Originally posted by Tha C-Master
It's not the fault of men that the woman is dependent on them though, they made that choice. Women love to say they're independent so they should show it.
That's not usually in line with reality. What has happened is that a woman and a man got together and closed a contract, with varying stipulations, but lets say in this case with the purpose of the woman taking care of the household and the children and the man to provide financially for the woman and his children...perhaps something about sex and fidelity, etc.. This contract is implied to be for life.
Now, I am not happy with marriage in general and think that it should be way more clear what the stipulations are, and yes pre-nups are a good idea, but, I do think since that is the standard contract of our society between spouses it is only fair that in the case of disollution of that contract there is a way found that satisfies both parties and ensures at least some of the relied upon purposes to be held up.
In fact, as a man of business myself, I'd find it sickening if one of the parties could just walk away from such a contract scot free (the man in your example).
I was a gung-ho feminist in the 1970s when it all got rolling but since then not so much. And although I still totally detest misogyny I also realize that women create some of the problem themselves. How can a gender be taken seriously when that gender is running around in absurd six inch heels and giggling. Women (more often young women) who purposely act silly and incompetent makes it harder for the ones who don't.
I think the problem with "equality" is that we aren't equal in physical strength. We had a Fed-Ex woman driver on our route for awhile and there was no way she could lift some the boxes out of that truck and deliver them. She had no business having that job. Ditto for female firefighters - the only way she can get an unconscious grown man out of a burning building is to drag him by the heels, head bumping on the floor/ground. She has no business with that job. On the other hand - there isn't a reason in the world why a woman can't competently fly jet planes - and more of them should be hired for the job. We also should have more women executives, more women in government and other jobs of that type.
I don't believe in either gender supporting the other when they divorce. Things should be divided 50/50. I see no reason why either spouse should get some kind of big fat settlement from the other. Man or woman, they should be able to work and support themselves. (Child support should be paid, of course, according to an individual's income.)
Originally posted by Bardock42In reality many women do expect a man to make more and pay for more things, and then they feel entitled to most of it when it doesn't work out.
That's not usually in line with reality. What has happened is that a woman and a man got together and closed a contract, with varying stipulations, but lets say in this case with the purpose of the woman taking care of the household and the children and the man to provide financially for the woman and his children...perhaps something about sex and fidelity, etc.. This contract is implied to be for life.Now, I am not happy with marriage in general and think that it should be way more clear what the stipulations are, and yes pre-nups are a good idea, but, I do think since that is the standard contract of our society between spouses it is only fair that in the case of disollution of that contract there is a way found that satisfies both parties and ensures at least some of the relied upon purposes to be held up.
In fact, as a man of business myself, I'd find it sickening if one of the parties could just walk away from such a contract scot free (the man in your example).
Keep in mind that women initiate about 70-80% of divorces, so the man isn't usually "walking away" the woman is "walking away" with the house, car, kids, and money on top of that.
It is only savvy to get a contract with the other contract, but most people don't care about this when they get married, they just want to do it. Guys of course often do it because they want more sex, and women know they get benefits that they wouldn't get otherwise.
If the woman is staying at home (her choice) then what she gets should be decided beforehand. What most women do is decide "I don't want to work anymore" and they quit working, leaving the man with the expenses even when the kids are in school. There surely isn't that much to do at home by yourself, and really most westernized women don't want to do that. Women in other countries will cook regularly, clean regularly, keep themselves in good shape, and have sex with their husbands regularly. Women in America however, know they don't have to, and will begin to cut back on the sex and add on to the pounds once the contract is signed.
If I were to marry I'd would have no problem with a woman being at home if she did things. But many don't want to. They do what I listed above, making it a bad deal for men.
Originally posted by CloverQuickRight and there's nothing wrong with equality, men have strength and women have other things in their favor. I agree if a woman can do the job she should get it, and more and more women *are* getting good jobs, just like minorities can who apply themselves.
I was a gung-ho feminist in the 1970s when it all got rolling but since then not so much. And although I still totally detest misogyny I also realize that women create some of the problem themselves. How can a gender be taken seriously when that gender is running around in absurd six inch heels and giggling. Women (more often young women) who purposely act silly and incompetent makes it harder for the ones who don't.I think the problem with "equality" is that we aren't equal in physical strength. We had a Fed-Ex woman driver on our route for awhile and there was no way she could lift some the boxes out of that truck and deliver them. She had no business having that job. Ditto for female firefighters - the only way she can get an unconscious grown man out of a burning building is to drag him by the heels, head bumping on the floor/ground. She has no business with that job. On the other hand - there isn't a reason in the world why a woman can't competently fly jet planes - and more of them should be hired for the job. We also should have more women executives, more women in government and other jobs of that type.
I don't believe in either gender supporting the other when they divorce. Things should be divided 50/50. I see no reason why either spouse should get some kind of big fat settlement from the other. Man or woman, they should be able to work and support themselves. (Child support should be paid, of course, according to an individual's income.)
I don't agree with them giving women special rules in the army, or if they want to be a firefighter. They should have the same standards as the men. Not just for the sake of being "fair" but for the sake of everyone else.
Originally posted by CloverQuick
I think the problem with "equality" is that we aren't equal in physical strength. We had a Fed-Ex woman driver on our route for awhile and there was no way she could lift some the boxes out of that truck and deliver them. She had no business having that job. Ditto for female firefighters - the only way she can get an unconscious grown man out of a burning building is to drag him by the heels, head bumping on the floor/ground. She has no business with that job.
Except that has nothing to do with being women and everything to do with not being strong enough. I know I'd fail qualifications for the US army, but that tells us nothing about men.
If a woman can pass the qualifications they should be allowed to do the job. The real world is made of different people not billions of people presenting a statistical average..
I do, however, have a problem with organizations like the military using lower standards for women. It seems vaguely insulting and, for the army, potentially dangerous.
Originally posted by CloverQuick
I don't believe in either gender supporting the other when they divorce. Things should be divided 50/50. I see no reason why either spouse should get some kind of big fat settlement from the other.
You need to think about those last to sentences a bit. If a rich person marries a poor person and they divorce and each gets half the poor person did get a big fat settlement.
Are there, for that matter, laws that actually say a man must support his wife following divorce or something like that? I know my father never did (because it was never relevant, not because he's a dick).
Originally posted by CloverQuick
I don't believe in either gender supporting the other when they divorce. Things should be divided 50/50. I see no reason why either spouse should get some kind of big fat settlement from the other. Man or woman, they should be able to work and support themselves. (Child support should be paid, of course, according to an individual's income.)
In the broad sense that seems fair, but when we look at the nuances of individual marriages, it can be utterly unfair.
Say a couple marries in their mid-20's; they have children in their late 20's/early 30's; they both decide that one of them (traditionally the woman) will forsake their career and stay home to raise the children, care for the house etc. Which is like a full time job.
Now how is it fair if after 20+ years the marriage dissolves and the person who hasn't worked and/or forsaken their career has to now provide an income after decades of not working and/or no schooling?
There's also instances where I've seen the 'stay at home mom' literally not stay at home, she doesn't work, but she has a full time nanny to raise the children, a maid to clean/care for the house and a cook or order in meals. Should she really get half during the divorce? IMO, no, she's not done her share of the work.
IMO, divorces should be taken as a case by case basis with no set stipulations.
I will say that if the two marry and one decides to not work, and they divorce, yes she should have to work if she doesn't have any money put away or planned. Her well being isn't his responsibility anymore. There's no real need to cut out of work that long. Once the kids are in school she can find a part time job at least. Or go teach or something. Use that degree she got. She was living expense free, she shouldn't get that benefit if they are no longer together.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosWhich is what happens in 50/50 cases. Men have most of the assets and money and lose half (plus any other payments). Also alimony is supporting your wife. In some circles it's called vaginamony because you're paying for the sex you used to get.
Except that has nothing to do with being women and everything to do with not being strong enough. I know I'd fail qualifications for the US army, but that tells us nothing about men.If a woman can pass the qualifications they should be allowed to do the job. The real world is made of different people not billions of people presenting a statistical average..
I do, however, have a problem with organizations like the military using lower standards for women. It seems vaguely insulting and, for the army, potentially dangerous.
You need to think about those last to sentences a bit. If a rich person marries a poor person and they divorce and each gets half the poor person did get a big fat settlement.
Are there, for that matter, laws that actually say a man must support his wife following divorce or something like that? I know my father never did (because it was never relevant, not because he's a dick).
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I will say that if the two marry and one decides to not work, and they divorce, yes she should have to work if she doesn't have any money put away or planned. Her well being isn't his responsibility anymore. There's no real need to cut out of work that long. Once the kids are in school she can find a part time job at least. Or go teach or something. Use that degree she got. She was living expense free, she shouldn't get that benefit if they are no longer together. Which is what happens in 50/50 cases.
Raising children and taking care of a household is like a full-time job, so it's not "living free." Maybe stop talking out of your ass for once?
It's not so easy to just get a job that you can support yourself from when the last 15+ years of your resume read 'house mom'.
Originally posted by RobtardHow about you stop talking out your own ass. Her living without paying bills (which is what I meant by "expense free" genius) is what she got in return for raising children (if she so chooses, and it's always a choice). Also when the kids are a certain age you have more time to fulfill your career. Not to mention you live in the house so you get the services out of the house. If you live by yourself you still have to clean your own house and you aren't paid for it.
Raising children and taking care of a household is like a full-time job, so it's not "living free." Maybe stop talking out of your ass for once?It's not so easy to just get a job that you can support yourself from when the last 15+ years of your resume read 'house mom'.
She is not entitled to that once they divorce just like he isn't entitled to sex once they get divorced. She gets whatever assets and that's that. Alimony is not necessary. That's their problem if they choose to not upgrade their career and make money. Many women choose to work from home so that is an option. I also clearly said that both sides should determine these things in advance. Did I not?
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
How about you stop talking out your own ass. Her living without paying bills (which is what I meant by "expense free" genius) is what she got in return for raising children (if she so chooses, and it's always a choice). Also when the kids are a certain age you have more time to fulfill your career. Not to mention you live in the house so you get the services out of the house. If you live by yourself you still have to clean your own house and you aren't paid for it.She is not entitled to that once they divorce just like he isn't entitled to sex once they get divorce. She gets whatever assets and that's that. Alimony is not necessary. That's their problem if they choose to not upgrade their career and make money. Many women choose to work from home so that is an option.
You're incredibly naive. It's a full-time job and it would be a joint effort benefiting the spouse too.
She would have sacrificed her pursuit of a career and/or further education for the joint benefit to her and her spouse. Starting a career is harder when you're older, why alimony (if deemed proper) is their to help the person until they can. Not every stay at home mom can also work on their career or work at home while raising a family and running a household.
It's not a even playing field across all marriages, why they should be looked at in a case by case basis and not your "this or that" mentally, you clownish person.
Originally posted by RobtardYou're obviously not very bright because I said numerous times that there should be a prenup for both parties beforehand. Most people don't plan.
You're incredibly naive. It's a full-time job and it would be a joint benefiting the spouse.She would have sacrificed her pursuit of a career and/or further education for the joint benefit to her and her spouse. Starting a career is harder when you're older, why alimony (if deemed proper) is their to help the person until they can.
It's not a even playing field across all marriages, why they should be looked at in a case by case basis and not your "this or that" mentally, you clownish person.
She chose to give up her career and women don't often do it for their spouse, they choose to stay home whether or not the husband has a say in it. It is better for the kids, I will say that, but the man may or may not be a choice in it. Choosing to have kids will have a detrimental effect on your career and so will getting married, male or female, which is why it is wise to be prepared beforehand and not rush into it financially unprepared like an idiot. If you live inside of a house you get the benefits for living in that house. You have your medical expenses, transportation expenses, food expenses paid for. You're cleaning your own house and raising your own kids. Which, if you were single you would do anyways, without a man covering your expenses and not being able to drop out the work force. Not being able to work is a luxury that women generally prefer over working. This is why women in richer areas generally don't work. Much better than having to face the stresses of a job and layoffs especially since you'd have to care for a kid and house whether you were working or not.
Once the kids are older there is more time to her, and women in this country tend to hire maids, nannies, have their children watched by someone else, while they're out and about. Most don't cook or clean regularly especially not women in current generations. Now 50 years ago, I would agree.
Alimony is welfare and nothing more, and women who are divorced should be "independent" and support themselves. Men should not be forced to support a woman after a divorce. They're divorced. No different than she owes him no services. The settlement they get when they split assets is fine enough and I agree with that (if they agreed to it, or there was no prenup signed).
Why don't you look at some numbers, women initiate about 70-80% of divorces in this country, they aren't being "left behind" most leave and take everything a man has worked for along with the house, kids, and constant money. It's ridiculous and the system is obviously biased against men. You're damned right it isn't an even playing field. Women benefit, men lose. Men can get all of those services without getting married, which is my point. If a person leaves and then demands money because they "can't find easy work" whose fault is that? Start a business anyways, much better than a job.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
You're obviously not very bright because I said numerous times that there should be a prenup for both parties beforehand. Most people don't plan.She chose to give up her career and women don't often do it for their spouse, they choose to stay home whether or not the husband has a say in it. It is better for the kids, I will say that, but the man may or may not be a choice in it. Choosing to have kids will have a detrimental effect on your career and so will getting married, male or female, which is why it is wise to be prepared beforehand and not rush into it financially unprepared like an idiot. If you live inside of a house you get the benefits for living in that house. You have your medical expenses, transportation expenses, food expenses paid for. You're cleaning your own house and raising your own kids. Which, if you were single you would do anyways, without a man covering your expenses and not being able to drop out the work force. Not being able to work is a luxury that women prefer over working. This is why women in richer areas generally don't work. Much better than having to face the stresses of a job and layoffs especially since you'd have to care for a kid and house whether you were working or not.
Once the kids are older there is more time to her, and women in this country tend to hire maids, nannies, have their children watched by someone else, while they're out and about. Most don't cook or clean regularly especially not women in current generations. Now 50 years ago, I would agree.
Alimony is welfare and nothing more, and women who are divorced should be "independent" and support themselves. Men should not be forced to support a woman after a divorced. They're divorced. No different than she owes him no services. The settlement they get when they split assets is fine enough and I agree with that (if they agreed to it, or there was no prenup signed).
Why don't you look at some numbers, women initiate about 70-80% of divorces in this country, they aren't being "left behind" most leave and take everything a man has worked for along with the house, kids, and constant money. It's ridiculous and the system is obviously biased against men. You're damned right it isn't an even playing field. Women benefit, men lose. Men can get all of those services without getting married, which is my point. If a person leaves and then demands money because they "can't find easy work" whose fault is that? Start a business anyways, much better than a job.
If there was a prenup then these scenarios we're discussing wouldn't be a problem, genius. Division of property, alimony etc would have already been handled beforehand. Think before you speak, k?
I stopped reading about a 3rd way into that second paragraph, just more blanket generalizations and naive rantings from a clown. The dynamics of every marriage isn't the same.
I never said all marriages were the same, and I agreed with most of your first post I read (or second), I just disagreed slightly with one small part, and you had to jump in and insult and get huffy. But generally most men pay out in marriages regardless, and women divorce most of the time, generally speaking. We know there are exceptions, but we're talking about what happens in general.
Originally posted by Robtard
If there was a prenup then these scenarios we're discussing wouldn't be a problem, genius. Division of property, alimony etc would have already been handled beforehand. Think before you speak, k?I stopped reading about a 3rd way into that second paragraph, just more blanket generalizations and naive rantings from a clown.
Exactly my point, it wouldn't be a problem beforehand, I said it way before you even posted. I was responding your post. I know how contracts and prenups work, thank you very much. My point was even if they didn't work, the man should not pay vaginamony, which is really "I had sex with you, so now you owe me money". Now they have palimony, which is the same thing, except with cohabitants. Men still pay even if there weren't any kids in the picture.
So your translation: I have no point, I'm only speaking on opinions because I'm butt-hurt." I have to throw out insults because I had no point in the first place.
Wah. Funny how this naive clown smacks around so many fools in this forum and has done so for years. I know plenty about money and business and protecting assets, which is why my money works for me, while most people go to work. 😉
Originally posted by RobtardNope I made points and backed them up with proof, while you proceeded to insult. Then you called out something I already said. Alimony is paid in numerous cases whether there is a kid or not, and whether there is a woman or not, fact.
Nah, you just ranted and continue to rant while making blanket generalizations.My point [now] is that you're a clown, see above.
Pat yourself on the back some more over imagined "wins", it's funny and sad.
Women initiate 70-80% of divorces, fact.
My point is you never had a point in the first place and resort to insults once you're out of juice. Nothing new from here, see it all the time. People need to communicate and make a point without throwing out insults whenever they run out of juice.
No need to. Considering the populous here, it's really nothing to brag about. Sad really. I know most people have nothing going on and being on the internet is the only way they feel valid. Whatever floats your boat.
You made rants and blanket generalizations concerning divorce, you had/have no real point.
So 2/3 of divorces happen because the woman initiates the divorce first. How is this a factor considering you didn't bother to post the reasons why they initiated them? It isn't. Fact.
You also obviously have some extreme grunge against women in general. Not good.