Interesting Article on Men & Women

[debraD]

If men get so screwed by marriage why do so many still do it? Just like women who know what they’re getting into when they get married or have kids men also know what they’re getting into. It isn’t a big secret how things work.

If you hate marriage so much, don’t do it. Nobody is forcing you. If you don’t want to get stuck paying for kids, don’t have them.

If you think you’re going to start erasing sexism and changing the world from within an archaic sexist institution I’d say you’re wasting your time.

[WolBarret]

[quote]debraD wrote:
If men get so screwed by marriage why do so many still do it? Just like women who know what they’re getting into when they get married or have kids men also know what they’re getting into. It isn’t a big secret how things work.

If you hate marriage so much, don’t do it. Nobody is forcing you. If you don’t want to get stuck paying for kids, don’t have them.

If you think you’re going to start erasing sexism and changing the world from within an archaic sexist institution I’d say you’re wasting your time.

[/quote]

…

[Broncoandy]

Marriage doesn’t screw men, divorce does. They get married because they’re young and foolish, and believe that it’s forever. Than their wife goes crazy, and there’s no escape because marriage isn’t forever. But divorce is.

As for paying for kids, that’s an interesting choice of words. Firstly because far too many men litteraly have to pay for their kids as if their mother is running some sort of rent-a-kid business. And secondly because of just how much divorced men pay for their kids compared to married men.

For example. If your a married man, and you have 2 children, you pay for 2 bedrooms. A divorced man pays for 4 (2 at his house, 2 at his ex-wifes house). He also has to pay for an extra kitchen, living room, etc… for them, and their mother, and her boyfriend at her house. If your a married man the travel costs for you to see your children are zero. If your a divorced man your travel costs to see your children are whatever your ex-wife chooses to make them by excersizing her right to live wherever she pleases.

If your a married man, you pay for them to have one set of toys. If your a divorced man you pay for 2 sets. And books, and beds, and blankets, and clothing, and just about everything else you can think of. And that doesn’t include any of the extra money your going to spend trying to make your time with them “extra special” because of how little time their mother lets you spend with them.

Very few men dislike providing for their children. The problems come from people saying to themselves “I can have these kids, and provide them with a good life no problem with my qualifications, and income”, and than having the costs doubled, and than having to stand around and watch men who aren’t you enjoy that 2nd home you pay for, while they have all kinds of disposable income to buy your children’s affection with.

Than their mother trains them to hate you (because when mom talks, and your little, it might aswell be god himself) and they decide they don’t want to see you anymore at all. At that point are they really your kids at all anymore? Of corse, they’re still yours at the end of the month when you mail that cheque. But other than that…

It’s all just one big downhill run into a country music sing along.

- YouTube

[Broncoandy]

On the bright side you do get some killer motivation on Sunday mornings while your under the bar cursing her name.

[EmilyQ]

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I agree with you that women want to claim the best of both ages. Isn’t that natural? Do you think men don’t want the best of both worlds? Is there anyone alive who doesn’t seek the most advantageous possible circumstance? To me that includes only those options available through ethical behavior because I believe that will produce for me the most advantageous outcome, but I have no qualms about allowing someone else to be in charge of going into the creepy, cobweb-y basement to get things while I head up the occasional effort to cut flowers for the kitchen table. It’s an unequal division of labor, to be sure, but it seems to work for both of us. Again I point out that the men assisting with the water cooler seem to want to do so. Not long ago I changed around stuff to make our waiting area at work more attractive. I occasionally see other women doing stuff to keep it pleasant and appealing, but I’ve never noticed a male fussing with it. It’s not oppressive if it’s a freely given gift.

I think I would have thrived in earlier times for the same reason I do now. I’m flexible, bright, and people tend to like me, at least in person. Maybe I would have been bored and felt trapped in domesticity, but maybe I would have found ways to expand my role into the public realm, through volunteerism or some stealth work, pseudonymous writing or some such. Of course that assumes a permissive and indulgent husband. And see, that’s the rub. What if he wasn’t? Which is why that system became unacceptable. (With the advent of the pill, which gave women reproductive freedom for the first time in history.) I can’t even imagine what it must have been like to be married to someone who treated you badly and to have no recourse whatsoever because even if you escaped the marriage you wouldn’t be able to support yourself. You would also be ostracized by your community, which for me would be devastating. So, a good marriage 100 years ago? I could cope, and maybe even thrive. But if there’s any chance it might be a bad marriage, now is my preferred point in history. But even a good marriage…in some ways it would be pleasant, I guess, from a female perspective. But by and large, no. There was a lot more work to be done then to maintain households and the idea of having to feed someone a meal and then clean it up and put everything away late in the evening while he sat and read the paper galls a bit. Then to think that I’d be shuffling out of bed an hour before him to make him coffee and breakfast every morning, which I’d then clean up while he ate and read the paper some more…I feel pretty crabby just writing about it.

I think a lot of the things you view as being nice things for the women, then and now, are actually things that infantilize them. I get the occasional “stern lecture” from my husband. Depending on my mood and the lecture’s topic, I find it variously sweet and cute (generally he’s right about whatever it is if this is my reaction), something I can tolerate with good temper (in which case I paste a pleasant, interested look on my face and think about other things), or infuriating. If the latter he gets a “who the fuck do you think you’re talking to?” and there’s going to be a fight. The first two reactions, eh. I ignore. Because this is, as you say, a time of transition I choose to find it largely charming. A throwback to the way his father treated his mother. It’s really hard for me to imagine this being my actual life, though, a man who is my contemporary lecturing me like I’m a little girl and incapable of clear thought. And then to have to decide, childlike, how to respond. Do I apologize and give childish hugs (or blowjobs) to regain favor? Rebel and deal with the fallout? I dunno. I’m very, very glad to be a woman of my time. He tolerates my lectures similarly. Sometimes they go surprisingly well, other times there’s going to be a fight. Equal. No one just gets to say while the other has to listen.

But you’re absolutely right about what will happen if the shit hits the fan. If ever the wolves are at the door you will undoubtedly find me hiding behind him because he’s a lot bigger than me and knows how to fight. Is that unfair? I don’t know. I don’t claim self-reliance. I’ve chosen debra’s “archaic sexist institution” and so has he. We have together flexed the notion of marriage to suit our needs. He’s protective but openminded, I’m feminine by nature but not prepared to be told what to do. If he wants me to stop doing X he’s going to have to convince me that it’s in my best interest to do so, as I have to do in order to get him to change his behavior (as women have ALWAYS had to do). It’s definitely a transitional-age marriage.

Looking around the world at some of the current options, more progressive (equal) countries seem to report higher levels of life satisfaction. Denmark, for example. To me the country seems very bland in many ways. But maybe we would all be happier where sameness is the defining value.

I feel actual panic at the thought of life in a truly male-dominated culture. I read a book four or five years ago, The Handmaid’s Tale, that is centered on what would happen if extreme right-wing fundamentalist types took Taliban-like control. The book is ridiculous in many ways but the idea of going to use my credit card and finding that my financial power has been removed–that the men have turned on the women–still chills me.

My question for all of you is which sort of society do you see as being optimal? Gabby, would you want a return to the age of chivalry? Broncoandy, what sort of society would you have, ideally?

And what about the women?

[BobParr]

[quote]debraD wrote:
If men get so screwed by marriage why do so many still do it? Just like women who know what they’re getting into when they get married or have kids men also know what they’re getting into. It isn’t a big secret how things work.

If you hate marriage so much, don’t do it. Nobody is forcing you. If you don’t want to get stuck paying for kids, don’t have them.

If you think you’re going to start erasing sexism and changing the world from within an archaic sexist institution I’d say you’re wasting your time.

[/quote]

I got out of a bad marriage and have a horror story or two of my own, but I have nothing against the idea. It’s not marriage that causes problems, IMO - it’s the individuals in them, especially when they don’t really know their partner, or, even worse, don’t really know themselves. So in spite of my own past experience, I’m not jaded. I’ve learned from my past mistakes and would be open to doing it again one day.

Just this past weekend I heard a very wise take on what marriage is:
“It’s not about some old social model and not about God or religion. Marriage is really just a way that two people who truly love each other can come before their closest friends and publicly stand up for their relationship.”

[EmilyQ]

I feel like I could tell horror stories from within what I consider to be a GOOD marriage, and I know my husband could as well. I remember asking my best friend once when I was in some agony of unhappiness over my relationship whether she thought my husband is an intolerable asshole. She considered it for a good long time and finally answered, “He’s definitely an asshole. But no, not an intolerable one, I don’t think.”

I try to keep in mind that everyone is an asshole in one way or another, myself included. I also try to remember when I’m frustrated that if I were divorced and saw a profile on match.com that described someone exactly like my husband, I would be interested.

I know he would respond to my hypothetical profile, too. If we met today as strangers we would like and be attracted to one another. We would probably wind up getting married eventually. That being the case, I try to temper my own assholishness and be tolerant of his, because it is foolish to imagine that there is someone out there with no bad qualities.

[Broncoandy]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
My question for all of you is which sort of society do you see as being optimal? Gabby, would you want a return to the age of chivalry? Broncoandy, what sort of society would you have, ideally?
[/quote]

A good question, and to be honest if I had a real answer or solution I’d probably have suggested it by now instead of just complaining. I’ll certainly agree that most people want the best of all worlds.

Put it this way:

-When I take a woman out on a date I drive, I pay, I open the doors for her, I bring flowers when I come to pick her up, etc… And I have no problem with this at all. As a matter of fact, I’d feel rediculous having a woman pick me up, pay for dinner, and bring me flowers. I play the gentleman, and I expect her to play the lady.

-I do expect her to NOT be a lady in the sack when we get to that part of the relationship

-In a long term relationship I expect a women to do more of the housework than me. This is NOT because she is a woman however. This is because my housekeeping skills are almost garenteed to be less than hers. For whatever reason this holds true for most men, and I think some of it has to be credited to our biological differences (sence of smell, nesting instinct, etc…). Some of this is probably also due to the difference in skill sets we’re taught while young.

-In a long term relationship I expect a woman to cook more of the meals than me. This is most certainly NOT because she’s a woman. I can almost garentee that I cook BETTER than she does. And I will do so on Saterdays, and Sundays. This is however because I am a man, and as such tend to work long hours. If I’m bringing home the bacon, I expect you to cook it. If your working the same hours as me, than we’re eating out tonight, but as we’ve already seen that’s not likely the case. If we have an all night sexfest friday night I’m cooking your breakfast (and it’s not going to be a bowl of count chocula). When dateing I do most of the cooking. Because it’s probably Saterday night, and I have the time to put my big poofy french chef hat on, and put on a show. But if we’re married, it’s Tuesday, and I come home from a 15 hour day, I expect some beef.

-In a long term relationship I don’t have much in the way of expectations for your employment. If I make enough money for both of us, what difference does it make if your a doctor or a waitress? If you want to be a doctor that’s great, youv’e got my support. If you want to be a waitress that’s great you’ve got my support. Whatever makes you happy.

-When the relationship is over I expect you to get the fuck out, and leave me alone. If it’s me that ends it, and your not in a position to suport yourself I’ll help you get on your feet and send you on your way. If it’s you that ends it, I expect you to get the fuck out now. Sorry but I have no patience for ingrates regardless of their gender.

-I have no problems with a woman who makes more money, and works longer hours than I do. And if that’s the case or she asks me to, and it’s workable than odds are if time has to be taken off work for kids, I’m taking it off instead of you whereever possible (obviously I can’t carry the child in the 3rd trimester, but I did take the last 2 months of parental leave after my son was born so that my wife could go back to work - she made less than I did, but she wanted to go back, and we could afford for me to be off in her stead, so thats what we did, and it wasn’t a problem).

-When the relationship ends if we have kids, I expect you to recognize the fact that although our romantic relationship is over, we have to maintain a parenting relationship (somewhat like a business partnership?). I expect you not to use my children as weapons. I expect you to realize that whatever roles I filled as your romantic partner in our unbroken family will not continue now that we are seperate. I expect you to understand that the sacrifices you made to your carreer if you chose to stay at home with the kids were mirrored by my sacrifices to parenthood that were required for me to provide enough that you could stay home like that. I expect you to go to work to provide for yourself, and for our children, so that I can go to work less so that I can spend more time with my kids. I expect not to be made a visitor in my children’s lives. I expect that in the event you are unable to provide a similar standard of living for my children, that you let me provide it for them in my home until you are able. I expect you to trust me not to abuse this by hiding behind the status quoe, or the so called “best interests of the children”. I expect that if either of us has problems, there will be reasonable compromises made without delay.

I guess basically that “chivalry” is good inside a romantic relationship, but when that relationship ends, so should the “chivalry”. I don’t think it’s right that a man is expected to help his ex-wife maintain a certain standard of living wether she has the kids or not. Just like it wouldn’t be right if the ex-wife had to come and clean my house a couple times a month. If I have to pay for twice as many bedrooms, and kitchens, and living rooms, she should have to clean twice as many no?

When your married, most of the time you have an unequal partnership - one where what’s fair isn’t neccesarily what’s equal, because of the difference in strengths and weaknesses between the 2 (optimally these differences will complement each other, but it doesn’t always work that way either).

I don’t think that inequality should continue after divorce. I think that both parties should be expected to provide equally, and care for the children equally, and have the opportunity to spend equal time with them, etc… Even if it’s not reasonable to expect true equality, it should be fair to expect atleast enough equality that one former partner isn’t dragging teh whole family down. Everybody loves to talk about dead beat dads, how come nobody talks about dead beat moms? If each parent is responsible for providing the home in which they excersize their time with the children is that unreasonable? If each parent is expected to maintain close geographical proximity in the best interest of the children is that unreasonable?

Really I think it’s reasonable that a certain degree of inequality will continue. But how much inequality exists before it’s unfair is different. If women were reasponsible for the costs of the residance where they excersize their time with the kids, and men didn’t have to pay for that, how many men would be opposed to continueing to pay for groceries? Or an appropriate share of the baby sitting, and other costs? I would hope not very many since these costs are the few that don’t double. If kids were a business, the costs that a woman (or man if the woman is the breadwinner, but that’s pretty uncommon) needs to take responsability for after seperation would be the increase in overhead. The increase in factory size required because of the seperation. You know what I mean? That’s the part that weighs down men after divorce. And if your in business and 1/2 the factory burns down, the whole company makes the sacrifices neccesary to fix it. One of the partners doesn’t run outside to piss on the ashes, and than throw a temper tantrum. You know?

I duno if that answers that question or not.

[Broncoandy]

And speaking of wanting the best of both world’s, I think that’s sort of what it boils down to for me. Too many women get the best of both world’s after divorce. They get the freedome of being single, and the happyness of finding new love, etc… While they maintain a good deal of the financial security of being in a relationship.

Meanwhile men get the worst of both worlds because they’ve got the costs of a relationship (and than some), and the difficulty of finding new love while broke. lol.

And incase I didn’t mention it anywhere yet (and I know I’ve posted some major walls of text so maybe I have), I think there’s far too much money to be “won” through the kids for women. I look at my ex-wife as an example, and just shake my head…

For 2 kids she gets almost a thousand dollars per month in “child tax benefit” or “baby bonus” or whatever it’s called where you are (it’s a cheque from the government that all “primary caregivers” recieve from the government proportionate to their income).

Because of my income I’d get none of that even if I had sole custody. For her it’s a grand because she makes hardly any money. Than theres 800 dollars in child support. Than there’s 1200 dollars a month in wellfare. That’s upto 3000 dollars each and every month that a man won’t recieve for having custody of his children.

And 3000 dollars a month of motivation to be a psycho bitch, and / or convince yourself that fucking the dad around is what’s best for the kids. Know what I mean?

And lastly I should say that the issues I’m presenting aren’t neccesarily man only issues. A women could have these problems too - They’re just a whole lot less likely to because of the way men and women select their mates (for example who’s more likely to date a waitress a male doctor or a female doctor?). I guess it’s a “man’s issue” the same way domestic violence is a a “woman’s issue”.

[Grneyes]

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
And speaking of wanting the best of both world’s, I think that’s sort of what it boils down to for me. Too many women get the best of both world’s after divorce. They get the freedome of being single, and the happyness of finding new love, etc… While they maintain a good deal of the financial security of being in a relationship.

Meanwhile men get the worst of both worlds because they’ve got the costs of a relationship (and than some), and the difficulty of finding new love while broke. lol.

And incase I didn’t mention it anywhere yet (and I know I’ve posted some major walls of text so maybe I have), I think there’s far too much money to be “won” through the kids for women. I look at my ex-wife as an example, and just shake my head…

For 2 kids she gets almost a thousand dollars per month in “child tax benefit” or “baby bonus” or whatever it’s called where you are (it’s a cheque from the government that all “primary caregivers” recieve from the government proportionate to their income).

Because of my income I’d get none of that even if I had sole custody. For her it’s a grand because she makes hardly any money. Than theres 800 dollars in child support. Than there’s 1200 dollars a month in wellfare. That’s upto 3000 dollars each and every month that a man won’t recieve for having custody of his children.

And 3000 dollars a month of motivation to be a psycho bitch, and / or convince yourself that fucking the dad around is what’s best for the kids. Know what I mean?

And lastly I should say that the issues I’m presenting aren’t neccesarily man only issues. A women could have these problems too - They’re just a whole lot less likely to because of the way men and women select their mates (for example who’s more likely to date a waitress a male doctor or a female doctor?). I guess it’s a “man’s issue” the same way domestic violence is a a “woman’s issue”.[/quote]

I have a naive question. If she makes hardly any money and is on welfare, why does she have custody? Wouldn’t being with you be “in the best interest of the children” and leave them in the “standard of living” they are used to? It would seem to me that you would be the better choice as primary caregiver.

EDIT: I didn’t think the child care credit depended on income. I mean, the amount does, but I thought that everyone who was a primary caregiver got a tax credit, no matter the amount of income.

[dianab]

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

EDIT: I didn’t think the child care credit depended on income. I mean, the amount does, but I thought that everyone who was a primary caregiver got a tax credit, no matter the amount of income.
[/quote]

In Canada, the child tax credit is based on income, after a certain earnings, the amount received is very low. It is based on the income of the HOUSEHOLD, so if his ex is living with another man, his income has to be entered into the equation. 3 years or so back, the laws changed and now the CTC must be divided between parents based on the percentage of time the children spend living at the parents home. If his children live with him 40% of the time, he should be getting 40% of the tax credit. I think he should be talking with an agent from Revenue Canada regarding the money his ex is receiving from this credit, considering there is another man in the picture and that he may be eligible for some of the payment. Even if his income is too high to benefit, her’s should be reduced because of her current relationship.
I am not sure about welfare payments, but it seems to me that household income should be taken into account in those cases as well.

[Uncle_Gabby]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

My question for all of you is which sort of society do you see as being optimal? Gabby, would you want a return to the age of chivalry? Broncoandy, what sort of society would you have, ideally?

[/quote]

No, because I’m not really cut out to be the provider type. I have seen a lot of married men swallow a lot a shit in various jobs because they have a morgage to pay, family to feed etc, and so have lost the power to say “fuck you, I quit.” I’m not cut out for that. Not that I’m a rebel without a cause whose better than all those chumps or anything. If I had a family I’m sure I’d eat the shit sandwich just like everyone else, but my soul would die and I would be a hollow shell that not even a mother could love, or I would snap and tear out my boss’s throat with my teeth.

What I think we have to do is establish a new code that is enforced not by law but social pressure (as was the old code). In the age of chivalry, your husband, Mr. EmilyQ would pay the bills, crawl into the spidery corners and slay the wolves and you would reward him by cooking him a nice dinner, cleaning his house (a massive undertaking in those days) and bearing him at least 12 children before your womb dried up completely. In otherwords, there was a system of exchange in which as a woman you compensated his manly deeds with womanly deads. Bills paid = clean house, spidery corners crawled into = nice home cooked dinner, dead wolf = 12 babies. This is out dated, as women can earn just as well as men, there aren’t many spidery corners, and we were so good at killing wolves that there aren’t very many left.

[Broncoandy]

You’d be surprised how little action is taken when the welfare police recieve annonymous tips about such things. The CRA requires a written letter from the mother blah blah blah about that part of it, and the family court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the CRA, plus they don’t like to order the lower earner to share the stuff because it’s not in the best interest of the child to have less money (regardless of how crooked the source). How do you prove a man lives somewhere if his mail is sent to his parents, and he picks it up there? “Oh don’t mind me, I’m just visiting… 24 / 7”.

As for the kids being better off with me, of corse they would be. But never ever tell a judge you can provide a better life for them financially than she can. “If you can afford to provide better, you can afford more support”. /facepalm. Beleive me, me and my big mouth tried that one.

You see, if children are used to spending 1/2 their time with their mother, it’s generally considered in their best interest to continue doing so. The same goes for their father… Unless of corse the woman cries “ABUSE!!!” because it’s not in their best interest to be exposed to violence.

At this point your probably wondering “well how’d she move them than?”. Well you see it’s in the chidlren’s best interest if both parents have a job. Generally this would mean the kids stay with who stays. Unless of corse the parent who wants to move can raise suspicion about the parent who is staying in regard to their capability to care for the children long enough for them to change the children’s school while he’s investigated. You see regardless of how the school gets changed, it’s not in there best interest to change it yet again. The kids have to be sheltered from all this you see.

You just would not believe what qualifies as best interest and what doesn’t, and how much a nut case can get away with because the children have to be sheltered from their behaviour. And for godsake keep your temper in check…

I’ll tell another story. One day I showed up to get my kids. It’s a scheduled day, court ordered, kids are to be with me. So I go to the door, and she invites me in, because apperently the kids aren’t dressed for the day yet. So alright, I go in. She closes the door, looks at me and says “I need you to go get me 400 dollars”. I say “Uh… what?”. She says “I need you to go get me 400 dollars”. I say, “for what?”. She says “Child support”. I say “My child support is all payed up, you’ll have to wait until next month”, and kind of laugh at her. She says “go get me 400 dollars right now, or your not taking them with you today”. And I say “… excuse me?”. “Go down to the bank machine right now”. “No.”. “Than get out of my house, they’ll see you next week”. Now… at this point my kids are upstairs in their bedrooms getting dressed, and she opens the door and starts trying to push me out. I say “I’m not going anywhere without my kids”. She pulls out her cell phone, and calls the police. Apperently I’ve been verbally abusing her in front of the children, and am trespassing, refusing to leave, and she is “scared for her life”. /facepalm. So she hands me the phone, and the cop says “sir officers are on the way, please step outside”. So, I’ve now been instructed via telephone to step outside, and I do so. I’m thinking, hey no big deal, I haven’t done anything wrong, the cops will come get me my kids, and I’ll be on my way, and she wont try this shit again.

WRONG!

The cops show up, and talk to me and I tell them what happened. Than they talk to her, and she gives them her bullshit version. They than take me to the squad car in cuffs, and ask me questions for another 1/2 hour. Eventually they say “well… we’re not going to arrest you, but she’s not willing to facilitate your access today.”. And I say “…excuse me?”, and they say “She’s not willing to facilitate your access today”, and I say “I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID. I HAVE A FUCKING CUSTODY ORDER TO BE HERE TO PICK THEM UP. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT THAT”. And they put their hands on their tasers and say “Sir, please calm down”. And than they say “Sir you don’t have a clause for us to interfere so we can’t. Your going to have to go back to court. Now we’re going to ask you to leave immediatly and not come back today, or we will arrest you”.

The next day I got a call from Children’s Aid Society. Apperently I had verbally berated my ex-wife infront of my children, and in doing so had exposed my children to violence. I was under investigation for 2 fucking months.

By the way, the court doesn’t like to issue orders that authorize police intervention. It’s traumatic for kids to be forcefully removed from a parent you see. And the contempt? It’s not in the children’s best interest to fine her, or through her in jail. No punishment can be laid out that doesn’t trickle down to the kids.

[Uncle_Gabby]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I think a lot of the things you view as being nice things for the women, then and now, are actually things that infantilize them. [/quote]

Was voluntarily dying of hypothermia in the frozen north atlantic, so that there would be enough room for the women and children on the titanic’s life boats really that insulting? Not to mention saving the world from Imperial German and Japanese militarism in the World Wars. I know it’s fashionable these days to pretend that there are no good guys, but in reality the Germans and Japanese were really fucking evil, and men like my grandfather paid a huge price to stop them.

However, I don’t think any of my grandmothers were ever infantilized by my grandfathers. There was a division of labor in their families, each had their sphere in which they were respected and ruled supreme, but overall it was about as close to equality as you could get.

[Uncle_Gabby]

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

Uncle Gabby: Why can’t men be both chivalrous and treat women equally?

[/quote]
Of course they can, but what’s in it for them?

It all depends on the situation. My boyfriend treats me as an equal yet he still opens doors for me and closes the car door after I get in. Why can’t chivalry be situational?

Because he wants to fuck you. Duh. But what’s in it for him besides your cooch? And one day when you aren’t attractive anymore and your cooch is no longer appealing, why should he still open the door for you?

[imhungry]

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

Uncle Gabby: Why can’t men be both chivalrous and treat women equally?

[/quote]
Of course they can, but what’s in it for them?

It all depends on the situation. My boyfriend treats me as an equal yet he still opens doors for me and closes the car door after I get in. Why can’t chivalry be situational?

Because he wants to fuck you. Duh. But what’s in it for him besides your cooch? And one day when you aren’t attractive anymore and your cooch is no longer appealing, why should he still open the door for you? [/quote]

No, I do it because that’s what I’ve always done and will continue to do… out of love and respect. Sex has absolutely nothing to do with it, Gabby.

She’s a pretty damn good friend, along with being a great girlfriend/partner/fuck-buddy/ etc.

So, there ya go.

[EmilyQ]

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
My question for all of you is which sort of society do you see as being optimal? Gabby, would you want a return to the age of chivalry? Broncoandy, what sort of society would you have, ideally?
[/quote]

A good question, and to be honest if I had a real answer or solution I’d probably have suggested it by now instead of just complaining. I’ll certainly agree that most people want the best of all worlds.

Put it this way:

-When I take a woman out on a date I drive, I pay, I open the doors for her, I bring flowers when I come to pick her up, etc… And I have no problem with this at all. As a matter of fact, I’d feel rediculous having a woman pick me up, pay for dinner, and bring me flowers. I play the gentleman, and I expect her to play the lady.

-I do expect her to NOT be a lady in the sack when we get to that part of the relationship

-In a long term relationship I expect a women to do more of the housework than me. This is NOT because she is a woman however. This is because my housekeeping skills are almost garenteed to be less than hers. For whatever reason this holds true for most men, and I think some of it has to be credited to our biological differences (sence of smell, nesting instinct, etc…). Some of this is probably also due to the difference in skill sets we’re taught while young.

-In a long term relationship I expect a woman to cook more of the meals than me. This is most certainly NOT because she’s a woman. I can almost garentee that I cook BETTER than she does. And I will do so on Saterdays, and Sundays. This is however because I am a man, and as such tend to work long hours. If I’m bringing home the bacon, I expect you to cook it. If your working the same hours as me, than we’re eating out tonight, but as we’ve already seen that’s not likely the case. If we have an all night sexfest friday night I’m cooking your breakfast (and it’s not going to be a bowl of count chocula). When dateing I do most of the cooking. Because it’s probably Saterday night, and I have the time to put my big poofy french chef hat on, and put on a show. But if we’re married, it’s Tuesday, and I come home from a 15 hour day, I expect some beef.

-In a long term relationship I don’t have much in the way of expectations for your employment. If I make enough money for both of us, what difference does it make if your a doctor or a waitress? If you want to be a doctor that’s great, youv’e got my support. If you want to be a waitress that’s great you’ve got my support. Whatever makes you happy.

-When the relationship is over I expect you to get the fuck out, and leave me alone. If it’s me that ends it, and your not in a position to suport yourself I’ll help you get on your feet and send you on your way. If it’s you that ends it, I expect you to get the fuck out now. Sorry but I have no patience for ingrates regardless of their gender.

-I have no problems with a woman who makes more money, and works longer hours than I do. And if that’s the case or she asks me to, and it’s workable than odds are if time has to be taken off work for kids, I’m taking it off instead of you whereever possible (obviously I can’t carry the child in the 3rd trimester, but I did take the last 2 months of parental leave after my son was born so that my wife could go back to work - she made less than I did, but she wanted to go back, and we could afford for me to be off in her stead, so thats what we did, and it wasn’t a problem).

-When the relationship ends if we have kids, I expect you to recognize the fact that although our romantic relationship is over, we have to maintain a parenting relationship (somewhat like a business partnership?). I expect you not to use my children as weapons. I expect you to realize that whatever roles I filled as your romantic partner in our unbroken family will not continue now that we are seperate. I expect you to understand that the sacrifices you made to your carreer if you chose to stay at home with the kids were mirrored by my sacrifices to parenthood that were required for me to provide enough that you could stay home like that. I expect you to go to work to provide for yourself, and for our children, so that I can go to work less so that I can spend more time with my kids. I expect not to be made a visitor in my children’s lives. I expect that in the event you are unable to provide a similar standard of living for my children, that you let me provide it for them in my home until you are able. I expect you to trust me not to abuse this by hiding behind the status quoe, or the so called “best interests of the children”. I expect that if either of us has problems, there will be reasonable compromises made without delay.

I guess basically that “chivalry” is good inside a romantic relationship, but when that relationship ends, so should the “chivalry”. I don’t think it’s right that a man is expected to help his ex-wife maintain a certain standard of living wether she has the kids or not. Just like it wouldn’t be right if the ex-wife had to come and clean my house a couple times a month. If I have to pay for twice as many bedrooms, and kitchens, and living rooms, she should have to clean twice as many no?

When your married, most of the time you have an unequal partnership - one where what’s fair isn’t neccesarily what’s equal, because of the difference in strengths and weaknesses between the 2 (optimally these differences will complement each other, but it doesn’t always work that way either).

I don’t think that inequality should continue after divorce. I think that both parties should be expected to provide equally, and care for the children equally, and have the opportunity to spend equal time with them, etc… Even if it’s not reasonable to expect true equality, it should be fair to expect atleast enough equality that one former partner isn’t dragging teh whole family down. Everybody loves to talk about dead beat dads, how come nobody talks about dead beat moms? If each parent is responsible for providing the home in which they excersize their time with the children is that unreasonable? If each parent is expected to maintain close geographical proximity in the best interest of the children is that unreasonable?

Really I think it’s reasonable that a certain degree of inequality will continue. But how much inequality exists before it’s unfair is different. If women were reasponsible for the costs of the residance where they excersize their time with the kids, and men didn’t have to pay for that, how many men would be opposed to continueing to pay for groceries? Or an appropriate share of the baby sitting, and other costs? I would hope not very many since these costs are the few that don’t double. If kids were a business, the costs that a woman (or man if the woman is the breadwinner, but that’s pretty uncommon) needs to take responsability for after seperation would be the increase in overhead. The increase in factory size required because of the seperation. You know what I mean? That’s the part that weighs down men after divorce. And if your in business and 1/2 the factory burns down, the whole company makes the sacrifices neccesary to fix it. One of the partners doesn’t run outside to piss on the ashes, and than throw a temper tantrum. You know?

I duno if that answers that question or not.[/quote]

It does, and that seems entirely fair to me. By the way, people DO talk about dead beat moms, though I don’t know that the term deadbeat is really used. I’ve worked with kids whose moms are gone or worthless as well as with kids whose moms are around but their dads are the ones who really stay involved. I also happen to be the daughter of a mother who decided she didn’t like the role much and left.

On a positive note, last weekend I went to a coworker’s lake cabin. She and her husband divorced several years ago but they still talk every day and he docks his boat at the cabin. I spent the afternoon with them and their family, hanging out both on her dock and his boat. That’s what I hope I’ll have if I ever divorce. (Especially the part about the cabin on the lake and the boat. I don’t have those now and think I’d really like them. lol)

[lnname]

I read some of the article, and it made some sense. However I’m not going to change the world, just be the best person I can be. I think I’ll continue to treat most of the women in my life the same as most of the men in my life, and continue being chivalrous anyway.

Reading the article, I get the impression that the guy has some problems of his own. I mean if you have views like that, it’d be pretty damn hard to tell your other half.

[Scrotus]

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
The article is mainly drivel, but as far as suicide goes anyone even remotely in the know realizes that males are more likely to kill themselves than women, [/quote]
thats cause men are better at gettin her done. Thats why men make more money for the “same” job.

[EmilyQ]

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I think a lot of the things you view as being nice things for the women, then and now, are actually things that infantilize them. [/quote]

Was voluntarily dying of hypothermia in the frozen north atlantic, so that there would be enough room for the women and children on the titanic’s life boats really that insulting? [/quote]

I’m thinking that constitutes “the shit hitting the fan” and we’ve already established that at such times I am willing to be infantilized without asking who the fuck anyone thinks he’s talking to.

But really, come on. Heroism is not insulting. And who pretends there are no good guys? Most people? Some people? Or one or two really negative people? Not me.

What I think we have to do is establish a new code that is enforced not by law but social pressure (as was the old code). In the age of chivalry, your husband, Mr. EmilyQ would pay the bills, crawl into the spidery corners and slay the wolves and you would reward him by cooking him a nice dinner, cleaning his house (a massive undertaking in those days) and bearing him at least 12 children before your womb dried up completely. In otherwords, there was a system of exchange in which as a woman you compensated his manly deeds with womanly deads. Bills paid = clean house, spidery corners crawled into = nice home cooked dinner, dead wolf = 12 babies. This is out dated, as women can earn just as well as men, there aren’t many spidery corners, and we were so good at killing wolves that there aren’t very many left.

I feel that we’ve established a code that we can agree upon that trades strengths or services in an approximately equitable way, as your grandparents did. He does more of the grunt labor but I am willing to talk to his incredibly tedious sister and in fact talk more to her than he does. He never initiates contact with my family. I do more meal planning, more holiday preparation, more household maintenance, and…and this is a huge thing…I run the information systems portion of our lives. We need to know something that comes from one of the hundreds of books piled around, I’m the one to quickly find it. And the internet is definitely my baby. He’s not lacking in technical skill (his may in fact exceed my own) but he doesn’t have the patience for walls of text and for some reason is not a good skimmer of information. Too methodical, I guess?

So maybe it looks more like this: my husband pays the bills, crawls into the spidery corners and slay the wolves. I reward him by cooking him a nice dinner a couple of times a week, creating a cozy and inviting home space and helping to clean it, bearing him the number of children we’ve agreed upon, researching everything connected to all of those endeavors, and bringing home a paycheck with which to pay the bills assuming I am not home with the above-mentioned children, in which case my share of household work increases.

I think, though, that none of that really hits what is valuable about our combining of strengths and weaknesses. I am a dreamer and he is practical and driven. I generate dreams for him to pursue and he in turn anchors me in the here-and-now. I make us friends and plan social events and he is able to remember that we have food in the oven when I’ve had a couple of drinks and have gotten caught up in talking.

You seem to think that these balances are not important any longer because they are not survival-oriented, as in your grandparents’ day. They are, though. I feel invested in my home and family to a degree that I don’t think you can comprehend from where you are at this point, where freedom from entanglement seems to be your overriding priority. My husband is as invested as I am. We are intensely territorial people and I don’t see a great deal of difference between us and people protecting a homestead on the frontier in terms of devotion. i suspect you will eventually feel the same way.

We’ve encountered shit sandwiches along the way and we just deal with it. If someone’s soul is withering we work together to get whichever one of us it is out of it.

As for this:

Because he wants to fuck you. Duh. But what’s in it for him besides your cooch? And one day when you aren’t attractive anymore and your cooch is no longer appealing, why should he still open the door for you?

You’re so far off. It is about that, of course, but only in part. There is something deeply satisfying about belonging to someone. A best friend, a lover, someone who shares your bed and your refrigerator. I assume there is satisfaction for imhungry alike to what I feel when I do something that is gratuitously feminine. Ooh and ahh over his muscles, say. I know we both get a kick out of comparing hands. The difference between us is so profound.

Also? It’s nice to be nice. I can’t imagine that even a small portion of the men who hold doors open for me think they might get to have sex with me in return. Some of them are very old and others are very young. One I see now and again is a homeless bum who collects our cans at work. Maybe he doesn’t realize he doesn’t stand a chance? Other men who hold doors probably wouldn’t WANT to have sex with me. My husband, who might reasonably hope to get lucky more often than this, does the car door thing on, like, anniversaries, when I’m dressed up and we’re doing a formal date. Otherwise I load myself in and out of the car and if I happen to get to a door first (which I rarely do) I open it and let us both in. Differences in arm reach and bulk impact the door-opening thing, I think. I have to either move back with the door or go in first and hold it open behind me. He can for some reason let me in without having to significantly reposition himself. I don’t know, it’s like magic.

I’m really curious as to how you handle your dating life, Gabby. Because you seem like someone who would be extremely gracious, and yet you’re saying that’s all bullshit and you’re not interested. You also seem like someone who would be interested in the internal workings of a woman you’re seeing, given that you spend your free time poking around in the psyches of people online. I can’t imagine your interest in real life being limited to a woman’s “cooch.”