said:


> JCD your post was basically saying that all female attorneys will be unscrupulous by default. To declare all attorneys unscrupulous is wrong and will set off any attorney or anyone who loves an attorney, to declare all female attorneys unscrupulous is specifically going to set off any many or woman who cares about women.
> 
> It's like me saying, Women would you marry a man in the army because he's obviously more violent than most men as he is willing to kill?
> 
> ...


I see that. I apologize. Will post more at length later.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

JCD said:


> I do NOT assume that divorce laws are gender unbiased. I have heard many horror stories of men being assigned alimony, child support and other maintainance LARGER THAN THEIR SALARIES.
> 
> And judgie poo ordered him to get a better job or be held in contempt.
> 
> ...


Sure there are all kinds of stories, but are they true? We don't know.

If I go by the story that I know the absolute truth about, my ex tells every one that I took him to the cleaners and then some. He's a liar. The court papers prove that. I'm the one out the thousands of $$'s of my income that he moved into an account in his mother's name. I'm also out the over $140K I paid on his education. 

I'm sure that there are some guys who were not treated fairly by the courts. I also know many women who were not treated fairly and/or who chose to take nothing.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

hambone said:


> I made that exact point in an earlier post.
> 
> You might know everything that goes on with the finances in the house. But, how would you know what goes on in his business if he's self employed or is a partner in a law,dental, accounting, etc firm? People can hide income...
> 
> You don't have to be a lawyer to engage in this sort of behavior.


Yes, those types of businesses make it easier to hide money and people do it. No one can ever 100% protect themself from a spouse who is intent on ripping them off.

But as much as possible a person needs to know what their spouse's income is, etc. Attornies can get tax records, bank records, etc.

My point is that just because some attornies might hide income from your spouse, it does not mean that all female attornies would do this or that all do the things that the OP stated they would do.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Don't talk logic, those out on a mission refuse to listen to it. Here in Houston, Texas..Harris County, the men who actually want joint custody get it 90 something percent of the time. My friend works in family court here and he often tells me that the only men who don't get joint custody are men who never asked for it in the first place. They of course complain about child support and how the courts screwed them over. A female biased court who is nearly all men, elected and yet continue to sit on the bench. It's people like me who seek to get rid of them. Misogynist jerks who think women are for birthing and raising. At our rallies there aren't a single man except my husband, adult son and 16 year old son. Tells me all I need to know.


Our court here starts with the assumption of 50/50 custody. Like you said, the only men who don't get that are the ones who do not ask.

When I divorced my son's father in 1996, it was like that. 

And I was the one who wanted to do 50/50. My ex tried to completely take my son away from me and get 100% custody. His reasoning was that HE IS A DOCTOR and I am a lowly engineer. He ended up costing me $40K in legal costs just to fight him to keep a 50/50 custody agreement.


----------



## imsohurt (May 13, 2013)

I think it would have to depend on the type of law she worked in....and what the attraction was to that portion of law....but in theory it shouldn't matter...

My old man is a Dr...he once told me that if I became an attorney he would disown me...he had strong opinions on the profession....

I couldn't see myself with some lets schedule sex hyper alpha corporate women attorney....

Maybe traffic law would be safer bet...or estate planning...something more vanilla.....when I hear attorney there is that blood thirsty stigma that follows it....that may turn some men off.....thinking about arguments....logic might be a factor....that would be a positive...

Who knows....I'm shopping for more of a humanitarian myself....


----------



## imsohurt (May 13, 2013)

What do you get when you have a lawyer up to their head in sand?

Not enough sand


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Trenton said:


> JCD your post was basically saying that all female attorneys will be unscrupulous by default. To declare all attorneys unscrupulous is wrong and will set off any attorney or anyone who loves an attorney, to declare all female attorneys unscrupulous is specifically going to set off any many or woman who cares about women.
> 
> It's like me saying, Women would you marry a man in the army because he's obviously more violent than most men as he is willing to kill?
> 
> ...


Okay...first, this post was an epiphany for me. I am not afraid of taking and holding an unpopular opinion. And as you can clearly see, I am also not afraid to DISCUSS my unpopular opinion as well.  I enjoy debate and discussing ideas. 

This is a theoretical exercise for me and a solicitation for information FROM MEN. The most frequent posters have been women. Perhaps I am not as smart as other men in ducking out quickly...though I hardly could since I am the original poster. The voting is about half and half on the question, so my opinion is not alone...though the data set is small.

HOWEVER...just because I hold an opinion doesn't need I need to be rude when presenting it, or miscommunicate my opinion in a way to give offense. It seems I have done that.

First off, I really do NOT want to get into a discussion about the positives and negatives the legal profession brings to America. (My wife is agog that there is ANYWHERE I won't go in a conversation...) I do not want to generalize as to the entire legal profession. While I have my opinions on that, this isn't the place or the topic. And one can talk about the LEGAL PROFESSION without insulting a *specific lawyer*. I am sure, if Trenton were married to a lawyer, that he is a perfectly fine and ethical person. She doesn't seem the type to put up with an unethical one.

I am hypothetically looking at a vetting process. What would I look for in a future mate if my wife died or ran off, or she finally got as fed up with my opinions as the ladies on this board have? 

So, with your permission, I'd like to use your analogy about soldiers to clarify things. There is a 30% chance of a marriage going south in general. 

So...a white woman has a 1 in 369 chance of being murdered. Even if soldiers are more violent, it's still a passing small chance.* I would GLADLY marry a female attorney if there was a 1 in *20* chance of me getting a divorce with her.

Would you call a woman crazy if she faced a 30% chance of being murdered if she married a soldier? Or how about just having to get into a fight with a trained soldier?

Or how about this: would you blame a woman for dismissing soldiers as a potential mate because she faced a 30% chance of her husband being killed or wounded in battle? Or would you call that a rational choice even if you do not share it?

I have watched my dad's divorce and I've seen them in my friends. They are ugly ugly things. Let us say that I did an extraordianarily good job in vetting my supposed lawyer spouse. She is sweetness and light...in the normal course of events.

Divorce is NOT the normal course of events. Take a look at Ele's situation. Her husband, whom I assumed she took care to check out when she picked him, turned into a monster during the divorce and I sympathize for her. My mother was just as bad. She made my dad's life miserable with almost no money and no particular education.

A female lawyer has both those features plus a deep pool of litigious infrastructure behind her if only in her particular law firm and contacts from law school.

Now, Ele and Therealbrighteyes have both asserted that alimony and custody laws are gender neutral. Yes... Want to know a land which also has 'gender neutral' divorce laws? Saudi Arabia. Now, what is the PRACTICE, not the LAW?

However, I am not suggesting even a little bit that they are lying. I understand they are giving me the best information they have. Just as I assume that they understand that what I say, I base on things I have read and in some cases researched.**

I must say that I am skeptical that a *female lawyer* cannot put her thumb on the scales of justice even if the laws are gender neutral. (Yes Ele, just like a male lawyer. I won't marry a male lawyer either  ) Just being able to talk Jenna in the County Clerk's office to get her case seen by the right judge could mean a difference of THOUSANDS of dollars. Or maybe she'd be able to talk some of her legal friends to do a bit of pro bono work or give her free advice that my attorney will happily charge me for through the nose.

But I don't know that. I suspect it. I don't think this is an irrational fear either.

BUT...I am NOT asserting that every single female lawyer is a pit bull with lipstick. I am simply doing mental marital triage. Just like Muslim women. I would not marry one. Do I think that there aren't wonderful, loving and caring Muslim women out there? Of course there are! MILLIONS. However, there is enough potential pitfalls and baggage associated with marrying one that instead of looking for the diamond in the rough, I'd rather play the odds and focus my attention elsewhere.

Now, there is a second issue which the wonderful, bright, faithful and hardworking women of TAM are taking exception to: the PRINCIPLE that a man might give an intelligent educated career type a total miss over some vacuous Playboy Bunny because of her choosing a career. 

I get that. I am not saying that about career women. Ele the Engineer is not as threatening as Anita Attorney.

And while I said an intelligent woman WOULD be thoughtful enough to think of ways to skewer me in a divorce, I don't believe I asserted (and didn't mean it if I said it) that I would give a miss to INTELLIGENT women. I was giving a miss to female lawyers.

Wife asked if I'd be a SAHH if she made enough money. I said yes, but I would have a fear that it might damage the respect she has for me. Not WOULD, COULD. And from what I've read about evolutionary psychology and the pages of TAM, this is a rational fear...but I've also been very pleasantly surprised by the number of women posters who have related that they were fine with their SAHH and didn't have any issues. IIRC, Ele has always been the primary breadwinner in her house and she's never had an issue. But for every Ele, there is a SAHH who is woefully looking at a cheating spouse on CWI. So I don't think this is an irrational CONCERN. Not that I would stand in her way if she got a great job. Just I'd be concerned.

So even I can learn something.

Does this clarify anything? And I don't mean to impugne the fine young female attorneys you all know and love. From what Trenton says, my giving them a miss is actually to their benefit 

*While researching this topic, I found out that domestic violence is reported at 1 in 4...but I don't know how vigorous and accurate that number is. Anecdotally, I've only known four cases of DV in my life. This is actually a pretty scary number if true.

** According to studies, men seem to recover from divorce fiscally much quicker than women and children. While I would like to dig into those studies a bit more, I take the information as given. I wonder how well ATTORNEYS do in divorce and will probably do a quick google search


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Well CRAP!

So...I decided to look if lawyers get an inside track on divorce.

And I run across THIS little gem on my first look.

Money Quote:



> What do divorce lawyers do in their own divorces?
> 
> They try to stay out of court. Despite their familiarity with the system, and despite any perceived advantage they are believed to have, they do everything they can to settle their case before it reaches the court system.
> 
> ...


Ya know...I really hate HATE *HATE* to be wrong about something. Everything I said made sense, was logical, one point worked well from the other...and was absolutely wrong.

But if you are wrong, you got to be man enough to admit it. Communicating falsehoods or clinging to faulty information doesn't solve anything.

The way I read this, divorcing a (smart) attorney is one of the BEST options you can actually do...if the article is accurate and the lawyer involved doesn't get a chain wrapped around her axle emotionally. (A big if...but I'm not pushing the issue)

So that point was WRONG WRONG WRONG!

:banghead:

Thanks for your insights. There are other reasons I would give female attorneys a miss (incompatible hours is a huge one) but the primary one I asserted is bogus.

I shall bid you adieu while I go to dine on crow.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

It really makes perfect sense, JCD. Any lawyer who has been in the courtroom could tell you WHY only about 5% of cases on both the civil and criminal sides go to trial: because you don't know what the judge is going to do, and you sure as hell don't know what a jury is going to do. 

Sometimes you can't avoid it. Sometimes one side is being completely unreasonable, sometimes a bluff is being run that needs to be called (those are the cases that settle on the eve of trial or mid-trial), and sometimes a larger point needs to be made.

But in general, it's in everybody's interests to come up with a result that everyone is equally unhappy with. Lawyers may know this better than anyone.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

GTdad said:


> It really makes perfect sense, JCD. Any lawyer who has been in the courtroom could tell you WHY only about 5% of cases on both the civil and criminal sides go to trial: because you don't know what the judge is going to do, and you sure as hell don't know what a jury is going to do.
> 
> Sometimes you can't avoid it. Sometimes one side is being completely unreasonable, sometimes a bluff is being run that needs to be called (those are the cases that settle on the eve of trial or mid-trial), and sometimes a larger point needs to be made.
> 
> But in general, it's in everybody's interests to come up with a result that everyone is equally unhappy with. Lawyers may know this better than anyone.


I didn't realize that divorce cases went to juries. I thought a judge did it by law and fiat.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

JCD said:


> I didn't realize that divorce cases went to juries. I thought a judge did it by law and fiat.


It may depend on the jurisdiction, and I stay away from family law cases like I do anchovies, but around here any litigant is generally entitled to ask for a jury.

And juries are as unpredicatable as hell.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

GTdad said:


> It may depend on the jurisdiction, and I stay away from family law cases like I do anchovies, but around here any litigant is generally entitled to ask for a jury.
> 
> And juries are as unpredicatable as hell.


Thank god for that! You might actually have a shot at justice 

Or am I way too optimistic?


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

GTdad said:


> It may depend on the jurisdiction, and I stay away from family law cases like I do anchovies, but around here any litigant is generally entitled to ask for a jury.
> 
> And juries are as unpredicatable as hell.


In Civil trials, juries, by law, get the cases unless both parties are amenable to a "Court trial," whereby the presiding Judge will, in addition to their normal legal duties, will also serve as the final arbiter of the facts of the case!

In Criminal trials, only the accused can ask for a "Court trial."


----------



## Toshiba2020 (Mar 1, 2012)

i dont think marrying an attorney means youre destine for divorce. It might make life a bit more stressful with their work schedule but it would also open other doors in life such as significantly more income and their connections. my wife works at a big name firm, hours suck, but the pay is great and were always getting free stuff like sports tickets, turning a business trip into a vacation, etc...


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

Oh geez... the concern that they will kick your butt in divorce is irrelevant. Everyone hires an attorney, so her chances aren’t any greater.. They are actually worse as the judge is also an attorney and will hold them to the standard that they should “know better”. It’s that natural rivalry between counsels; Every attorney dislikes the other attorneys in a court setting including the judge. And the judge is an accomplished ‘trial lawyer’... there’s a huge difference than a paper pusher attorney whom they see as bottom feeders.

The judge is the father figure and this is his house... your stbx attorney wife is a whiny inexperienced brat in their eyes throwing a tantrum unless she’s earned her place. They should ‘know how this works’, so they aren’t going to get any special treatment whatsoever. Probably also why your ex-attorney wife pushes for mediation because she can scare you into thinking she’ll decimate you when the reality is she knows a judge will rip her apart if she’s pushy and too demanding.

Would I marry one? Sure. I can match wits with most of them and have the ego to boot. On top of that, I embrace the illogical and passion that would ‘balance’ the reasoned approaches and keep them on their toes.. F’n architect here 

btw; I spend a lot of time with lawyers since my bread and butter is expert witness stuff.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Your response doesn't surprise me at all. I've always gotten the sense that you fear strong women or at least women equal to men.


....

Interesting how my post can be read so wrong. Two of my girlfriends were from med school, same grade. One was something equal to your school system's dean's list (or valedictorian? I'm not sure) Last one was a sought-for news journalist at a TV station. Yet, I fear them.

:rofl:

Ah, a little bit of information, I wouldn't marry a chick that made much less than me. Me, the scaredy cat. Also my boner is apparently small based on your posts. Got more insults to throw? Maybe you should shout "Man up" to me and I'll leave my unsavory, misogynistic ways.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Hey, truce? I didnt comment on your anatomy nor would I. I said I sensed you didnt like strong women based on your posts. It is a vibe I got and clearly I am wrong. When I am wrong I own up to it.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Hey, truce? I didnt comment on your anatomy nor would I. I said I sensed you didnt like strong women based on your posts. It is a vibe I got and clearly I am wrong. When I am wrong I own up to it.


I'm wrong too. Since I'm on a roll and all.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Hey, truce? I didnt comment on your anatomy nor would I. I said I sensed you didnt like strong women based on your posts. It is a vibe I got and clearly I am wrong. When I am wrong I own up to it.


Lol, okay, truce ya big cry baby. 



JCD said:


> I'm wrong too. Since I'm on a roll and all.


Why do you think her power as a lawyer applies only in divorce? There are lots of other inter-gender relationship situations. Such as domestic violence claims.

I'm not saying that female lawyers will strip you to your underwear when they are going or use every dirty tactic against you. But it's ultimately better to err on the side of caution while dealing with relationship stuff. The one who loves you most may be become the one who hates you most.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

No, I believe all successful lawyers are ethically challenged narcissists.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

tacoma said:


> No, I believe all successful lawyers are ethically challenged narcissists.


And we tend to be very good looking, too.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

GTdad said:


> And we tend to be very good looking, too.


Nah


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

GTdad said:


> And we tend to be very good looking, too.


Not all of you dad, just you.


----------



## GTdad (Aug 15, 2011)

tacoma said:


> Not all of you dad, just you.


Okay man, anybody who writes a post that really does make me Laugh Out Loud ought to know it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

I dont think a profession dictates that. Anybody who is going to falsify claims is unstable and void of a conscience. That can apply to any profession and any gender. Bottom line, if a person doesnt own their sh!t in daily life, they sure arent in divorce proceedings.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Actually, many people act in ways they normally do not act during a divorce. It causes a state of mental crisis, similar to the grief of losing a loved one or a MLC. Therefore, no one can really predict how they or anyone else will behave during a divorce. Even people who do not have any vengeful thoughts or actions normally, can end up acting quite vengeful during a divorce.

So in other words, it doesn't matter what you think you know about someone and how they would act if you divorced them...the reality will usually be quite different than you think it will.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

GTdad said:


> And we tend to be very good looking, too.


I can tell from your avatar...


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually, many people act in ways they normally do not act during a divorce. It causes a state of mental crisis, similar to the grief of losing a loved one or a MLC. Therefore, no one can really predict how they or anyone else will behave during a divorce. Even people who do not have any vengeful thoughts or actions normally, can end up acting quite vengeful during a divorce.
> 
> So in other words, it doesn't matter what you think you know about someone and how they would act if you divorced them...the reality will usually be quite different than you think it will.


Exactly!


----------



## dsGrazzl3D (Apr 22, 2013)

JCD said:


> ...a female attorney?
> 
> She knows everything about you fiscally and emotionally and would point her shark in exactly the right direction to put the screws in painfully.
> 
> ...


Yeah all true, but the flip side is that you KNOW her as well as she knows you. Being I never married a lawyer and am currently married, 'am only answering as a hypothetical. I would not allow fear of her job get in the way of our happiness. I'd also know all of her work buddies and whom she has respect of and for what reasons. Therefor I;d pit some of those same 'sharks' right back at her in her direction if it ever came down to that. 

**BUT** NOBODY GETS MARRIED THINKING ABOUT HOW TO END IT DOWN THE ROAD!?!? (Well, no sane person that is!)


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

stritle said:


> if i loved her, yes.


But you raise the important rub.

My question obviously needs some refining. I am guessing it comes down to 'would you DATE a female attorney' because that is where the vetting starts, not when you are in 'love'.

'Love' is WAY down the road. And you need to choose whom you are willing to partner with well before 'love'.

So I guess that the original point was not that I wouldn't marry a female attorney. It is would you date one in the first place.

This comes down to 'the Lists' (i.e. The list of things which are mandatory in a relationship, the list of dealbreakers)

Initially for me, attorney was on the 'do not pass Go' list. So I would never learn to love her.

But that is another thread I suppose.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

JCD said:


> But you raise the important rub.
> 
> My question obviously needs some refining. I am guessing it comes down to 'would you DATE a female attorney' because that is where the vetting starts, not when you are in 'love'.
> 
> ...


What is it exactly about an attorney that would bother you, the hours, pay?


----------



## WorkingOnMe (Mar 17, 2012)

If I'm honest I'll have to admit that I would have no interest in any woman who made more than me or works as much as me, which probably includes most big firm partner track attorneys. I work crazy hours and one person in a family with those kind of hours is plenty. I could imagine being married to an attorney and not seeing each other for weeks.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What is it exactly about an attorney that would bother you, the hours, pay?


Lots of reasons. Pretty much anything you can ascribe fits the bill, from money, hours, alpha jerks screwing around to higher incidences of divorce for female attorney's over men (fun fact: 21% of female JDs never marry as opposed to 14% of regular college grads)

However, before you lambast me for insecurity or lack of flexibility, bear this in mind. I would be looking at a spouse for ME, not for HER. I am worried about MY needs so I am allowed any criteria I want.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

tacoma said:


> No, I believe all successful lawyers are ethically challenged narcissists.


:iagree:
I once * _dated _* a hottie who was a law student. 
We were actually childhood friends before, so it was more like a FWB.
But being * _with her_ * was an eye opener for me.
Gosh,my wife disliked that girl back then...
She tore up all of her pictures when we first started dating.

I think she's somewhere in either Singapore or Thailand practising
[ mercantile law]now.
LOl,
She eventually got married to another lawyer.
They make a good couple...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

JCD said:


> Lots of reasons. Pretty much anything you can ascribe fits the bill, from money, hours, alpha jerks screwing around to higher incidences of divorce for female attorney's over men (fun fact: 21% of female JDs never marry as opposed to 14% of regular college grads)
> 
> However, before you lambast me for insecurity or lack of flexibility, bear this in mind. I would be looking at a spouse for ME, not for HER. I am worried about MY needs so I am allowed any criteria I want.


I'm not going to lambast you. We all have our criteria when selecting a mate. I was curious as to your feelings. My sense is that it isn't a profession per se, rather that she would not have you as her priority. Is that right? :scratchhead:


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'm not going to lambast you. We all have our criteria when selecting a mate. I was curious as to your feelings. My sense is that it isn't a profession per se, rather that she would not have you as her priority. Is that right? :scratchhead:


Yes and...I am honest enoug to admit there is more than a little irrational animosity toward the profession. I look at a bottom feeder like John Edwards and he casts a LONG shadow over the profession in general.

Would I want to be married to his female equivilent? No. How do I tell?

Well, MRS. Edwards thought SHE did an adequate vetting process with him...and look what happened to her. I have little faith in my ability to read character and I feel that by bias selection, there is probably a larger number of greedy narcissists in the profession than in the average population.

Please note...that does not mean I believe there is a MAJORITY of horrible people in the profession, ala Chumplady's hubby et al.

But it might easily be that sociopaths might be 3% of the population, but up to 6% in law. Still small but significantly higher (made up numbers to show a point)

But the hours and dedication are also significant. You can talk a good game about family but I can think of one hundred thousand reasons why the average law student, male or female would put the family second.


----------

