A - I would kill to find a DeLorean and travel back in time. Or, just to the store would also be acceptable
B - Women powerlifters are kinda awesome. Just sayin’
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Thinking more about it, I am probably exactly the sort of woman Gabby fears. [/quote]
Ha, no. I don’t like busy people, but you don’t seem opportunistic or unfaithful. You seem like the type of woman who is easy to read up front, and not the type who would wear a mask just long enough to get married.[/quote]
Lol, thank you. You seem unhorrendous, too. [/quote]
Cute.
Or men could stop being idiots and rushing into marriage.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I think the primary purpose of both wives and husbands is to serve the family, whatever they determine that “family” means to them. A partnership meant to advantage all involved parties. In some instances that means a servile wife and a demanding husband. In others I suppose you might get the reverse. The question would be whether both parties feel served by it.
I know that many fundamental religious types feel comfortable with relationships that would be completely unacceptable to me and I think to my husband. There are many reasons why a very traditional relationship would not be a workable one for me as a woman of my time, the most compelling of which is that it wouldn’t be economically safe in the event of a divorce. If I lived a hundred years ago that wouldn’t have been an issue. Then the questions would have been more about preference.
Marital partners can choose to keep one partner home to care for children. That’s fine, but in today’s world a woman does that at considerable risk to her own economic security. Even leaving aside the question of the fairness of alimony, a couple can’t divide an income in half and expect to be housed and fed and clothed separately to the same standard they enjoyed as partners.
I know the need to weigh child rearing preferences with career viability creates tremendous tension in high-functioning women. Thinking about it, these are probably the women marrying the men in Uncle Gabby’s social circle. Thinking more about it, I am probably exactly the sort of woman Gabby fears. If my husband and I divorce the “equitable” division of property could be perceived in a number of ways, given the disparity in our earning power.
[/quote]
What in the world is child rearing? Do you mean like raising children?
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I work with too many impoverished women and children not to agree with you, but from the other direction. I think alimony will disappear as the women die off who were raised with the expectation that child-rearing was their primary purpose. Those women need to be protected. [/quote]
Are they impoverished because they got pregnant when they were teenagers and dropped out of highschool? Are they or have they ever been hooked on drugs? How many were ever even married in the first place? I seriously doubt most of the impoverished women and children were ever middle class or even working class to begin with.
Alimony will disappear when women have to start paying their ex-husbands alimony because they were the primary bread winner. In today’s economy that day seems just around the corner.[/quote]
Sorry, this was poorly written. I didn’t mean to suggest that the women I deal with were successful pre-divorce. There are issues in the population I deal with. I really think, though, that the biggest problem for the kids I work with is having no fathers. They are overwhelmingly single-parented. Which is why I somewhat agree with your list, which was meant to be my point.
1 - Alimony should have been done away with 20 years ago.
2 - Child support can go in about 90% of cases because joint custody should be the default.
3 - The division of assets should be based on what each person contributed to the family financially during the marriage.
With the exception of the alimony, which I think is still needed for women married prior to…oh, I don’t know, the 8os, maybe. Because those women were raised under a different social contract. That was a separate thought, it doesn’t have anything to do with impoverished parents I work with.
Women in my social group are not going to become impoverished by divorce unless there are other (internal) problems, you’re right. However, it is my understanding that women with children are the ones suffering the sharpest decrease in living standards long term post-divorce, even in the middle and upper-middle classes.
Looking at your list again, I’m thinking #3 isn’t fair to women who bear the brunt of the child-bearing career hit. Which is, let’s face it, all women. Pregnant women are treated differently. Women who have to leave work to run and pick up a sick kid from school are treated differently. Women who get weird phone calls at work are treated differently. They are far less likely to advance. That’s why lower management is lousy with women while upper management is lousy with men.
So I guess that leaves me wholeheartedly supporting only item #2, joint custody. That would improve the lives of all concerned, in my opinion.
You all realize, right, that the birth rate is falling precipitously among educated women, who want no part in being the bearer and primary caretaker of children if there is no economic security in the role? The smart money is on remaining single and independent, and it is increasingly a choice that attractive, intelligent women are making. They are becoming the people who don’t want to buy the cow when they can get milk for free.[/quote]
Alimony gives no financial incentive for women to stay in a marriage through a rough patch. I’d think if she did not like her husband that is her own fault, maybe she ran into the marriage too fast and should have picked someone that was more complementing towards her child-raising duties.
Anyone who says it’s a man’s world, and men make the rules isn’t giving women enough credit.
Men don’t make the rules, women do. By using their power over men, to have them do their bidding.
I also have to laugh at the notion that men are afraid of women equalling them in power.
Firstly because I don’t see where it is that women are curently lacking in power when compared to their male counterparts, and secondly because the power that women have is so blatantly abused.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Alimony gives no financial incentive for women to stay in a marriage through a rough patch. [/quote]
Quite the opposite. She’s encouraged to leave. Not happy with the life your providing for her? Why wait for you to have success when she can have your money AND another man’s.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Alimony gives no financial incentive for women to stay in a marriage through a rough patch. [/quote]
Quite the opposite. She’s encouraged to leave. Not happy with the life your providing for her? Why wait for you to have success when she can have your money AND another man’s.[/quote]
Did I just not say that?
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Anyone who says it’s a man’s world, and men make the rules isn’t giving women enough credit.
Men don’t make the rules, women do. By using their power over men, to have them do their bidding.[/quote]
We are talking about American, not Canada.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Alimony gives no financial incentive for women to stay in a marriage through a rough patch. [/quote]
Quite the opposite. She’s encouraged to leave. Not happy with the life your providing for her? Why wait for you to have success when she can have your money AND another man’s.[/quote]
Did I just not say that?[/quote]
Not that I saw. You said alimony gives her no reason to say, not that it encourages her to leave.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Anyone who says it’s a man’s world, and men make the rules isn’t giving women enough credit.
Men don’t make the rules, women do. By using their power over men, to have them do their bidding.[/quote]
We are talking about American, not Canada.[/quote]
Pussy power knows no nationality.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Anyone who says it’s a man’s world, and men make the rules isn’t giving women enough credit.
Men don’t make the rules, women do. By using their power over men, to have them do their bidding.[/quote]
We are talking about American, not Canada.[/quote]
Pussy power knows no nationality.[/quote]
Yeah, okay. You keep thinking that, Canada. Wait are you MileHighMike? Damn it, fooled again.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Alimony gives no financial incentive for women to stay in a marriage through a rough patch. [/quote]
Quite the opposite. She’s encouraged to leave. Not happy with the life your providing for her? Why wait for you to have success when she can have your money AND another man’s.[/quote]
Did I just not say that?[/quote]
Not that I saw. You said alimony gives her no reason to say, not that it encourages her to leave.[/quote]
Then if it was the opposite of what I said then alimony would give her reason to stay.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Alimony gives no financial incentive for women to stay in a marriage through a rough patch. [/quote]
Quite the opposite. She’s encouraged to leave. Not happy with the life your providing for her? Why wait for you to have success when she can have your money AND another man’s.[/quote]
Did I just not say that?[/quote]
Not that I saw. You said alimony gives her no reason to say, not that it encourages her to leave.[/quote]
Then if it was the opposite of what I said then alimony would give her reason to stay.[/quote]
If it gave her a reason to do anything at all it would be the opposite of giving her no reason to do anything. Difference is the opposite of indifference no? If you like your eggs over easy it doesn’t give her reason to stay. But if you punch her in the face it gives her a reason to leave. See? Punching her in the face is the opposite of eatting runny eggs.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I also have to laugh at the notion that men are afraid of women equalling them in power.
Firstly because I don’t see where it is that women are curently lacking in power when compared to their male counterparts, and secondly because the power that women have is so blatantly abused.[/quote]
This information comes from where? What power do you see women having relative to their male counterparts? Because I see the world looking largely like it did in medieval times in that there is one male, an overlord, in a position of power over several other males and females, the vassals. At least that’s how my workplace operates. I report to a female, who reports to a male. The top of my corporate structure is all male, although mine is a field heavily dominated by female workers.
Doctors are still mostly boys while nurses are still mostly girls, is what I’ve observed.
If we get into marital dynamics, I tend to see the male as advantaged in that he can exit the relationship with his reproductive appeal entirely intact while a woman, if she reproduces, has reduced attractiveness to potential mates.
My corprate structure is the opposite of yours. A woman owns it, who pays women to manage it, while men are payed to do the work itself. My female bosses have every bit as much power as your male bosses. So what? My boss is white. Does that mean that we have a racist problem instead of a sexist problem? My doctor is a woman. She’s also white. I went to the hospital last year, and the doctor was a man. But he was black. So what? I guess we only hate chinese hemaphordites? I don’t see any of those being doctors. Is that because chinese hemaphordites are opressed?
The fact is that there is NOTHING that stops a female born into the same circumstances from achieving the same things as a male counterpart. Hell… in this country there are laws that your work force should proportionatly reflect the general population. There’s alot of women out there who have an ADVANTAGE, and get hired just to satisfy this. Your PR guy could have 100 resumes to fill a spot with 99 of them being men. The 1 resume is a woman, and he’s throwing the other 99 out, and she gets the job BECAUSE she’s a woman. I fail to see her oprression.
There are basically 2 things that seperate men and women in the work force. 1 is old money, and 2 is motivation. Old money isn’t really a gender problem anymore than it is a race problem. The whole world is controlled by old white men, and their heirs. But that doesn’t give young white men who aren’t their heirs any more of an advantage than it gives young black women who aren’t their heirs. We’ve all got the same uphill climb against that one. Motivation on the other hand is a different story. Basically, your going to find more successful men than women because men are EXPECTED to be successful. If your a man, and your not successful, you fail at manhood, and will have very limited access to a mate. This serves as great motivation to achieve as much success as humanly possible. Women on the other hand have very little pressure to achive anything beyond looking pretty. If you’ve got breasts, you can basically live in a trash can, and men will still line up around the block, and you get your pick of whichever of them is most successful so he can take you home and take care of you, while you sit around and look pretty. How many women do you see lining up to take care of a dude who lives in a tent?
Now who makes the law of the land? Politicians. Most of them are men? Most of them have wives. Wives whom they do not wish to anger for fear of scandal (in addition to the standard male fear of displeasing the wife). If you don’t think Obama’s wife doesn’t have input on his decisions, think again… Anywhere married men have power, married women have influence.
As for marital dynamics, this is where women have the power, and abuse it. A man’s reproductive appeal stays in tact while a woman’s is reduced? Give me a break. A woman could have 10 kids, and men would still line up around the block to breed her again after divorce. How many women are lining up to be with the man living in a tent paying her child support, and alimoney?
Tell you a story about women and divorce. This is a pretty common situation, and is in no way unique but I think it makes a good example.
My ex-wife and I have 2 children. She used to bitch alot that I worked too much and was never home. One night I came home, and she’d changed the locks. Apperently she was unhappy with me, and wanted more from life than I could give her. So she locked me out of my own home. While I was trying to get in, the cops showed up, and escorted me away (and in doing so enforced her will, and alowed her to entrench herself with the children). So… she’s in my house with my kids, and I’m sleeping in my car after having been arrested.
Now I file court papers asking for shared custody of my kids. I had to fill them out myself, because every lawyer said it was a waste of time. The problems? #1 I’m sleeping in a fucking car, still obligated to pay all the bills on my family’s home so that my kids have a place to live. #2 while I was working 60 hours a week trying to provide for my family, she was acting as their number one caregiver. “The best interest of the child” is apperently that as little change for them as possible - so since she was their primary care giver before, shes going to be now.
So… she’s got my home, my kids, and a great big slice of my income for the next 17 years, and there is NOTHING I can do about it. But I file my papers anyways. And than I say “fuck it”, and close my bank acounts so that the bills aren’t being payed anymore, and I tell her she’d best start paying them herself. So… a few months later we haven’t been to court, and she hasn’t payed any of her bills.
Long story short, I had to be an asshole about it, but I now have joint custody of my children. She moved to a smaller place, I moved into a place, we went to court, signed the papers, and it’s done… But inspite of the fact that my kids are with me almost 50% of the time, I still have to pay her several hundred dollars a month in child support. Why? Because I’m responsible for making sure they have the same standard of livings in both homes. So… she’s still going to be recieving money from me for the next 17 years.
Apperently she has a right to that standard of living, and I have a responsability to pay for it. What’s awsome? Is my support based on a 40 hour work week that she used to bitch I should work? NO ! It’s based on the 60 hour work week she was so unhappy about. Apperently it doesn’t bother her anymore… So a year passes, and she decides that she wants to move a few hours away. So much for my kids being with me 1/2 the time. So… she moves away, and takes my kids with her through the week. They still spend 39.5% of their time with me, but not 50%… and I have to do the driving. Because apperently she has a right to move. But I have a responsability to travel. And my child support goes up several hundred dollars a month more because they’re only with me 39.5% of the time, and not the 40% that would justify a reduction. But they do cut me a little slack for the travel, so I get a little bit off (about enough to pay for 1 trip of the 10 I make every month). She’s not real please about that fuel money, she want’s it.
So I show up one day to pick my kids up… and she pulls a FUCKING TYLER DURDEN. Hits herself in the face repeatedly, and than calls the cops. Now I’m under arrest. And my kids aren’t comming to see me because apperently I’m violent. She’s now got a boyfriend pumping her household full of his income. She also gets about a grand a month in child tax benefits. So their standard of living is quite a bit higher than mine. By the time we’re done in court next month, I’ll probably be living in a van down by the river.
I’ve got 16 years of this left.
If my ex-wife is oppressed I sure as hell am afraid of what it’s gonna be like when she gets some power. Holy shit.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Doctors are still mostly boys while nurses are still mostly girls, is what I’ve observed.[/quote]
And yet not from what I’ve observed. What you see in your day to day life is not a statistical sample.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, so you’re saying…what? Women are like the lumber? But if so, who are the men?
I didn’t realize that about the wood, by the way. That’s interesting. And sad.[/quote]
I guess I’m saying that while women are suppose to be intelligent, self-reliant, etc. that most fall far short of that. Men too. People in general.
Back to my wonderful literary metaphor, It’s not the wood’s fault that it turned out that way. The American Chestnut tree didn’t import the blight that wiped them out, nor do yellow pines cut themselves down before they’ve had the chance to mature properly. Trees are a product of their environment, people are a product of their culture.
The reason why my grandparents were such strong, good people is because they had to work so goddamn hard from before light to well after dark, 7 days a week to survive. This made them strong. Their culture set standards which they weren’t allowed to deviate from, which made them good. But no one today would voluntarily choose to work their ass off 24/7, nor would our generation, accustomed to unprecidented personal freedom choose to go back to the constrictive social standards of the past. So we’re kind of fucked, and have to make do the best we can with what we have.
My problem with women is that we’re living in a transitionary period. We’ve left the age of chivalry, which had both duties and privaledges for both sexes (don’t pretend like women didn’t have it good in a lot of ways), and entered the age of equality, which has freedom for everyone, but with that freedom is supposed to come self-reliance and responsibilty. But most women want to claim the best of both ages, the privalegdes of chivalry, with the freedom of equality, and have no idea what self-reliance or responsiblity are. Even the best women, women who love equality and live the life of self-reliance and responsibilty run back to chivalry when the shit hits the fan.
This only sets us back, and I’m willing to bet that human nature is only going to grow a lot uglier as a result. Look at the threads on this site about hitting women. The younger men don’t give a fuck. At first I thought it was kind of funny, what with the bizarre hypotheticals about women with butcher knives and all, but my father’s and grandfather’s generations wouldn’t have even dreamed of having such a conversation, not even as a joke. The fact that boys will even talk about it today shows that we have fallen far as a culture. To me the future of our culture looks bleak.