PDA

View Full Version : A good wife always knows her place



RBA
09-12-2006, 12:06 PM
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/timber84/image5.jpg :help:

flyer85
09-12-2006, 12:07 PM
There just aren't nearly enough good wives. :runaway:

NJReds
09-12-2006, 12:08 PM
Seems reasonable...;)

Blimpie
09-12-2006, 12:13 PM
That article reminds me of the time I was listening to Bruce Williams on the radio one night when the discussion was whether or not to purchase extended warranties:

Caller: "Hello, Bruce--I just got a new dishwasher..."

Bruce: "Really? What's her name?"

RedFanAlways1966
09-12-2006, 12:43 PM
Bullet #3 says... "Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a little lift and one of your duties is to provide it."

Ummmm... only in the adult films, fellas... only in the adult films. :devil:

westofyou
09-12-2006, 12:58 PM
Betty Friedan took care of that nonsense.

Heath
09-12-2006, 01:01 PM
I've got a leather couch in my house.

It's very comfortable.

:D

oneupper
09-12-2006, 01:17 PM
And that is why we must fight the Taliban.

cumberlandreds
09-12-2006, 01:30 PM
Ahh...the good old days. ;)

durl
09-12-2006, 02:58 PM
One of my favorite articles.

Heath
09-12-2006, 03:22 PM
Well, funny someone brought this up - My wife is a "domestic engineer" and she got this email from someone today about the "Good Husbands Guide" based off the "Good Wives Guide". I put it in small print and it is a little lengthy. It was written by a lady none the less. It is funny to say the least...


I admit that when I first read this list I laughed. It is so hopelessly out of date now that I can hardly imagine any modern woman taking it seriously. I found it hard to believe that any person would seriously abdicate their right to question the actions of their spouse, or that any person would sincerely believe that their thoughts and concerns are of minimal importance next to those of their partner, but I know that situations like this were not at all uncommon in the 1950's. I'm sure that scores of earnest young housewives took this advice to heart back in 1955, never imagining that their daughters would grow up to laugh at it with so much disbelief. Women were each other's harshest critics back then, just as they are today, and it was common for the female-written magazines to preach obedience and servitude, orgasmic rapture over kitchen appliances, beauty, poise and above all silence, in the wide-eyed young readers who looked to them for advice.

But after reading it again, and after noting that whoever had sent this email had also taken the trouble to circle the last item - about knowing a wife's place - in red marker, I realized that this item was not intended to make me laugh. Neither was it intended to illustrate how much our society - men and women - has changed since that confusing decade after the second world war, a time when women thought it best to return to the only kind of femininity they knew after having done of the work of men in wartime factories. The article was intended to encourage in me an outraged gasp of shock, an indignant yelp of estrogen-based anger, a condemnation of men everywhere and a heartfelt wail of sorrow for all my lost sisters, doomed to a high-heeled life of slavery to the Frigidaire. I had been duped, like most people had, into reading more propaganda about how lousy it is to be a woman and what self-centred, socially and economically privileged pompous asses men have always been.

It's a lucrative business, this making men out to be the cause of all our woe. No one knows exactly how much public funding radical women's groups get, but it climbs easily into the multi-millions per year. A great many women owe their livelihood to the fact that male-bashing is not only condoned, it's fashionable and moral and considered turn about for all the centuries of "abuse" women have supposedly suffered; a great many paycheques and grants and bursaries would dry up completely if men weren't such an easy target, a ready-made devil figure to justify these expenditures and all that ink. One way to make sure that no one ever forgets that men are evil bastards - not even for a second, not even in a era when the society they live in no longer hinders women in any way - is to send little emails around and to put up little posters in university hallways and the like. If they have to go back fifty years to find a suitable example, so be it. Anything rather than presenting a more balanced and more accurate accounting of relations between the sexes.

How many feminists, for example, send out emails reminding us that in 1955, the average work week included Saturday and required 10-12 hour days, or that the financial burden of providing for home and family on one salary, without even the possibility of financial contribution from their spouse, placed men of that generation under enormous pressure? Besides which, how many feminists remind their faithful that in 1955, there was nothing to stop women from holding down jobs of their own and foregoing marriage altogether if they chose, or having a career while being a wife and mother too? Barbara Billingsly, the quintessential fifties super-mom-in-pearls whom most feminists see as an icon of repression and a prime example of everything that's wrong with domesticity, was herself a working mother, an actress with a full time job and a family at the same time.

We never hear about these things, of course, because it goes against the political agenda of those who would profit from painting women as long suffering and men as the agents of our grief. Neither do we ever hear about the opposite side of the issue, about the demands and expectations we place - and have always placed - on men.

So I came up with my own list, something that could have appeared in Housekeeping Monthly or some such similar advice magazine for men. It would have been based on the same premise that the Good Wife's Guide is built on - that the husband works at a job to provide for his family while his wife stays home to raise the kids and run the household. It would have been called "The Good Husband's Guide", and it would have gone something like this:

* Always make getting and keeping a full-time job with regular raises, benefits, bonuses and the potential for prestigious advancement your number one priority in life. Remember always that you have a wife and children who need your financial support, and that it is your responsibility to provide for them to the best of your ability.

* Always arrive home refreshed and happy - put your bad day or your confrontation with your boss, the traffic, the crowds or the physical exhaustion you might feel aside and try to arrive home as cheery and lighthearted as you possibly can. Your wife has been struggling with the children and the housework all day, she does not need to hear about how bad your day was.

* Be prepared to help with household chores when you get home - let your wife relax or talk on the phone since she has been dealing with these problems all day. Make supper for her often, and offer to clean up afterwards so that she may rest and feel appreciated.

* Do not bore your wife with stories of the troubles you faced at work today. Remember that you are lucky to have a job and that many other men would be happy to trade places with you. Remember that it is not masculine to complain or let worries trouble you. Your job is to provide, and whatever you must go through to achieve this is part of your lot in life. A good husband knows that he is lucky to have a wife at all, and that a woman wants a strong, silent man she can depend on.

* Never expect your wife to have contributed to the smooth operation of the household. She has had a busy day and cannot be expected to provide meals or clean clothes for you. Never insult her by asking her to do such things while you're out earning money. Be mindful always that your wife may think you are being sexist if you ask her to help make a home for your family as part of your partnership.

* Be prepared to account for your whereabouts every minute of the day, including an explanation as to why you were away from the phone when she tried to call or why you were unable to chat with her for twenty minutes when she did get through to you. You must always put her interests first, and be mindful of her natural suspicion about her husband's activities. A good husband knows that men can't be trusted, and that a wife has every reason to believe you will hurt and humiliate her.

* Do not grumble or gripe about handing over your paycheque to her - she is in control of your finances and knows better than you how to spend or invest your money. Never assume that the money you earn is yours to do with as you will - you have a family to think about now, and their needs must always come before your own.

* Listen avidly to your wife's complaints. She leads a hectic life and needs to feel listened to and appreciated. Never suggest ways in which she might solve whatever problem is vexing her. You need only listen; your suggestions are likely insensitive and unfeeling anyway. And do not counter with complaints of your own. She would love to have the chance to leave the house and work, she does not need to hear about how difficult your job is.

* Be prepared to give up your weeknights or weekends to whatever projects or socializing your wife has in mind. If she has determined that cleaning out the garage or painting the upstairs bathroom would be the best use of your time, never complain that you would like to relax or pursue personal interests instead. She has every right to expect that you will make repairs to the house or help her redecorate during your time off. Do not be so selfish as to ask for personal time. You are a family man now, you do not have the luxury of personal time.

* Always be prepared to take over in caring for the children when you get home from work. Your wife has been busy all day and deserves some quiet time. Allow her to watch television or chat with her friends on the phone, go shopping or simply relax. They are your children too, and it is unfair of you to expect to come home from a twelve hour day and simply put your feet up.

There is one main difference between the Good Wife's Guide and the above. The first list is outdated and laughable in its attitudes towards women; the second list, however, could be printed today since every single sentiment expressed in it is practiced, believed and upheld by modern wives and by the culture at large.

Although the Good Husband's Guide is just as offensive, just as insulting, just as sexist, and just as accurate a picture of the plight of some modern husbands, it will never make the email rounds as a rallying cry for anything. No one so much as blinks at the way husbands are treated in this era, and never will as long as men are so thoroughly unappreciated and so completely abused, but proud enough, strong enough, and mature enough not to complain.

OldRightHander
09-12-2006, 03:43 PM
* Be prepared to account for your whereabouts every minute of the day, including an explanation as to why you were away from the phone when she tried to call or why you were unable to chat with her for twenty minutes when she did get through to you.

"What's the point in having a cell phone if you never answer it?" That was said after a day in which I answered four calls and missed one when I was out of the van.


* Do not grumble or gripe about handing over your paycheque to her - she is in control of your finances and knows better than you how to spend or invest your money. Never assume that the money you earn is yours to do with as you will - you have a family to think about now, and their needs must always come before your own.

The other day I took $20 out at an atm to pay some road tolls and buy some supper because I was going to be home really late. My wife called me not ten minutes after I pulled away from the atm to ask what I needed $20 for. The expectation is that I should consult her before I spend anything. Two days later she came home and told me, after the fact, that she had just spent $60 on her hair. :confused:


* Be prepared to give up your weeknights or weekends to whatever projects or socializing your wife has in mind. If she has determined that cleaning out the garage or painting the upstairs bathroom would be the best use of your time, never complain that you would like to relax or pursue personal interests instead. She has every right to expect that you will make repairs to the house or help her redecorate during your time off. Do not be so selfish as to ask for personal time. You are a family man now, you do not have the luxury of personal time.

Can I at least have a few minutes to dust off my golf clubs?

Reds4Life
09-12-2006, 04:03 PM
"What's the point in having a cell phone if you never answer it?" That was said after a day in which I answered four calls and missed one when I was out of the van.

It's in the female handbook; I get the same thing, verbatim.

HotCorner
09-12-2006, 04:08 PM
Bullet #3 says... "Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a little lift and one of your duties is to provide it."

Wow has time altered the interpretation. :laugh:

vaticanplum
09-12-2006, 04:57 PM
This stuff makes my head spin. That's exactly how I have felt whenever I've happened upon an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. Semantics aside, I think some of these attitudes are still spot-on.

Someone would have to hit me in the head with a baseball bat to convince me to get married, I think. And then, of course, I wouldn't be a very entertaining spouse.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2006, 05:03 PM
Someone would have to hit me in the head with a baseball bat to convince me to get married, I think. And then, of course, I wouldn't be a very entertaining spouse.

It's not for everyone. But when you're both professionals it's a pretty bloody great arrangement.

15 years and wouldn't change a thing.

dabvu2498
09-12-2006, 05:19 PM
The way my house works when my wife's in school is the exact opposite of this.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2006, 06:28 PM
Well, funny someone brought this up - My wife is a "domestic engineer" and she got this email from someone today about the "Good Husbands Guide" based off the "Good Wives Guide". I put it in small print and it is a little lengthy. It was written by a lady none the less. It is funny to say the least...


I admit that when I first read this list I laughed. It is so hopelessly out of date now that I can hardly imagine any modern woman taking it seriously. I found it hard to believe that any person would seriously abdicate their right to question the actions of their spouse, or that any person would sincerely believe that their thoughts and concerns are of minimal importance next to those of their partner, but I know that situations like this were not at all uncommon in the 1950's. I'm sure that scores of earnest young housewives took this advice to heart back in 1955, never imagining that their daughters would grow up to laugh at it with so much disbelief. Women were each other's harshest critics back then, just as they are today, and it was common for the female-written magazines to preach obedience and servitude, orgasmic rapture over kitchen appliances, beauty, poise and above all silence, in the wide-eyed young readers who looked to them for advice.

But after reading it again, and after noting that whoever had sent this email had also taken the trouble to circle the last item - about knowing a wife's place - in red marker, I realized that this item was not intended to make me laugh. Neither was it intended to illustrate how much our society - men and women - has changed since that confusing decade after the second world war, a time when women thought it best to return to the only kind of femininity they knew after having done of the work of men in wartime factories. The article was intended to encourage in me an outraged gasp of shock, an indignant yelp of estrogen-based anger, a condemnation of men everywhere and a heartfelt wail of sorrow for all my lost sisters, doomed to a high-heeled life of slavery to the Frigidaire. I had been duped, like most people had, into reading more propaganda about how lousy it is to be a woman and what self-centred, socially and economically privileged pompous asses men have always been.

It's a lucrative business, this making men out to be the cause of all our woe. No one knows exactly how much public funding radical women's groups get, but it climbs easily into the multi-millions per year. A great many women owe their livelihood to the fact that male-bashing is not only condoned, it's fashionable and moral and considered turn about for all the centuries of "abuse" women have supposedly suffered; a great many paycheques and grants and bursaries would dry up completely if men weren't such an easy target, a ready-made devil figure to justify these expenditures and all that ink. One way to make sure that no one ever forgets that men are evil bastards - not even for a second, not even in a era when the society they live in no longer hinders women in any way - is to send little emails around and to put up little posters in university hallways and the like. If they have to go back fifty years to find a suitable example, so be it. Anything rather than presenting a more balanced and more accurate accounting of relations between the sexes.

How many feminists, for example, send out emails reminding us that in 1955, the average work week included Saturday and required 10-12 hour days, or that the financial burden of providing for home and family on one salary, without even the possibility of financial contribution from their spouse, placed men of that generation under enormous pressure? Besides which, how many feminists remind their faithful that in 1955, there was nothing to stop women from holding down jobs of their own and foregoing marriage altogether if they chose, or having a career while being a wife and mother too? Barbara Billingsly, the quintessential fifties super-mom-in-pearls whom most feminists see as an icon of repression and a prime example of everything that's wrong with domesticity, was herself a working mother, an actress with a full time job and a family at the same time.

We never hear about these things, of course, because it goes against the political agenda of those who would profit from painting women as long suffering and men as the agents of our grief. Neither do we ever hear about the opposite side of the issue, about the demands and expectations we place - and have always placed - on men.

So I came up with my own list, something that could have appeared in Housekeeping Monthly or some such similar advice magazine for men. It would have been based on the same premise that the Good Wife's Guide is built on - that the husband works at a job to provide for his family while his wife stays home to raise the kids and run the household. It would have been called "The Good Husband's Guide", and it would have gone something like this:

* Always make getting and keeping a full-time job with regular raises, benefits, bonuses and the potential for prestigious advancement your number one priority in life. Remember always that you have a wife and children who need your financial support, and that it is your responsibility to provide for them to the best of your ability.

* Always arrive home refreshed and happy - put your bad day or your confrontation with your boss, the traffic, the crowds or the physical exhaustion you might feel aside and try to arrive home as cheery and lighthearted as you possibly can. Your wife has been struggling with the children and the housework all day, she does not need to hear about how bad your day was.

* Be prepared to help with household chores when you get home - let your wife relax or talk on the phone since she has been dealing with these problems all day. Make supper for her often, and offer to clean up afterwards so that she may rest and feel appreciated.

* Do not bore your wife with stories of the troubles you faced at work today. Remember that you are lucky to have a job and that many other men would be happy to trade places with you. Remember that it is not masculine to complain or let worries trouble you. Your job is to provide, and whatever you must go through to achieve this is part of your lot in life. A good husband knows that he is lucky to have a wife at all, and that a woman wants a strong, silent man she can depend on.

* Never expect your wife to have contributed to the smooth operation of the household. She has had a busy day and cannot be expected to provide meals or clean clothes for you. Never insult her by asking her to do such things while you're out earning money. Be mindful always that your wife may think you are being sexist if you ask her to help make a home for your family as part of your partnership.

* Be prepared to account for your whereabouts every minute of the day, including an explanation as to why you were away from the phone when she tried to call or why you were unable to chat with her for twenty minutes when she did get through to you. You must always put her interests first, and be mindful of her natural suspicion about her husband's activities. A good husband knows that men can't be trusted, and that a wife has every reason to believe you will hurt and humiliate her.

* Do not grumble or gripe about handing over your paycheque to her - she is in control of your finances and knows better than you how to spend or invest your money. Never assume that the money you earn is yours to do with as you will - you have a family to think about now, and their needs must always come before your own.

* Listen avidly to your wife's complaints. She leads a hectic life and needs to feel listened to and appreciated. Never suggest ways in which she might solve whatever problem is vexing her. You need only listen; your suggestions are likely insensitive and unfeeling anyway. And do not counter with complaints of your own. She would love to have the chance to leave the house and work, she does not need to hear about how difficult your job is.

* Be prepared to give up your weeknights or weekends to whatever projects or socializing your wife has in mind. If she has determined that cleaning out the garage or painting the upstairs bathroom would be the best use of your time, never complain that you would like to relax or pursue personal interests instead. She has every right to expect that you will make repairs to the house or help her redecorate during your time off. Do not be so selfish as to ask for personal time. You are a family man now, you do not have the luxury of personal time.

* Always be prepared to take over in caring for the children when you get home from work. Your wife has been busy all day and deserves some quiet time. Allow her to watch television or chat with her friends on the phone, go shopping or simply relax. They are your children too, and it is unfair of you to expect to come home from a twelve hour day and simply put your feet up.

There is one main difference between the Good Wife's Guide and the above. The first list is outdated and laughable in its attitudes towards women; the second list, however, could be printed today since every single sentiment expressed in it is practiced, believed and upheld by modern wives and by the culture at large.

Although the Good Husband's Guide is just as offensive, just as insulting, just as sexist, and just as accurate a picture of the plight of some modern husbands, it will never make the email rounds as a rallying cry for anything. No one so much as blinks at the way husbands are treated in this era, and never will as long as men are so thoroughly unappreciated and so completely abused, but proud enough, strong enough, and mature enough not to complain.


Get into the business of helping people (read: women) pick up the pieces of their lives after they're abandoned by men who claim they owe their ex-wives and kids "nuthin."

And then get back to me about how bad men have it.

Really, long-sufferingness is silly. But material realities exist all the same. And there is no metric on earth that can demonstrate to me that men have it as hard as or harder than women in this world.

And let's get down to brass tacks: neither spouse in the first post was suffering too bad; they look awfully mid-to-upper middle class to me.

KittyDuran
09-13-2006, 08:28 AM
Besides which, how many feminists remind their faithful that in 1955, there was nothing to stop women from holding down jobs of their own and foregoing marriage altogether if they chose, or having a career while being a wife and mother too? Barbara Billingsly, the quintessential fifties super-mom-in-pearls whom most feminists see as an icon of repression and a prime example of everything that's wrong with domesticity, was herself a working mother, an actress with a full time job and a family at the same time.
All I know is that my mom and other women who stayed at home raising kids talked down about working moms. My mom BTW had a great job at Ohio Casualty before she married my dad. As far as Barbara Billingsly is concerned, Hollywood was more forgiving than the rest of the country at that time.

GAC
09-13-2006, 09:25 AM
Get into the business of helping people (read: women) pick up the pieces of their lives after they're abandoned by men who claim they owe their ex-wives and kids "nuthin."

And then get back to me about how bad men have it.

How about the other side of the coin when women do the same, and government social services as well as the legal system (no fault divorce) sticks it to the husband?

And yes, it happens an awful lot in this country due to a legal system that is grossly unfair.

I've seen examples within my family of both - where a husband abandoned his family and where a wive cheated on her husband. In the latter case, she sues him for divorce, and her and her boyfriend are now living in HIS house while he was paying out alimony and child support that basically put him in the poverty bracket. Did the courts/legal system take any of that into consideration?

It's all about "the children" which she uses as leverage over her ex. And I see it happening all the time.

Face it! The legal system in this country doesn't know what fairness is when it comes to situations such as these, and the breakdown of marriages.

Sure there are men out there that are downright cads and deserve to be hunted down and held accountable.

But why doesn't the legal system show any equality with women who do the same, and who know and use the system to their advantage?

I don't justify or condone any man who abandons his family. But the fact is the legal system is so slanted, and it puts ALL accountability on the man in the majority of the cases, and it forces alot of them to take such actions (abandonment) sadly enough, because of the judgments handed down.

In divorces, and where there are children involved, regardless of who is at fault in the marriage breakdown.... the man is gonna pay and pay heavily. And is that fair?

RANDY IN INDY
09-13-2006, 09:39 AM
How about the other side of the coin when women do the same, and government social services as well as the legal system (no fault divorce) sticks it to the husband?

And yes, it happens an awful lot in this country due to a legal system that is grossly unfair.

I've seen examples within my family of both - where a husband abandoned his family and where a wive cheated on her husband. In the latter case, she sues him for divorce, and her and her boyfriend are now living in HIS house while he was paying out alimony and child support that basically put him in the poverty bracket. Did the courts/legal system take any of that into consideration?

It's all about "the children" which she uses as leverage over her ex. And I see it happening all the time.

Face it! The legal system in this country doesn't know what fairness is when it comes to situations such as these, and the breakdown of marriages.

Sure there are men out there that are downright cads and deserve to be hunted down and held accountable.

But why doesn't the legal system show any equality with women who do the same, and who know and use the system to their advantage?

I don't justify or condone any man who abandons his family. But the fact is the legal system is so slanted, and it puts ALL accountability on the man in the majority of the cases, and it forces alot of them to take such actions (abandonment) sadly enough, because of the judgments handed down.

In divorces, and where there are children involved, regardless of who is at fault in the marriage breakdown.... the man is gonna pay and pay heavily. And is that fair?

No.:beerme:

RedsManRick
09-13-2006, 10:06 AM
Bottom line is, men work & women work. They both have stresses. Both individuals should be considerate of their spouses needs. If both individuals work on making the other person happy, both people are happy. If both individuals expect the other person to make them happy, both are unhappy. It's kind of backwards, but that's how it works from my albeit limited experience.

When people get these ideas that they are owed something, it rarely ends well -- from relationships, to politics, to religion.

vaticanplum
09-13-2006, 12:04 PM
How about the other side of the coin when women do the same, and government social services as well as the legal system (no fault divorce) sticks it to the husband?

And yes, it happens an awful lot in this country due to a legal system that is grossly unfair.

I've seen examples within my family of both - where a husband abandoned his family and where a wive cheated on her husband. In the latter case, she sues him for divorce, and her and her boyfriend are now living in HIS house while he was paying out alimony and child support that basically put him in the poverty bracket. Did the courts/legal system take any of that into consideration?

It's all about "the children" which she uses as leverage over her ex. And I see it happening all the time.

Face it! The legal system in this country doesn't know what fairness is when it comes to situations such as these, and the breakdown of marriages.

Sure there are men out there that are downright cads and deserve to be hunted down and held accountable.

But why doesn't the legal system show any equality with women who do the same, and who know and use the system to their advantage?

I don't justify or condone any man who abandons his family. But the fact is the legal system is so slanted, and it puts ALL accountability on the man in the majority of the cases, and it forces alot of them to take such actions (abandonment) sadly enough, because of the judgments handed down.

In divorces, and where there are children involved, regardless of who is at fault in the marriage breakdown.... the man is gonna pay and pay heavily. And is that fair?

GAC, you've got to be kidding me. Cases such as the one you mentioned do happen, but you have to realize that there are about a hundred that go in the opposite direction for every one of those. Of course there are women who "use" the system to their advantage. And there are men who do so too.

How many single fathers do you know? And how many single mothers? And frankly there is a huge difference between being ordered to send a bit of earnings in the direction of your children and raising them. It is absolutely your obligation to do the former if you've fathered (or mothered) children, and it's the part that the legal system can enforce. The latter is fuzzier and far more difficult to do. People who are "parenting" children by way of sending them money are getting off easy as far as I'm concerned.

Reds4Life
09-13-2006, 12:18 PM
How many single fathers do you know? And how many single mothers?

There are more single mothers because the courts are bias in this area. I know men who have tried to get custody of their kids and were denied, even when the mother is a drunk or had other questionable past behavior. How many mothers do you know who lose custody that pay child support? I know of none. I agree people should have to pay for their kids, what gets me is women who cheat on their husbands or just "want out", then demand 60% of his income as alimony along with all the joint assets. The sense of entitlement is disgusting. Marriage in the eyes of the law is a contract, when that contract is voided it shouldn't entitle one party to leach off the other until that person dies, but sadly that's what it has become.

If you think men don't get the shaft in divorce court you aren't looking at the reality.

vaticanplum
09-13-2006, 12:34 PM
There are more single mothers because the courts are bias in this area. I know men who have tried to get custody of their kids and were denied, even when the mother is a drunk or had other questionable past behavior. How many mothers do you know who lose custody that pay child support? I know of none. I agree people should have to pay for their kids, what gets me is women who cheat on their husbands or just "want out", then demand 60% of his income as alimony along with all the joint assets. The sense of entitlement is disgusting. Marriage in the eyes of the law is a contract, when that contract is voided it shouldn't entitle one party to leach off the other until that person dies, but sadly that's what it has become.

If you think men don't get the shaft in divorce court you aren't looking at the reality.

A "shaft" on what? Their material belongings? Do they come before the children?

The cases that you're talking about exist, but they are still very much in the minority compared to women who raise the children and men who walk because that's what they both want, or because it's what the man wants and the woman simply can't walk as easily.

If there are a large number of cases of men who really fight for and lose custody to alcoholic mothers, I'd like to hear more about them. Of course they exist. Are they as common as the standard women-raises-the-kids-men-pay arrangement? No, they're not.

In the eyes of the law, one cannot "leach off the other until that person dies"; child support legally ends when the children are no longer children. If it continues beyond that, that's a private arrangement that likely stems from a parent's sense of obligation or guilt, and in my eyes that's not a bad thing. Again, I think that the absent parent is obligated to cough up money, and a good deal of it if that's what it takes. Depending on a person's income, savings, and the size of his or her family, 60% of a salary could very well be what he or she would spend on his family if it was still intact; why should it be any different if it's not? If a woman cheated, do the children deserve to be punished for it? Should the cost of their education, their food and clothing -- in other words, their future -- be lessened because of their parent's (or parents') mistakes?

I have a lot more to say about this, but it probably belongs in the Peanut Gallery.

dabvu2498
09-13-2006, 12:37 PM
Ohio has a strict child support calculator. You can find a basic one here: http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/ohio/ You can argue the merits of this either way. Fact is, it's the law.

Ohio is also a "shared parenting" state. Excellent primer in this topic available here: http://www.divorcenet.com/states/ohio/ohart_07

The recent trend of judicial decisions in Ohio tends to be moving back to the benefit of fathers. The number of shared parenting plans that are determined solely by judges is miniscule. The number of attorneys for fathers (and fathers) who are willing to forgo benefits to their clients (or themselves) because they don't want it determined by a judge, is astounding.

The thing that amazes me is how many fathers who will accept decreases in "shared parenting" rights (visitation, decision-making) to decrease their monthly child support payments or receive other financial benefits.

Reds4Life
09-13-2006, 01:01 PM
I’ll tell you the story of a friend of mine, a guy I’ve known since the second grade, and then you can tell me if men don’t get screwed in this process.

Mr. X, as we’ll call him, is a portfolio manager at Goldman Sachs, graduated top of his class from Wharton and makes close to $1 million a year. About 6 years ago he got married, about a year after they had a daughter. The wife of Mr. X moves into his apartment, that he owned before they got married, with a value of around $3.8 million. Mr. X works quite a bit, and his wife knew this before they got married. About 2.5 years into the marriage she decides she wants a divorce because he’s “emotionally detached”. She goes to court, files for full custody of the daughter, $750,000 a year in alimony, $150,000 a year in child support, and she also wants the apartment and all assets in it. This is a woman who’s never held a job in her life, ever, no college degree, and pretty much did nothing all day but spend the money he made. She hired a live in nanny to take care of the kid while they were married because she “couldn’t deal with it”. Mr. X has his attorneys and an investigative staff begin to look into things, it turns out his wonderful wife has had 6 affairs (including one with the doorman to his building) in 2 years.

All of this is presented to the court; Mr. X wants full custody of his daughter and provides all the necessary financial data to prove he can provide for her. Mrs. X provides nothing, since she still doesn’t have a job of any kind. Court (female judge, btw) awards Mrs. X custody, $600k a year alimony, $175k a year in child support and is given the apartment that she didn’t contribute a cent to.

Sound fair to you?

As a follow up, the now former Mrs. X uses some of her alimony money (she still doesn’t have a job, BTW) to purchase a new Jaguar XJR for her latest boyfriend and go out and get drunk and party every night, all the while a nanny is raising the child that she wanted so badly. It must be nice to know your money is going to buy a car for a guy now screwing your ex-wife. She’s been arrested twice since then at parties for possession of prescription medication without a prescription, so Mr. X’s guess is that she’s into pill popping now and is worried about the welfare of his daughter. Mr. X has filed several motions in court to get the custody of his daughter in light of this behavior by her “mother”, as well as to cease all alimony payments and child support after he has received custody. To date, all of his requests have been denied.

Wonderful divorce system we have.

Rojo
09-13-2006, 01:19 PM
Why do we still have alimony?

dabvu2498
09-13-2006, 01:23 PM
I’ll tell you the story of a friend of mine, a guy I’ve known since the second grade, and then you can tell me if men don’t get screwed in this process.

Sound fair to you?

Wonderful divorce system we have.

To quote Kanye West:

If you aint no punk holla We Want Prenup!
WE WANT PRENUP!, Yeaah,
It's something that you need to have,
Cause when she leave yo a$$ she gone leave with half.

Prenups should be REQUIRED for every marriage in 21st century American society. My former employer used to tell family law clients "I'm not the one who told you to marrry this person" when they would complain about the outcomes of thier cases.

"Resons" for divorce have very little to do with their outcomes. Eg., I find out my wife is cheating on me, that will have little to no influence on custody/how much support or alimony I pay. This has been held up in appeals courts all over the country.

Divorce/dissolution/child support cases get handled with an alarming "rubber stamp" quality. Ex., the child support calculator I referenced above. Family Law courts (and lawyers) are absolutely overwhelmed with caseloads that most times, individual cases get very little attention.


(female judge, btw)
And the two female Domestic Relations judges in Butler County have very "male-friendly" reputations.

dabvu2498
09-13-2006, 01:31 PM
Why do we still have alimony?

The newer term is "spousal support." Spousal support is to be paid in order for the other spouse to maintain the same standard of living they had during (not prior to) the marriage. Prenups can eliminate this.

There is also a fairly strict calculator for this, but I can find no "freebie" available for use on the internet.

Reds4Life
09-13-2006, 01:42 PM
To quote Kanye West:

If you aint no punk holla We Want Prenup!
WE WANT PRENUP!, Yeaah,
It's something that you need to have,
Cause when she leave yo a$$ she gone leave with half.

Prenups should be REQUIRED for every marriage in 21st century American society. My former employer used to tell family law clients "I'm not the one who told you to marrry this person" when they would complain about the outcomes of thier cases.

"Resons" for divorce have very little to do with their outcomes. Eg., I find out my wife is cheating on me, that will have little to no influence on custody/how much support or alimony I pay. This has been held up in appeals courts all over the country.

Divorce/dissolution/child support cases get handled with an alarming "rubber stamp" quality. Ex., the child support calculator I referenced above. Family Law courts (and lawyers) are absolutely overwhelmed with caseloads that most times, individual cases get very little attention.


And the two female Domestic Relations judges in Butler County have very "male-friendly" reputations.

He wanted a prenup, she did the whole "if you really loved me you wouldn't ask for one" guilt trip that many women use. He fell for it too, hard to imagine how such a bright guy could be so stupid.

vaticanplum
09-13-2006, 02:23 PM
I’ll tell you the story of a friend of mine, a guy I’ve known since the second grade, and then you can tell me if men don’t get screwed in this process.

Mr. X, as we’ll call him, is a portfolio manager at Goldman Sachs, graduated top of his class from Wharton and makes close to $1 million a year. About 6 years ago he got married, about a year after they had a daughter. The wife of Mr. X moves into his apartment, that he owned before they got married, with a value of around $3.8 million. Mr. X works quite a bit, and his wife knew this before they got married. About 2.5 years into the marriage she decides she wants a divorce because he’s “emotionally detached”. She goes to court, files for full custody of the daughter, $750,000 a year in alimony, $150,000 a year in child support, and she also wants the apartment and all assets in it. This is a woman who’s never held a job in her life, ever, no college degree, and pretty much did nothing all day but spend the money he made. She hired a live in nanny to take care of the kid while they were married because she “couldn’t deal with it”. Mr. X has his attorneys and an investigative staff begin to look into things, it turns out his wonderful wife has had 6 affairs (including one with the doorman to his building) in 2 years.

All of this is presented to the court; Mr. X wants full custody of his daughter and provides all the necessary financial data to prove he can provide for her. Mrs. X provides nothing, since she still doesn’t have a job of any kind. Court (female judge, btw) awards Mrs. X custody, $600k a year alimony, $175k a year in child support and is given the apartment that she didn’t contribute a cent to.

Sound fair to you?

As a follow up, the now former Mrs. X uses some of her alimony money (she still doesn’t have a job, BTW) to purchase a new Jaguar XJR for her latest boyfriend and go out and get drunk and party every night, all the while a nanny is raising the child that she wanted so badly. It must be nice to know your money is going to buy a car for a guy now screwing your ex-wife. She’s been arrested twice since then at parties for possession of prescription medication without a prescription, so Mr. X’s guess is that she’s into pill popping now and is worried about the welfare of his daughter. Mr. X has filed several motions in court to get the custody of his daughter in light of this behavior by her “mother”, as well as to cease all alimony payments and child support after he has received custody. To date, all of his requests have been denied.

Wonderful divorce system we have.

I'll say exactly what I said before once again: this happens. Your friend got screwed, I'm sorry for him, and it sounds as though the justice system failed. I'd like to hear the other side of the story, of course, since you would clearly be biased in favor of your friend (if the woman has actually been arrested, your friend obviously has a leg to stand on in court, so I wonder why that leg hasn't held him up -- other circumstances we don't know about? Poor representation?), but from what you say it sounds unfortunate and regardless, things like this do happen.

Now I'll complete what I said before: this does happen. The number of these cases still pales in comparison to the number of mothers who get legally screwed, both in terms of the physical act of raising children and in terms of the financial support they receive (or don't). You've got one story of the divorce system failing a man? I've got a dozen, easy, of the same system failing women and children, right off the top of my head. And the circumstances of many of these are even more terrifying than the truly awful story you have just told.

flyer85
09-13-2006, 02:30 PM
Wonderful divorce system we have.Be careful who you marry may be a good admonition. Or if you're married to your job you may want to question the point of getting married in the first place.

Redsfaithful
09-13-2006, 03:24 PM
I’ll tell you the story of a friend of mine, a guy I’ve known since the second grade, and then you can tell me if men don’t get screwed in this process.

What was he thinking not making her sign a pre-nup?

I'm not saying the system isn't screwed up, I don't really know enough to have an opinion, but if you're making seven figures a year and don't make your potential spouse sign a pre-nup ... you're being awfully shortsighted.

Edited: Whoops, I missed your post on this, sorry.

RBA
09-13-2006, 03:38 PM
After 10 years of marraige, I'm screwed if I got a divorce. My wife get's half my retirement military pay for life, thanks to federal law.

That's why you see a lot of divorces in the military right after the 10 year mark is hit. If not for the law, many women wouldn't wait for the 10 years. I seen it happen to other men, as soon as the ten year mark passes: divorce filings start.

Rojo
09-13-2006, 03:40 PM
I'll say exactly what I said before once again: this happens. Your friend got screwed, I'm sorry for him, and it sounds as though the justice system failed.

If its written into law that she gets to "keep her lifestyle" then it didn't "fail", its screwed up.

vaticanplum
09-13-2006, 03:47 PM
It's not for everyone. But when you're both professionals it's a pretty bloody great arrangement.

15 years and wouldn't change a thing.

Oh I missed this in all of the hullabaloo.

In my opinion, the institution of marriage has been greatly devalued in modern society, for reasons which, while not exactly political, would probably be better suited for the Peanut Gallery. nevertheless I have great respect and admiration for people who don't feel that way and who are able to uphold that institution in ways that work for them. People in good happy marriages are, in my experience, some of the best people to be around for a great number of reasons, and it says a lot about their strength and ability to love -- and strength and ability to love are pretty much two of the greatest qualities a person can possess, I think.

But the reasons I think I'll never get married are separate from that; it's more just my personality. I am pathologically protective of my freedom (in the past, this has been referred to as "petrified of commitment", but that is not my spin on it). If I agree on Thursday to have a drink with someone on Saturday, I will then spend two whole days trying to resurrect the part of my soul that died when I agreed to do it. The way I see it is, if someone asks you to marry him, he has essentially asked you to go to dinner with him on Saturday, FIFTY YEARS FROM NOW. And he probably expects you to reserve a large portion of your Saturdays in between for dinner too, and that you be cheerful about it to boot. My soul would crumble to dust. Again, a crushed soul does not hold much entertainment value, and I can't cook either.

vaticanplum
09-13-2006, 03:48 PM
After 10 years of marraige, I'm screwed if I got a divorce. My wife get's half my retirement military pay for life, thanks to federal law.

That's why you see a lot of divorces in the military right after the 10 year mark is hit. If not for the law, many women wouldn't wait for the 10 years. I seen it happen to other men, as soon as the ten year mark passes: divorce filings start.

Are women in the military held to the same rule?

Falls City Beer
09-13-2006, 03:52 PM
How about the other side of the coin when women do the same, and government social services as well as the legal system (no fault divorce) sticks it to the husband?

And yes, it happens an awful lot in this country due to a legal system that is grossly unfair.

I've seen examples within my family of both - where a husband abandoned his family and where a wive cheated on her husband. In the latter case, she sues him for divorce, and her and her boyfriend are now living in HIS house while he was paying out alimony and child support that basically put him in the poverty bracket. Did the courts/legal system take any of that into consideration?

It's all about "the children" which she uses as leverage over her ex. And I see it happening all the time.

Face it! The legal system in this country doesn't know what fairness is when it comes to situations such as these, and the breakdown of marriages.

Sure there are men out there that are downright cads and deserve to be hunted down and held accountable.

But why doesn't the legal system show any equality with women who do the same, and who know and use the system to their advantage?

I don't justify or condone any man who abandons his family. But the fact is the legal system is so slanted, and it puts ALL accountability on the man in the majority of the cases, and it forces alot of them to take such actions (abandonment) sadly enough, because of the judgments handed down.

In divorces, and where there are children involved, regardless of who is at fault in the marriage breakdown.... the man is gonna pay and pay heavily. And is that fair?

I suggest you understand the facts before making assertions such as the above. I suggest you not post from ignorance on these matters.

You are revealing that you know very little about such matters.

IslandRed
09-13-2006, 03:54 PM
If there are a large number of cases of men who really fight for and lose custody to alcoholic mothers, I'd like to hear more about them. Of course they exist. Are they as common as the standard women-raises-the-kids-men-pay arrangement? No, they're not.

I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but you seem to be making a pretty blanket assumption in this thread that the "standard" arrangement is to the liking of both parties. Plenty of men would take primary custody of the kids if they could. But absent extreme circumstances, if the mother wants primary custody that's that.

Falls City Beer
09-13-2006, 03:54 PM
Oh I missed this in all of the hullabaloo.

In my opinion, the institution of marriage has been greatly devalued in modern society, for reasons which, while not exactly political, would probably be better suited for the Peanut Gallery. nevertheless I have great respect and admiration for people who don't feel that way and who are able to uphold that institution in ways that work for them. People in good happy marriages are, in my experience, some of the best people to be around for a great number of reasons, and it says a lot about their strength and ability to love -- and strength and ability to love are pretty much two of the greatest qualities a person can possess, I think.

But the reasons I think I'll never get married are separate from that; it's more just my personality. I am pathologically protective of my freedom (in the past, this has been referred to as "petrified of commitment", but that is not my spin on it). If I agree on Thursday to have a drink with someone on Saturday, I will then spend two whole days trying to resurrect the part of my soul that died when I agreed to do it. The way I see it is, if someone asks you to marry him, he has essentially asked you to go to dinner with him on Saturday, FIFTY YEARS FROM NOW. And he probably expects you to reserve a large portion of your Saturdays in between for dinner too, and that you be cheerful about it to boot. My soul would crumble to dust. Again, a crushed soul does not hold much entertainment value, and I can't cook either.

I completely understand your position. There are plenty of married "pod people" humming around. As I said, it's not for everyone. And I certainly mean that.

RBA
09-13-2006, 03:56 PM
Are women in the military held to the same rule?

Yup.

Reds4Life
09-13-2006, 03:58 PM
After 10 years of marraige, I'm screwed if I got a divorce. My wife get's half my retirement military pay for life, thanks to federal law.

That's why you see a lot of divorces in the military right after the 10 year mark is hit. If not for the law, many women wouldn't wait for the 10 years. I seen it happen to other men, as soon as the ten year mark passes: divorce filings start.

That's horrible, that law should be changed.

Roy Tucker
09-13-2006, 04:00 PM
On a very tangental note, Barbara Billingsley was also the voice of Nanny on "Muppet Babies".

22 years and going strong for my wife and I. I *never* try to crush or trap my wife. If she wants to go out for book club or bunko or drinks, I say "go have fun". I encourage her to go have some part of her life separate from me. I'm a fun guy, but I'm not *that* fun.

vaticanplum
09-13-2006, 04:01 PM
I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, but you seem to be making a pretty blanket assumption in this thread that the "standard" arrangement is to the liking of both parties. Plenty of men would take primary custody of the kids if they could. But absent extreme circumstances, if the mother wants primary custody that's that.

No, you are correct on that. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I think most men prefer this arrangement.

I am not sure how all of this is "done" these days. I would hope that each case is looked at individually and the more competent caregiver is chosen to be the primary one; I suspect that more often than not, the mother is still the default. But if men think that unfair, they need to fight for their children. Many do. So the fact that there are still oodles more single mothers than fathers makes me wonder whether many men still don't believe that "this is the way these things go" and let them (and their children) go at that -- and if that's the case, they have themselves to blame. I'm just speculating here, of course.

REDREAD
09-13-2006, 04:58 PM
"The other day I took $20 out at an atm to pay some road tolls and buy some supper because I was going to be home really late. My wife called me not ten minutes after I pulled away from the atm to ask what I needed $20 for. The expectation is that I should consult her before I spend anything. Two days later she came home and told me, after the fact, that she had just spent $60 on her hair. :confused:



Holy cow man. She gets alerts whenever you use the ATM and then checks up on you?
This is out of control. Don't take this wrong, but you need to take back your manhood. I think things need to be even among partners, but this clearly says that it's not. You're probably too nice and she's walking over you. If my wife questioned every ATM withdrawl I made, I'd tell her it's none of her business or something drastic to get her attention that this is not acceptable behavior on her part.

BoydsOfSummer
09-13-2006, 05:19 PM
Kayne West doesn't care about women. Or is it white people, I forget?

Red Leader
09-13-2006, 05:26 PM
Holy cow man. She gets alerts whenever you use the ATM and then checks up on you?
This is out of control. Don't take this wrong, but you need to take back your manhood. I think things need to be even among partners, but this clearly says that it's not. You're probably too nice and she's walking over you. If my wife questioned every ATM withdrawl I made, I'd tell her it's none of her business or something drastic to get her attention that this is not acceptable behavior on her part.

I agree. I couldn't stand for that. That's why we have seperate bank accounts. Under ORH's setup, the first stop I'd make after that phone call would be to a strip club and I'd ask the manager what I could purchase that would show up on my statement under his establishment's name.

TeamCasey
09-13-2006, 05:39 PM
But the reasons I think I'll never get married are separate from that; it's more just my personality. I am pathologically protective of my freedom (in the past, this has been referred to as "petrified of commitment", but that is not my spin on it). If I agree on Thursday to have a drink with someone on Saturday, I will then spend two whole days trying to resurrect the part of my soul that died when I agreed to do it.

Oh my goodness, that's a great way to state it. I've always called it "stubborn independence" which my mother drilled into my head from a very young age. I have trouble committing to whatever someone is proposing for the weekend. :laugh:

I've been trained to never put myself in a position to be dependent on anyone. My mom and Dad divorced when I was a baby.

Aside from that, this ones probably headed to the Gem.

Rojo
09-13-2006, 05:42 PM
Yeah those words really resonated with me as well. I hate it especially when people want to make Friday plans. I love the feeling of a wide open Friday night, even if all I do is go home and watch a movie.

Falls City Beer
09-13-2006, 06:32 PM
If there are a large number of cases of men who really fight for and lose custody to alcoholic mothers, I'd like to hear more about them.
.

They don't exist. Trust me, every guy and every gal has some sob story, but the statistics simply DO NOT bear out the anecdotal griping of men who say the drunk mama gets the kids and the Bentley. Doesn't exist. It's a chimera, a shade, a shadow, a phantom. Completely mythical.

Drunk and drug-abusing moms lose their kids ALL the time; if not to the father (seldom, admittedly, but then in those cases, 99% of the time, the father's even worse), most often to the state.

What we're talking about is a bunch of middle class sausage-circle griping about some guy who married a 49er and now acts surprised when she wants a divorce and half the possessions and the kids. Let the marrier beware is what I say; you should have known what you were getting into, if I may play the role of conservative for a moment.

Or better yet, marry someone who is ALSO a professional and has his/her own source of income, so you can amenably split the stuff up when you're done.

dsmith421
09-13-2006, 07:08 PM
If you think men don't get the shaft in divorce court you aren't looking at the reality.

I heard these arguments from a guy in my new hometown...wonder whatever happened to him.

Oh.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060910/NEWS01/609100377/1004/NEWS

I'm being flippant, but the bottom line is that family law is tough, tough business and there are no easy solutions. Community property laws seem to help a little bit, but the bottom line is that if you really are concerned about being screwed financially in a divorce (and you probably should be, given the divorce rate in this country), you need to talk to a lawyer about a prenuptial agreement before you enter the contract in the first place.

IslandRed
09-13-2006, 08:41 PM
And truthfully, most of the examples in this thread are of the extreme variety. Most divorces don't involve golddiggers who see the divorce as a winning lottery ticket, or jerks who don't care about the wife and kids and pay up only when forced. For average folks who just couldn't make it work and want to do right by the kids, both sides come out of a divorce feeling worse off.

... So I have been told. I'm nearing 12 years with a lady that is picture-perfect so far as I'm concerned, and may it always be thus.

Rojo
09-13-2006, 08:54 PM
What we're talking about is a bunch of middle class sausage-circle griping about some guy who married a 49er and now acts surprised when she wants a divorce and half the possessions and the kids. Let the marrier beware is what I say; you should have known what you were getting into, if I may play the role of conservative for a moment.


Yes, its rare and, personally, I don't really care much if some Goldman Sachs theives get their rears handed to them by a divorce lawyers. However, I still wonder why such a thing as alimony still exists. Provisions ought to be made for housekeeping or put-him-through-college stuff but "accustomed lifestyle" seems like a weak rationale. So you grew accustomed to Park Avenue, get unaccustomed.

Reds4Life
09-13-2006, 08:58 PM
Yes, its rare and, personally, I don't really care much if some Goldman Sachs theives get their rears handed to them by a divorce lawyers. However, I still wonder why such a thing as alimony still exists. Provisions ought to be made for housekeeping or put-him-through-college stuff but "accustomed lifestyle" seems like a weak rationale. So you grew accustomed to Park Avenue, get unaccustomed.

Thief? That's a bold, and totally unjustified, comment about someone you don't even know.

:thumbdown

GAC
09-13-2006, 09:02 PM
I suggest you understand the facts before making assertions such as the above. I suggest you not post from ignorance on these matters.

You are revealing that you know very little about such matters.

Oh please... and you do? Is there any subject matter that you don't assume to know it all? :lol:

The example I posted was a real life situation that had occurred. So it was FACTUAL. And anymore, it's not just an isolated case. And I could easily sight many, many more - where the wife abandoned her husband (for whatever reason) - either cheated on him, got bored, decided she just wanted out, whatever.... and when they went to court, the system didn't take WHAT SHE DID into consideration, or hold her accountable.

If a husband cheats, has an affair, and abandons his family, the system, and rightly so, holds him accountable. He pays.

If a wife does it.... He pays AND he still has very little chance of getting custody of the children.

And you're saying this doesn't occur, or that it's not a big a societal problem? It's not me in denial then.

And I've seen plenty of cases where this had occurred with the wife. Just had it happen with a co-worker.... married for 17 years, she got supposedly bored with the relationship. He found out she had a boyfriend while he was at work. Meanwhile, for the last 2 years, he was also building them their dream house.

They just got divorced several months ago... guess who got the house? ;)

And in today's society these are no longer isolated cases. It's happening more and more.

Hypothetically speaking (and even as RBA noted earlier).... my wife could walk out on me and our marriage tommorrow, and because of no fault of mine, and it's gonna cost me BIG TIME via the current legal system. Is that fair?

So maybe you need to get your facts straight.

MWM
09-13-2006, 09:23 PM
I think prenups cover only assets and does not prevent alimony (I think this is true, but lawyer could correct me if I'm wrong).

My brother had a baby with a drunk psychotic woman and he now has custody of the child, even though he isn't exactly a model citizen himself. My wife's brother was married for 13 years with 4 kids and his wife walked in one day and said she was running off with some 21 year old kid who was the public address announcer at the local BMX track where their 3 boys and dad raced. She came back three months later and wanted the house and custody of the kids. My brother-in-law is a really good person and a good dad. The woman he married (who was extremely close to my wife) turned into a disgusting person through the process. She went for the jugular in the divorce process and won about everything she wanted. It was sad. My brother-in-law's life was pretty much ruined at this point. After she was finished with him (her rich parents paid for an expensive attorney), he didn't have enough money to pay rent and now he's supported almost fully by his parents (he's 41 years old) even though he has a full time job (he doesn't make much money though). I'm pretty close to the details on this one and I can't fathom how a respctable judge could look himself in the mirror after the way this was handled.

I've learned TONS about the whole process through these two situations and one thing is certain, the system does *favor* giving custody to women all things being equal or close to being equal. But that doesn't mean that situations like my brother-in-law are the rule. They're not. Honestly, in most situations the court should favor the woman.

I have two daughters who I expect to go to college and then to grad school. I expect them to have successful and fulfilling careers of their choosing. They are being raised to be independent and to believe they can do anything in this world a man can do (except pee standing up of course). In my career, I've worked for more women than men and I've actually had better working relationships, in general, with women than men. I'm a full believer in equality of opportunuties and I've been lucky enough to work for companies who value having women in leadership positions.

That being said, my wife (11 years and counting) never had a lot of career ambition. She's an intelligent person, but never cared much about career *achievements.* She's also never been one who thinks she has to "prove" anything to the world (not suggesting others here feel that way). When we were married she said once we had children (and that was 18 months later) she wanted to stay home and be a full-time mom. I was fine with that. I also told her, and continue to tell her, that if she ever wants to work outside the home I will support her fully.

The problem is that there have been numerous occassions, usually at some kind of work or school function for me, where my wife has come along and been made to feel somehow inferior to those who choose to focus first on their career. I've been in converstaions where something is said that makes me feel extremely uncomfortable for my wife, even though comments weren't directed specifically at her. She's felt at times in talking to neighbors, old friends, etc... that somehow she's "letting down the cause." It might sound silly to some, but to my wife it's very real. It's to the point that I can hardly get her to go with me to social functions any more with people I work with. In her mind she doesn't feel on the same plane as some professional women. She fully supports the choices they've made, but sometimes the feeling isn't reciprocated. It's sad really because she's a world class mom and she shouldn't feel inferior to anyone. But she does.

Falls City Beer
09-13-2006, 09:25 PM
Oh please... and you do? Is there any subject matter that you don't assume to know it all? :lol:

The example I posted was a real life situation that had occurred. So it was FACTUAL. And anymore, it's not just an isolated case. And I could easily sight many, many more - where the wife abandoned her husband (for whatever reason) - either cheated on him, got bored, decided she just wanted out, whatever.... and when they went to court, the system didn't take WHAT SHE DID into consideration, or hold her accountable.

If a husband cheats, has an affair, and abandons his family, the system, and rightly so, holds him accountable. He pays.

If a wife does it.... He pays AND he still has very little chance of getting custody of the children.
t.

If the wife leaves or cheats, the law, depending on the situation and state, most certainly DOES take that into consideration. If the wife is abusing substances, she WILL lose custody of that child.

And I have an example of that: my brother in law's wife no longer has custody of their child from a previous marriage (gets every other weekend) because she is a recovering alcoholic. She got nothing in the settlement and doesn't get custody of her daughter. This is in Tennessee. There, tit for tat, anecdote for anecdote. We could go on forever with this.

But the larger point is that in most cases, anymore the wife isn't solely dependent on the husband. Yes, when both parents are blameless, the law favors the mother getting custody, but the mother can't go cheating and running a porn industry and STILL get the kid--it doesn't work that way.

Regardless, a monstrous proportion of broken families in this country still consist of wives being left with kids, and husbands vanishing without paying a dime.

Rojo
09-13-2006, 09:31 PM
Thief? That's a bold, and totally unjustified, comment about someone you don't even know.

:thumbdown


My apologies. I forgot that the original story was a friend of yours. I thought I just picked Goldman, Sachs out of thin air.

And you have to understand I don't like that crowd. Its political, not personal.

vaticanplum
09-13-2006, 09:31 PM
Oh please... and you do? Is there any subject matter that you don't assume to know it all? :lol:

The example I posted was a real life situation that had occurred. So it was FACTUAL. And anymore, it's not just an isolated case. And I could easily sight many, many more - where the wife abandoned her husband (for whatever reason) - either cheated on him, got bored, decided she just wanted out, whatever.... and when they went to court, the system didn't take WHAT SHE DID into consideration, or hold her accountable.

If a husband cheats, has an affair, and abandons his family, the system, and rightly so, holds him accountable. He pays.

If a wife does it.... He pays AND he still has very little chance of getting custody of the children.

And you're saying this doesn't occur, or that it's not a big a societal problem? It's not me in denial then.

And I've seen plenty of cases where this had occurred with the wife. Just had it happen with a co-worker.... married for 17 years, she got supposedly bored with the relationship. He found out she had a boyfriend while he was at work. Meanwhile, for the last 2 years, he was also building them their dream house.

They just got divorced several months ago... guess who got the house? ;)

And in today's society these are no longer isolated cases. It's happening more and more.

Hypothetically speaking (and even as RBA noted earlier).... my wife could walk out on me and our marriage tommorrow, and because of no fault of mine, and it's gonna cost me BIG TIME via the current legal system. Is that fair?

So maybe you need to get your facts straight.

Alright then, let's all stop talking about stories and focus on the facts then.

In 2005 custody cases, 9.68 million women were awarded custody. 2.04 million men were.

41% of children living with single mothers have a household income under $12,500. That's almost HALF living well below the poverty line, ie. clearly these children need suppport.

In the United States, 62% of single mothers receive no child support. NONE.

We can talk about our aberrations and isolated incidents all we want. I am sure there are incidents within these statistics where the father very much wants the children and doesn't have them for whatever reason, as there are incidents where single mothers have refused child support for whatever reason. But the facts remain: most children living with one parent are living with their mother, and almost two-thirds of those children have mothers who are supporting them with no help from their fathers.

Falls City Beer
09-13-2006, 09:31 PM
Yes, its rare and, personally, I don't really care much if some Goldman Sachs theives get their rears handed to them by a divorce lawyers. However, I still wonder why such a thing as alimony still exists. Provisions ought to be made for housekeeping or put-him-through-college stuff but "accustomed lifestyle" seems like a weak rationale. So you grew accustomed to Park Avenue, get unaccustomed.


Alimony exists to "protect" women and children from deadbeat dads. You know, the most common marital and non-marital dissolution.

Falls City Beer
09-13-2006, 09:33 PM
Alright then, let's all stop talking about stories and focus on the facts then.

In 2005 custody cases, 9.68 million women were awarded custody. 2.04 million men were.

41% of children living with single mothers have a household income under $12,500. That's almost HALF living well below the poverty line, ie. clearly these children need suppport.

In the United States, 62% of single mothers receive no child support. NONE.

We can talk about our aberrations and isolated incidents all we want. I am sure there are incidents within these statistics where the father very much wants the children and doesn't have them for whatever reason, as there are incidents where single mothers have refused child support for whatever reason. But the facts remain: most children living with one parent are living with their mother, and almost two-thirds of those have children have mothers who are supporting them with no help from their fathers.

Thanks, most of my stats on this are in print, and I'm too lazy to type them or search for them. But this is the long and short of it.

Rojo
09-13-2006, 09:36 PM
(Stirring the pot) How about if the man doesn't want the child? Should he pay child support? I mean, mama has choices after all.

Rojo
09-13-2006, 09:38 PM
Alimony exists to "protect" women and children from deadbeat dads. You know, the most common marital and non-marital dissolution.


Actually, child support exists to protect children. I don't know why women need "protecting".

vaticanplum
09-13-2006, 09:38 PM
The problem is that there have been numerous occassions, usually at some kind of work or school function for me, where my wife has come along and been made to feel somehow inferior to those who choose to focus first on their career. I've been in converstaions where something is said that makes me feel extremely uncomfortable for my wife, even though comments weren't directed specifically at her. She's felt at times in talking to neighbors, old friends, etc... that somehow she's "letting down the cause." It might sound silly to some, but to my wife it's very real. It's to the point that I can hardly get her to go with me to social functions any more with people I work with. In her mind she doesn't feel on the same plane as some professional women. She fully supports the choices they've made, but sometimes the feeling isn't reciprocated. It's sad really because she's a world class mom and she shouldn't feel inferior to anyone. But she does.

That's ridiculous, and is really just a way for some people to feel better about themselves in my opinion. Stories like that make me as angry as anyone looking down on a woman for working, as do stories of men being looked down upon for staying at home. Everyone should have a choice.

I watch little ones sometimes, and I can't imagine how difficult it is to do it full-time. You can never take a break. You're always caring for, you're always teaching, you're always on Code Red emergency alert. It's draining and one of the most worthy things people can do. I think anyone who looks down on that should try it for a little while.

Rojo
09-13-2006, 10:01 PM
The problem is that there have been numerous occassions, usually at some kind of work or school function for me, where my wife has come along and been made to feel somehow inferior to those who choose to focus first on their career.

That is lame. Truthfully, there's too much emphasis on a person's job in this country. These days I'll ask for their favorite color before I ask them what they "do".

MWM
09-13-2006, 10:08 PM
True. I became sensitive to it when I went to a fairly yuppie high school (I lived barely within the border of the school system) and it seemed that everyone's parents worked for P&G. My dad was a pipefitter at a paper plant and I was always very conscientous about it. I know how silly that is now, but at the time it bothered me.

Falls City Beer
09-13-2006, 10:23 PM
(Stirring the pot) How about if the man doesn't want the child? Should he pay child support? I mean, mama has choices after all.

Yeah, wear a condom.

Falls City Beer
09-13-2006, 10:32 PM
Actually, child support exists to protect children. I don't know why women need "protecting".

Alimony has a fascinating history, and it was designed to protect women and children--12th century invention I think?

bottom_feeder
09-13-2006, 10:35 PM
In the United States, 62% of single mothers receive no child support. NONE.
.

How many of those children were born out of wedlock and how many are getting no support due to deadbeat dads?

The father should help support the kid regardless; if the kid is born out of wedlock though, I expect the mother gets less support.

I'm curious to know how many divorced single mothers get no support. How many are awarded no support because they make more than the father (or agreed to no support), etc?

Rojo
09-13-2006, 10:53 PM
Yeah, wear a condom.

"Should've thought of that before getting her pregnant." Now, where have I heard (a slight variation on) that before?

BuckeyeRed27
09-13-2006, 11:25 PM
My apologies. I forgot that the original story was a friend of yours. I thought I just picked Goldman, Sachs out of thin air.

And you have to understand I don't like that crowd. Its political, not personal.

How is not liking a group of people because of their employer political?

TeamCasey
09-14-2006, 06:09 AM
That being said, my wife (11 years and counting) never had a lot of career ambition. She's an intelligent person, but never cared much about career *achievements.* She's also never been one who thinks she has to "prove" anything to the world (not suggesting others here feel that way). When we were married she said once we had children (and that was 18 months later) she wanted to stay home and be a full-time mom. I was fine with that. I also told her, and continue to tell her, that if she ever wants to work outside the home I will support her fully.

The problem is that there have been numerous occassions, usually at some kind of work or school function for me, where my wife has come along and been made to feel somehow inferior to those who choose to focus first on their career. I've been in converstaions where something is said that makes me feel extremely uncomfortable for my wife, even though comments weren't directed specifically at her. She's felt at times in talking to neighbors, old friends, etc... that somehow she's "letting down the cause." It might sound silly to some, but to my wife it's very real. It's to the point that I can hardly get her to go with me to social functions any more with people I work with. In her mind she doesn't feel on the same plane as some professional women. She fully supports the choices they've made, but sometimes the feeling isn't reciprocated. It's sad really because she's a world class mom and she shouldn't feel inferior to anyone. But she does.

That's sad. I think it's great if a family agrees on this and has an opportunity for a spouse to stay home, especially with pre-school kids. It's a lot tougher economically for people to do this these days. My mom drilled independence in my head, because she wanted to make sure I continued my education. She was just making sure I had the "tools" to support myself. I'm greatful for that. Stubborn independence comes with a price as well.

TeamCasey
09-14-2006, 06:13 AM
(Stirring the pot) How about if the man doesn't want the child? Should he pay child support? I mean, mama has choices after all.


:laugh: :devil: What an evil direction.

My answer is yes. He should have thought about that before donating his sperm.

RANDY IN INDY
09-14-2006, 06:59 AM
Kinda like someone who doesn't want a child. Should have thought about that before having sex.

dabvu2498
09-14-2006, 08:18 AM
I think prenups cover only assets and does not prevent alimony (I think this is true, but lawyer could correct me if I'm wrong).

Alimony can be written into a prenuptial (very carefully). Child support (even children from previous marriages) can not.

Ltlabner
09-14-2006, 08:59 AM
I guess this is a bit off the given topic, but I had the thought last night while reading through this thread.

People REALLY make marriage out to be far more complex than it really is. Put your spouses needs ahead of yours and strive to meet their emotional needs as they need them met (not how you think they should be met).

As long as you find a spouse who reciprocates these ideals the interworkings of marriage are pretty easy. Of course, doing this on a day to day basis is pretty challenging for most of us humans, but as long as you are both starting in the same place it's a lot easier.

IMO, too many people are enamoured with the idea of being married but are far too focused on what they want, how they feal and how they can protect "what is theirs". If you spend most of your time in a marriage worrying about you then you are really a single person with a long-term roomate (IMO).

zombielady
09-14-2006, 09:17 AM
I wonder what the odds are that my husband will miss this thread... In any case, I should probably have his dinner ready when he gets home!

I'm currently on my second go at this marriage thing (one month, today, as a matter of fact). What I get from the statistics (where my divorce was handled) is that he/she who files, generally wins. The only thing I got from my divorce was the bills. And it would seem that I was the one who was actually married... Of course, that was just my trial marriage. This is the real one :beerme:

dabvu2498
09-14-2006, 09:24 AM
What I get from the statistics (where my divorce was handled) is that he/she who files, generally wins.

I'd say that's accurate. If you're at this point, file first.


People REALLY make marriage out to be far more complex than it really is. Put your spouses needs ahead of yours and strive to meet their emotional needs as they need them met (not how you think they should be met).

As long as you find a spouse who reciprocates these ideals the interworkings of marriage are pretty easy. Of course, doing this on a day to day basis is pretty challenging for most of us humans, but as long as you are both starting in the same place it's a lot easier.

IMO, too many people are enamoured with the idea of being married but are far too focused on what they want, how they feal and how they can protect "what is theirs". If you spend most of your time in a marriage worrying about you then you are really a single person with a long-term roomate (IMO).
Good post. Best advice I've ever gotten was from the minister that did our marriage (and our premarriage counseling). He said there are 7 words that will help you with your spouse (and with other relationships) more than money or time. "Let's talk." "I'm sorry." "I love you." Sometimes it really is that simple. If you're willing to say these things, and the things that follow, with an open heart and an open mind, you can find meaningful resolutions to most any issue.

Roy Tucker
09-14-2006, 09:29 AM
I guess this is a bit off the given topic, but I had the thought last night while reading through this thread.

People REALLY make marriage out to be far more complex than it really is. Put your spouses needs ahead of yours and strive to meet their emotional needs as they need them met (not how you think they should be met).

As long as you find a spouse who reciprocates these ideals the interworkings of marriage are pretty easy. Of course, doing this on a day to day basis is pretty challenging for most of us humans, but as long as you are both starting in the same place it's a lot easier.

IMO, too many people are enamoured with the idea of being married but are far too focused on what they want, how they feal and how they can protect "what is theirs". If you spend most of your time in a marriage worrying about you then you are really a single person with a long-term roomate (IMO).

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and power down your weapons. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

Falls City Beer
09-14-2006, 09:43 AM
"Should've thought of that before getting her pregnant." Now, where have I heard (a slight variation on) that before?


Right. Take heart in the fact that if the sperm donator doesn't feel like "donating" child support, the law will do nothing to recoup it from the bloodless stone. So while, legally, men have to pay support even if they don't "want" the child, in reality, they don't. I've never seen, in all my years helping men and women find work, a man successfully tracked down, jailed, or garnished if he doesn't want to pay.

zombielady
09-14-2006, 09:45 AM
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and power down your weapons. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
http://www.startrek.nl/pictures/locutus-borgqueen.jpg

Yeah, kinda like that, but without the weird attachments... unless you're into that sort of thing...

zombielady
09-14-2006, 09:49 AM
Right. Take heart in the fact that if the sperm donator doesn't feel like "donating" child support, the law will do nothing to recoup it from the bloodless stone. So while, legally, men have to pay support even if they don't "want" the child, in reality, they don't. I've never seen, in all my years helping men and women find work, a man successfully tracked down, jailed, or garnished if he doesn't want to pay.

garnishment is pretty much standard... if you have a support order, chances are there is also a garnishment order... trust me, I am quite familiar with the inner workings of the CSEA...

GAC
09-14-2006, 09:53 AM
Alright then, let's all stop talking about stories and focus on the facts then.

In 2005 custody cases, 9.68 million women were awarded custody. 2.04 million men were.

41% of children living with single mothers have a household income under $12,500. That's almost HALF living well below the poverty line, ie. clearly these children need suppport.

In the United States, 62% of single mothers receive no child support. NONE.

We can talk about our aberrations and isolated incidents all we want. I am sure there are incidents within these statistics where the father very much wants the children and doesn't have them for whatever reason, as there are incidents where single mothers have refused child support for whatever reason. But the facts remain: most children living with one parent are living with their mother, and almost two-thirds of those children have mothers who are supporting them with no help from their fathers.


No way am I arguing or denying what the statistics say. Show me where I have? I don't care if it's 90-10, 80-20, 70-30, or whatever, that still does not justify a legal system that is set up the way it is.

And you are throwing some pretty generic statistics up there too. ;)

I am talking specifically about DIVORCE, the legal system (and it's biases), and it's effect on the family.

For instance....

In those figures you present, how much is influenced by the social troubles within the huge metropolis'/inner city, and especially among African-American youth?

How many of those single mothers in that 62% figure who receive no child support are not getting it because of abandonment/deadbeat Dads? How many of those single mothers were married? Are they not getting support because of other mitigating, yet legitimate, circumstances?

The same with the 41% figure concerning children of single mothers living below the poverty level... is that a result of divorce or young under-age girls having children out of wedlock where there never was a father present?

You see VP.... we are talking about completely different subjects/areas.

I am talking about a legal system, when it comes to the breakdown of a marriage, that is so biased in favor of the woman, when it comes to the custody of the children, breakdown of possessions, and financial support, that it is also causing great damage to the lives of the men/husbands.... and these are no longer simply "aberrations" or isolated instances anymore.

No where have I advocated or am I saying that men should be able to escape accountability when they abandon their families for whatever reasons.

What I am saying is that the legal system, and yes, probably due to the years of statistical data/studies, has developed a very slanted and biased standard that though the original intent was well meaning, it has been also destructive to alot of men/husbands in this current society.... and also to marriages as a whole - your statistics easily bear that out.

Obviously not at the percentage and proportions as shown above, but that is my point - any time any system does that - I don't care how low the proportions/percentages are.... it's wrong!

You state...


But the facts remain: most children living with one parent are living with their mother, and almost two-thirds of those children have mothers who are supporting them with no help from their fathers.

And the reason why they are living with their mother is because that is who the legal system awards custody to in a vast majority of the divorce cases. And you'll have to show me more definitive proof/evidence that 2/3 of them are not getting support of any type from the fathers. I find that hard to believe, and again, what is the reasoning as to why they are not getting support from the fathers? Is it all because of deadbeat Dads?


You state further...

9.68 woman were awarded custody.... 2.04 men were. What is your point here? Can you break those figures down into facts and show what the circumstances were inwhich either party was awarded custody?

And why is it, when married, the kids are considered OURS, but if a divorce is imminent, the woman is now proclaiming those are MY kids, as if the husband no longer has any rights anymore... but only the responsibility to support her and the kids once she decides to walk out?

zombielady
09-14-2006, 10:08 AM
What is your point here? Can you break those figures down into facts and show what the circumstances were in which either party was awarded custody?


For the most part, men don't go out for custody, because they think they'll lose. But, it really all comes down to who has the best lawyer, my lawyer was a hack, and my ex had a great attorney and he got custody.

Now as for me, from here on out, I am vehemently against divorce. It is one of the ugliest things out there.

dabvu2498
09-14-2006, 10:09 AM
Right. Take heart in the fact that if the sperm donator doesn't feel like "donating" child support, the law will do nothing to recoup it from the bloodless stone. So while, legally, men have to pay support even if they don't "want" the child, in reality, they don't. I've never seen, in all my years helping men and women find work, a man successfully tracked down, jailed, or garnished if he doesn't want to pay.
In Ohio, initial felonious non-support is a 5th degree felony, up to 12 months.

Repreat offenses can get you a 4th degree felony, up to 18 months.

Somewhere between 2.5-3 percent of all inmates in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections are in for felony non-support (somewhere between 1200-1400 inmates). In Ohio at least, they will track you down and lock you up if you don't pay.

Falls City Beer
09-14-2006, 10:48 AM
In Ohio, initial felonious non-support is a 5th degree felony, up to 12 months.

Repreat offenses can get you a 4th degree felony, up to 18 months.

Somewhere between 2.5-3 percent of all inmates in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections are in for felony non-support (somewhere between 1200-1400 inmates). In Ohio at least, they will track you down and lock you up if you don't pay.

Oh I know it's felonious. It's just not enforced. Not enough money for its enforcement.

But if they traffic in drugs, you can bet your arse they're in the clink.

dabvu2498
09-14-2006, 10:53 AM
Oh I know it's felonious. It's just not enforced. Not enough money for its enforcement.

But if they traffic in drugs, you can bet your arse they're in the clink.

I guess you didn't read my whole post. There are 1200-1400 men (and women) doing time in Ohio prisons RIGHT NOW for felony non-support. That's not counting all those who are in county jails or on community control (probation).

My point is, there are people doing time for non-support. Granted, it's a small percentage (Butler County, my county, had roughly 17,000 non-support cases in 2005), but you can and most likely will get locked up if you don't pay.

RANDY IN INDY
09-14-2006, 10:58 AM
No way am I arguing or denying what the statistics say. Show me where I have? I don't care if it's 90-10, 80-20, 70-30, or whatever, that still does not justify a legal system that is set up the way it is.

And you are throwing some pretty generic statistics up there too. ;)

I am talking specifically about DIVORCE, the legal system (and it's biases), and it's effect on the family.

For instance....

In those figures you present, how much is influenced by the social troubles within the huge metropolis'/inner city, and especially among African-American youth?

How many of those single mothers in that 62% figure who receive no child support are not getting it because of abandonment/deadbeat Dads? How many of those single mothers were married? Are they not getting support because of other mitigating, yet legitimate, circumstances?

The same with the 41% figure concerning children of single mothers living below the poverty level... is that a result of divorce or young under-age girls having children out of wedlock where there never was a father present?

You see VP.... we are talking about completely different subjects/areas.

In am talking about a legal system, when it comes to the breakdown of a marriage, that is so biased towards the woman, when it comes to the custody of the children, breakdown of possessions, and financial support, that it is also causing great damage to the lives of the men/husbands.... and these are no longer simply "aberrations" or isolated instances anymore.

No where have I advocated or am I saying that men should be able to escape accountability when they abandon their families for whatever reasons.

What I am saying is that the legal system, and yes, probably due to the years of statistical data/studies, has developed a very slanted and biased standard that though the original intent was well meaning, it has been also destructive to alot of men/husbands in this current society.... and also to marriages as a whole - your statistics easily bear that out.

Obviously not at the percentage and proportions as shown above, but that is my point - any time any system does that - I don't care how low the proportions/percentages are.... it's wrong!

You state...



And the reason why they are living with their mother is because that is who the legal system awards custody to in a vast majority of the divorce cases. And you'll have to show me more definitive proof/evidence that 2/3 of them are not getting support of any type from the fathers. I find that hard to believe, and again, what is the reasoning as to why they are not getting support from the fathers? Is it all because of deadbeat Dads?


You state further...

9.68 woman were awarded custody.... 2.04 men were. What is your point here? Can you break those figures down into facts and show what the circumstances were inwhich either party was awarded custody?

And why is it, when married, the kids are considered OURS, but if a divorce is imminent, the woman is now proclaiming those are MY kids, as if the husband no longer has any rights anymore... but only the responsibility to support her and the kids once she decides to walk out?

Again, :beerme: . Lots of factors for the numbers. There are always going to be the totally irresponsible with us. There are also those who treat marriage as something that can be thrown away if things don't go one's way and see some sort of gain from divorce. There are also those who have casual and recreational sex and then have an "unexpected" (imagine that could happen?) baby to deal with. It all boils down to people being responsible, and instead of promiting it, we are making it easier to be irresponsible because it's too hard or it doesn't feel good.

zombielady
09-14-2006, 11:01 AM
Maybe that article did have the right idea...

Truthfully, most people are selfish, and think about only themselves. And that is the number one cause of divorce.

The child support system stinks. No one disputes that. In our society, too much is disposeable.

Dom Heffner
09-14-2006, 11:13 AM
Truthfully, most people are selfish, and think about only themselves. And that is the number one cause of divorce.


Hi there, ZL. Welcome aboard.

Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate a little on the above statement?

zombielady
09-14-2006, 11:29 AM
Hi there, ZL. Welcome aboard.

Just out of curiosity, could you elaborate a little on the above statement?


Well, people get married, and then when things "aren't fun anymore", they bolt. They don't think about how it affects the other people involved. They don't feel like they should have to make the sacrifices that it takes to make a marriage work.

Falls City Beer
09-14-2006, 11:41 AM
I guess you didn't read my whole post. There are 1200-1400 men (and women) doing time in Ohio prisons RIGHT NOW for felony non-support. That's not counting all those who are in county jails or on community control (probation).

My point is, there are people doing time for non-support. Granted, it's a small percentage (Butler County, my county, had roughly 17,000 non-support cases in 2005), but you can and most likely will get locked up if you don't pay.

I read your post word for word. And it does happen. But it's token compared to the people doing time for virtually every other felony. There's just not enough manpower or resources to make it effective.

vaticanplum
09-14-2006, 11:45 AM
This definitely veers from the initial topic of marriage, but I'm a little concerned about some of the comments regarding child support for the children of unwed mothers. If you're simply stating that the rules are different, perhaps...I am not sure about that. I don't think there's actually too much variation in the child support that single and divorced fathers are supposed to pay, although there might be differences in the legalities of how it is obtained. "child support", by its very definition, is different from "alimony". It is not called "child of divorced parents support".

But, although I could be mistaken, I've gotten the impression from some of these posts that children of unwed parents somehow do not qualify for support in some opinions. Is this true? Should children be punished because their parents were not married when they were born, or should the mother be punished because she is some sort of "scarlet woman" (when, of course, the man was just as scarlet, but simply was not physically represented as such).

GAC, I'm very confused by your argument. You seem to be solidifying my point.


In those figures you present, how much is influenced by the social troubles within the huge metropolis'/inner city, and especially among African-American youth?

How many of those single mothers in that 62% figure who receive no child support are not getting it because of abandonment/deadbeat Dads? How many of those single mothers were married? Are they not getting support because of other mitigating, yet legitimate, circumstances?

The same with the 41% figure concerning children of single mothers living below the poverty level... is that a result of divorce or young under-age girls having children out of wedlock where there never was a father present?

ok. What difference do any of those things make? Even if all of the things you mention comprise large portions of those people...well, that's kind of my point. Incidences of Mr. Wealthy Reliable who is fighting for his children and is not getting them because of the legal system are much fewer and farther between than the majority of divorce/custody cases.


In am talking about a legal system, when it comes to the breakdown of a marriage, that is so biased towards the woman, when it comes to the custody of the children, breakdown of possessions, and financial support, that it is also causing great damage to the lives of the men/husbands.

That is because both historically and currently, as these statistics clearly show, it is usually women and children getting screwed. The legal system simply has to protect them. If the laws favoring women were not in place, that 62% would climb dramatically. That is not to say that men cannot "win" their cases when they have them. But the amount of men trying to get custody from unfit mothers and failing is still incredibly small. When that happens, of course it is wrong. I never said otherwise; in fact, I stated that several times.

And how are those statistics "generic"? They're pretty black-and-white to me. I purposely used the most succinct ones out there. I can provide more detail if you like.

Regards child support in Ohio: southern Ohio actually has a pretty tough system in place for "deadbeat parents". I know a little bit about it from my mother who works closely with the police in Clermont County, which is a county with a very wide socio-economic spread, a very fast-growing county, and one with a lot of single parents (mostly mothers). Instead of the 10 Most Wanted photos hanging up in the police station, they have the 10 most "deadbeat dads". Even first offenses of missing payments are heavily punished. (This is, of course, assuming they can find them, but they work hard at that too.) They're also very tough on domestic violence. If there is a shred of physical evidence -- a bruise, a scratch -- they arrest the perpetrator; it's the only kind of arrest they are permitted to make without a warrant. The perpetrator is immediately put in jail and it is the POLICE who decide whether to press charges, not the victim (alleviating the possibility of a victim going back on her initial statement or being threatened to drop the charges.)

dabvu2498
09-14-2006, 11:47 AM
I read your post word for word. And it does happen. But it's token compared to the people doing time for virtually every other felony. There's just not enough manpower or resources to make it effective.
Alright... but based on this quote:

I've never seen, in all my years helping men and women find work, a man successfully tracked down, jailed, or garnished if he doesn't want to pay.

I thought you meant that it never happens. It does and I thought you and everyone else should be aware that it does.

When I was working as a public defender, about 40 percent of my cases were against CSEA. Typically CSEA prosecutors were very willing to "negotiate" to take lower amounts, suspend drivers' licenses, etc., but I had several clients who got 6 months in jail or 12 months in prison because they were not in a position to "negotiate."

zombielady
09-14-2006, 11:52 AM
But, although I could be mistaken, I've gotten the impression from some of these posts that children of unwed parents somehow do not qualify for support in some opinions. Is this true? Should children be punished because their parents were not married when they were born, or should the mother be punished because she is some sort of "scarlet woman" (when, of course, the man was just as scarlet, but simply was not physically represented as such).


Children whose parents weren't married do qualify for child support. It is a bit more red tape to get an order (generally support order is part of the divorce and done for the residential parent by domestic court and unmarried parents have to go through juvenile court). If a single parent gets any sort of assistance, they HAVE to get a child support order. Even if it's only medicaid.

Falls City Beer
09-14-2006, 11:55 AM
Alimony's history is an interesting one, and I agree that in many cases it's outlived its usefulness. But that doesn't mean it wasn't completely necessary up until about 25 years ago. Like or not, until about the mid-70s, women couldn't hold professional positions in the workworld without an advanced degree; they simply did not exist, or if they did, they didn't pay close to enough to support a family, maintain a dwelling, etc. My wife's father left her mother (who worked as a secretary), taking his rather large income with him when he left. For several years, he avoided paying alimony and child support, with no recriminations. (Finally, he had his wages garnished). In the interim, my wife's mother had to seek assistance from Social Security for well over a year, sell the house, and find a second job to support herself and her two children. This story is an object lesson in the plight of women before college admissions widened their acceptances, and women truly started to change the workforce. It's really not that long ago.

RBA
09-14-2006, 11:57 AM
If you watch Morey, you guys would know all this. ;)

"Is he or isn't he the father?" ;)

zombielady
09-14-2006, 12:09 PM
If you watch Morey, you guys would know all this. ;)

"Is he or isn't he the father?" ;)

Him and Montel...

zombielady
09-14-2006, 12:12 PM
We got way off of topic... That article was only like 50 years ago! And it was in a WOMEN'S MAGAZINE! My favorite was in the second to last bullet, "You have no right to question him." HA! If my husband stays out all night (without having had it planned in advance, or the decency of a phone call), he'd better, either need to be bailed out, or in the hospital!

RedFanAlways1966
09-14-2006, 12:54 PM
HA! If my husband stays out all night (without having had it planned in advance, or the decency of a phone call), he'd better, either need to be bailed out, or in the hospital!

OTHERWISE.... it sounds like he might end up in a hospital!! :D

Ltlabner
09-14-2006, 01:11 PM
If I agree on Thursday to have a drink with someone on Saturday, I will then spend two whole days trying to resurrect the part of my soul that died when I agreed to do it. The way I see it is, if someone asks you to marry him, he has essentially asked you to go to dinner with him on Saturday, FIFTY YEARS FROM NOW. And he probably expects you to reserve a large portion of your Saturdays in between for dinner too, and that you be cheerful about it to boot. My soul would crumble to dust. Again, a crushed soul does not hold much entertainment value, and I can't cook either.

VP, I gotta ask. What is it about giving up the time to go out for a drink that causes part of your soul to die?

Rojo
09-14-2006, 01:34 PM
I know something about this, having to pay child support for over 16 years. They do garnish your wages, they do send uniforms to your door, they do suspend your license and they do, should it come to that, throw you in jail.

Rojo
09-14-2006, 01:37 PM
How is not liking a group of people because of their employer political?


What if they worked for Operation Rescue or EarthFirst or PETA or the Republicans or Democrats?

TeamCasey
09-14-2006, 02:23 PM
VP, I gotta ask. What is it about giving up the time to go out for a drink that causes part of your soul to die?

It's not about giving up time. It's about giving up the freedom to do something else.

It isn't about the time or whether the thing is fun or whether you enjoy the people.

It's hard to explain, but in that little moment ..... you've given away some of your independence. All of a sudden, you owe something and you're cornered.

Ltlabner
09-14-2006, 03:01 PM
It's not about giving up time. It's about giving up the freedom to do something else.

It isn't about the time or whether the thing is fun or whether you enjoy the people.

It's hard to explain, but in that little moment ..... you've given away some of your independence. All of a sudden, you owe something and you're cornered.

So is it sorta like a controll issue? Not a "controll issue" as in "that person is so controlling!" but rather that you want to maintain controll over what you do with your time and you hate to relinquish that time because if something better comes along you woln't be able to take part in it?

TeamCasey
09-14-2006, 03:13 PM
Yeah, something like that. I'll let vaticanplum answer. But that's how it is for me.

Falls City Beer
09-14-2006, 03:21 PM
I know something about this, having to pay child support for over 16 years. They do garnish your wages, they do send uniforms to your door, they do suspend your license and they do, should it come to that, throw you in jail.


But if you don't make wages to garnish and don't possess a license, they almost never throw you in jail...at least in Pennsylvania. It is as last ditch approach as you'll find and it takes YEARS. But more often than not, nothing at all is ever done.

I think it's great that they enforce the law in California; it's the way it should be. But that's not the way it is everywhere. Not even close.

dabvu2498
09-14-2006, 03:40 PM
But if you don't make wages to garnish and don't possess a license, they almost never throw you in jail...at least in Pennsylvania. It is as last ditch approach as you'll find and it takes YEARS. But more often than not, nothing at all is ever done.

I think it's great that they enforce the law in California; it's the way it should be. But that's not the way it is everywhere. Not even close.

Your description of Pennsylvania's system made me curious... so I did some research.

In 2002, Pennsylvania ranked 4th in the nation in amount of child support collected by their CSEA.

On the other hand, their penalties for failing to pay tend to be fairly light. Six months in jail, six months probation, $500 fine max. Pennsylvania's law states that licenses can be suspended if offender is three months or more behind.

By the way, August is Child Support Enforcement Awareness Month in PA.

Ohio has made child support enforcement a priority, empowering CSEAs and local law enforcement and actually locking some people up.

Falls City Beer
09-14-2006, 03:44 PM
Ohio has made child support enforcement a priority, empowering CSEAs and local law enforcement and actually locking some people up.

That's important. I really hope it stays that way. The statistics for inner-city single mothers is absolutely staggering, breathtaking. And I'm sure my perspective of working exclusively with the above demographic skews my picture some.

dabvu2498
09-14-2006, 03:53 PM
That's important. I really hope it stays that way. The statistics for inner-city single mothers is absolutely staggering, breathtaking. And I'm sure my perspective of working exclusively with the above demographic skews my picture some.

I hear you. My past dealings with that have done the same. The number of cases where paternity is never established would also knock you over.

vaticanplum
09-14-2006, 08:19 PM
It's not about giving up time. It's about giving up the freedom to do something else.

It isn't about the time or whether the thing is fun or whether you enjoy the people.

It's hard to explain, but in that little moment ..... you've given away some of your independence. All of a sudden, you owe something and you're cornered.

I would say that's about right.

It goes a bit beyond that too. At my age (I'm 28), a heck of a lot of people are viewing a "drink" as a means to an end. And I'm not talking an end 5 hours from now -- I'm talking an end 5 weeks, five months, five years from now. It seems like people skip a lot of steps, don't enjoy the moment sometimes, because of expectations of or desires for the future. The future is great but I don't want to skip the present to get there. I mean, I do this too, but in a different way from a lot of people -- I worry about what they're thinking. And sometimes this is totally unjustified, but I can't help it. If there is a glimmer of a hint of a genuine interest there, even from the most casual gesture or question, my brain is immediately sent into the direction of ohmygod he's trying to plan something more than a half hour in advance which means he may be the type who wants more than just running into each other at two in the morning which means someday he might want to talk about feelings and share space and he won't understand when I want to move to the Yukon next year or why sometimes I watch figure skating videos all day long on Sunday AAHHHH AHHHHH AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!) And, although I'm aware that this may sound awful, it doesn't even matter if I like him. That kind of feeling MAKES me not like him. It's very suffocating to me, to TC too I would guess.

I feel like I've been very personal throughout this thread and I hope that doesn't sound too awful and that people don't judge me too harshly...I'm not sure what it comes from. I am sure that it has been exacerbated by the very transient, temporary world in which I've spent the better part of my adult life so far.

Falls City Beer
09-14-2006, 08:34 PM
I would say that's about right.

It goes a bit beyond that too. At my age (I'm 28), a heck of a lot of people are viewing a "drink" as a means to an end. And I'm not talking an end 5 hours from now -- I'm talking an end 5 weeks, five months, five years from now. It seems like people skip a lot of steps, don't enjoy the moment sometimes, because of expectations of or desires for the future. The future is great but I don't want to skip the present to get there. I mean, I do this too, but in a different way from a lot of people -- I worry about what they're thinking. And sometimes this is totally unjustified, but I can't help it. If there is a glimmer of a hint of a genuine interest there, even from the most casual gesture or question, my brain is immediately sent into the direction of ohmygod he's trying to plan something more than a half hour in advance which means he may be the type who wants more than just running into each other at two in the morning which means someday he might want to talk about feelings and share space and he won't understand when I want to move to the Yukon next year or why sometimes I watch figure skating videos all day long on Sunday AAHHHH AHHHHH AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!) And, although I'm aware that this may sound awful, it doesn't even matter if I like him. That kind of feeling MAKES me not like him. It's very suffocating to me, to TC too I would guess.

I feel like I've been very personal throughout this thread and I hope that doesn't sound too awful and that people don't judge me too harshly...I'm not sure what it comes from. I am sure that it has been exacerbated by the very transient, temporary world in which I've spent the better part of my adult life so far.

Freedom's weird. There's something transgressive about running towards it or away from it. I suppose freedom is more of a set of habits than a need.

There is nothing inexorable about romantic commitment. Occasionally, that's the frightening part.

GAC
09-14-2006, 09:02 PM
Again, :beerme: . Lots of factors for the numbers. There are always going to be the totally irresponsible with us. There are also those who treat marriage as something that can be thrown away if things don't go one's way and see some sort of gain from divorce. There are also those who have casual and recreational sex and then have an "unexpected" (imagine that could happen?) baby to deal with. It all boils down to people being responsible, and instead of promiting it, we are making it easier to be irresponsible because it's too hard or it doesn't feel good.

You're exactly right. We, as a "progressive" society, are reaping what we sowed. I believe in freedoms. And I am not saying we need to enact stricter or sterner laws/legislation in an atempt to monitor and control people's lives.

But at the same instance, when we have people acting irresponsibly - and I do believe it is irresponsible to bring a life into this world that in the long run is gonna suffer far more as a result - we, who acting responsible and accountable are expected to solve the problem and do something about it.

And we should.... but there is still only so much we can do.

Everything in this country is now set up as "no fault".... well..... it's somebody's fault.

I live in a midsized midwestern town. And our church, in conjunction with other churches, takes great effort in various programs to help alot of the poor families, and especially the kids. I am not generalizing all lower income and poor people in the same category, because I've met some who are working very hard to better their lives. But I'll be very honest - it gets very frustrating because when you meet alot of these parents, you see their immaturity and irresponsibility and you say to yourself "These people have no business having children." That may sound harsh, but I say so only after witnessing the living conditions of the children.

GAC
09-14-2006, 09:04 PM
Well, people get married, and then when things "aren't fun anymore", they bolt. They don't think about how it affects the other people involved. They don't feel like they should have to make the sacrifices that it takes to make a marriage work.

And while that is not true in every divorce case obviously, there is alot of truth to what you say.

Rojo
09-14-2006, 09:06 PM
I would say that's about right.

It goes a bit beyond that too. At my age (I'm 28), a heck of a lot of people are viewing a "drink" as a means to an end.

Try being 38. You can't drop a woman's name without some well-intentioned busybody trying to marry you off to her. What's odd is that kind of pressure comes from sources you wouldn't have expected. Actually my parents are pretty relaxed about it. Its the friends who took the first exit of the interstate and now live in suburban hell that give me the most grief, even if it is subtle.

I got a kid. I like my life fine. I'm not going to freak out if I'm single at forty.

Ltlabner
09-14-2006, 09:11 PM
The future is great but I don't want to skip the present to get there. I am sure that it has been exacerbated by the very transient, temporary world in which I've spent the better part of my adult life so far.

VP, Just found these two sentences from your post interesting. On the one hand you want to live in the now and not think things too far into the future. Yet on the other hand you blame the "transient, temporary" (which I take to mean those who live for now and don't worry about tomorow) world for causing you to think too much about whether the guy is thinking too far ahead. I don't know...seemed like a contridiction to me.


I feel like I've been very personal throughout this thread and I hope that doesn't sound too awful and that people don't judge me too harshly

You don't sound awful at all. I appreicate you sharing what you actually were thinking and being real about it.

Ltlabner
09-14-2006, 09:13 PM
Try being 38. You can't drop a woman's name without some well-intentioned busybody trying to marry you off to her. What's odd is that kind of pressure comes from sources you wouldn't have expected. Actually my parents are pretty relaxed about it. Its the friends who took the first exit of the interstate and now live in suburban hell that give me the most grief, even if it is subtle.

Because you don't like the suburbs doesn't mean that they are "hell" any more than because I don't care for urban areas means that they are "crime ridden, dirty nasty places".

vaticanplum
09-14-2006, 09:16 PM
VP, Just found these two sentences from your post interesting. On the one hand you want to live in the now and not think things too far into the future. Yet on the other hand you blame the "transient, temporary" (which I take to mean those who live for now and don't worry about tomorow) world for causing you to think too much about whether the guy is thinking too far ahead. I don't know...seemed like a contridiction to me.

Everybody around me (my friends etc.) is a lot like me, or at least with somewhat similar attitudes. If they asked me for a drink on Saturday, that's fine. The only people who would cause me to freak out about something like that are people who may have different attitudes -- people I don't know very well. god I'm cloistered.

This has been a big adjustment for me since I moved back to the Midwest. A very different prevailing attitude here.

IslandRed
09-14-2006, 09:24 PM
I feel like I've been very personal throughout this thread and I hope that doesn't sound too awful and that people don't judge me too harshly...I'm not sure what it comes from. I am sure that it has been exacerbated by the very transient, temporary world in which I've spent the better part of my adult life so far.

Well, it's hard to judge -- not that we should be -- because it's not really clear whether this is a personality trait you wish you could change, or if you're totally happy with the way it is.

To the extent I'm allowed to show non-judgmental concern :p: I do hope you're very comfortable in your own skin doing your own thing. Because as you get older, your peer groups will include fewer and fewer people who can do things at the drop of a hat, which is the option you're giving them.

GAC
09-14-2006, 09:25 PM
But, although I could be mistaken, I've gotten the impression from some of these posts that children of unwed parents somehow do not qualify for support in some opinions. Is this true? Should children be punished because their parents were not married when they were born, or should the mother be punished because she is some sort of "scarlet woman" (when, of course, the man was just as scarlet, but simply was not physically represented as such).

No. And no one is advocating that. I am simply saying that we are "muddling the waters" of this discussion which MY FOCUS was on divorce and the legal system, that's all.

What you are bringing up is very, very valid. I think it should just be a separate discussion.


ok. What difference do any of those things make? Even if all of the things you mention comprise large portions of those people...well, that's kind of my point. Incidences of Mr. Wealthy Reliable who is fighting for his children and is not getting them because of the legal system are much fewer and farther between than the majority of divorce/custody cases.

Mr Wealthy usually has a far better fighting chance due to the fact he can use his financial resources to get good lawyers. My references aren't to those individuals or "high profile" cases we see, but to the average male citizen.



That is because both historically and currently, as these statistics clearly show, it is usually women and children getting screwed. The legal system simply has to protect them.

Sure it does.... when the individual case shows that it's needed/required. No one is aadvocating it should be any ther way.


If the laws favoring women were not in place, that 62% would climb dramatically. That is not to say that men cannot "win" their cases when they have them.

The system makes it alot harder on them. Why? If I am a good father, then why should I have to "jump through hoops" for a legal system if I am going through a divorce? Why is the mother considered any more of a fit parent then the husband?

If I cheat on my wife, and it results in divorce, I am going to pay - and rightfully so. I got what I deserved.

If the wife cheats - it may come out in court, but in the long run, and if there are children involved, at the end of the day the court is still gonna grant her custody in a vast majority of the cases. And she is also, because of that, come out ahead in the financial and property settlement.

The court may "frown" on her adultery; but unless it can be proven she is emotionally unstable and unfit, her "affair" is not gonna be looked at by the courts as reason to grant custody to the father. There are exceptions.

Explain why this is so? What did the husband do to deserve this? And know, these are no longer isolated cases anymore.


And how are those statistics "generic"? They're pretty black-and-white to me. I purposely used the most succinct ones out there. I can provide more detail if you like.

They were pretty generic in that they don't excplain or give a break down as to the "whys" or "hows".

vaticanplum
09-14-2006, 09:39 PM
Well, it's hard to judge -- not that we should be -- because it's not really clear whether this is a personality trait you wish you could change, or if you're totally happy with the way it is.

Oh, I'm very happy. My life is great, I have the best people in the world surrounding me and always have, and I feel like my attitudes have been very much shaped by them. I just know all of that can come off as cold to strangers (or I expected -- never really explained it before to strangers I guess).


To the extent I'm allowed to show non-judgmental concern :p: I do hope you're very comfortable in your own skin doing your own thing. Because as you get older, your peer groups will include fewer and fewer people who can do things at the drop of a hat, which is the option you're giving them.

People change, maybe someday I will even. I don't know about that marriage thing though -- I feel pretty strongly about that for myself. And again, I'm not averse to the actual idea of making plans -- just the occasional implications of it.

Really that whole drinks-on-Saturday thing was an example. It is about a lot more than that.

vaticanplum
09-14-2006, 09:45 PM
If the wife cheats - it may come out in court, but in the long run, and if there are children involved, at the end of the day the court is still gonna grant her custody in a vast majority of the cases. And she is also, because of that, come out ahead in the financial and property settlement.

The court may "frown" on her adultery; but unless it can be proven she is emotionally unstable and unfit, her "affair" is not gonna be looked at by the courts as reason to grant custody to the father. There are exceptions.

Explain why this is so? What did the husband do to deserve this? And know, these are no longer isolated cases anymore.

Alright, I think I understand a little better what you are saying now. I would, however, like to see statistics to back up a lot of what you're saying.

If what you're saying about people (men or women) being forced to "pay" financially or with property for their adultery is true, I'm a little perplexed as to why that is. It seems like a revenge thing to me; the logic doesn't seem to follow. I can see adultery being legal grounds for divorce, of course. I can even see it being grounds for custody being taken away on the basis of character issues, though I don't know if I necessarily agree with that in every case. (I could see that being dangerous: "You cheated on me so I'm taking the kids" regardless of how fit the non-cheating spouse is to raise children -- in fact I'd like to throw that out as a possible factor in some of the cases you're talking about. Does it necessarily follow that if someone cheated, he or she is a bad parent?) But how does receiving money make up for someone cheating on you? It doesn't take away the pain that was caused; nor was anything financially lost in an affair (well, I guess it could be, but not inherently). So what is it, just an appeasement thing? The cheated-on spouse suffered so money will make him or her feel better? I guess I never really thought about it. That seems weird to me.

Rojo
09-14-2006, 09:56 PM
Because as you get older, your peer groups will include fewer and fewer people who can do things at the drop of a hat, which is the option you're giving them.

Dem's some wise words.

Rojo
09-14-2006, 10:02 PM
Because you don't like the suburbs doesn't mean that they are "hell" any more than because I don't care for urban areas means that they are "crime ridden, dirty nasty places".

They're hell to me. Is that not allowed? Can I express my opinion that cucumbers taste like crap? Or is that offensive because you like them?

Tell ya' what, why don't you stop reading my posts and I'll stop reading yours.

Falls City Beer
09-14-2006, 10:14 PM
Oh, I'm very happy. My life is great, I have the best people in the world surrounding me and always have, and I feel like my attitudes have been very much shaped by them. I just know all of that can come off as cold to strangers (or I expected -- never really explained it before to strangers I guess).



People change, maybe someday I will even. I don't know about that marriage thing though -- I feel pretty strongly about that for myself. And again, I'm not averse to the actual idea of making plans -- just the occasional implications of it.

Really that whole drinks-on-Saturday thing was an example. It is about a lot more than that.


I think this thread demonstrates that someone with an active distrust of marriage shouldn't get married. And, honestly, should make no apologies for it.

vaticanplum
09-14-2006, 11:52 PM
Dem's some wise words.

I would never expect that of them. Other people don't have to feel the same way that I do, nor should they cater to anyone else's lifestyle.

edit: can we get a lesson in how this double quote thing works? I can't seem to do it.

IslandRed
09-14-2006, 11:58 PM
And again, I'm not averse to the actual idea of making plans -- just the occasional implications of it.

Well, I guess I misread the original posts on the subject somewhat. Sounds like you're just (or mostly) talking about dating or other relationship hooks, as opposed to not wanting to ever plan anything in advance. My apologies.

TeamCasey
09-15-2006, 04:49 AM
It's very suffocating to me, to TC too I would guess.


I wasn't even thinking in the dating context. I have trouble planning ahead for anything. Even a ballgame or future picnic with friends.

In the dating context, I'm just interested in a companion with fringe benefits. ;) Someone to go fishing with and have an occasional romp. :)

TeamCasey
09-15-2006, 05:07 AM
*Edited because I shouldn't type at 4:30 in the morning before coffee* :)

Ltlabner
09-15-2006, 08:04 AM
They're hell to me. Is that not allowed? Can I express my opinion that cucumbers taste like crap? Or is that offensive because you like them?

You are allowed to think all suburbs are hell.

Just as I am allowed to refute that opinion with one of my own.

Or does it bother you that I hold an opinion that refutes your obviously flawed blanket statement?

zombielady
09-15-2006, 08:35 AM
They're hell to me. Is that not allowed? Can I express my opinion that cucumbers taste like crap? Or is that offensive because you like them?

Tell ya' what, why don't you stop reading my posts and I'll stop reading yours.

Cucumbers are very tasty and nutritious, take your cucumber hating comments elsewhere, buster! :laugh:

westofyou
09-15-2006, 10:17 AM
They're hell to me. Is that not allowed? Can I express my opinion that cucumbers taste like crap? Or is that offensive because you like them?



My wife and I have a little sound we make when we hit those new fangled suburbs with the tiny treees and Mcmansions, it equals the sound of the last drop of air leaving something...Pfffttttt.... as you now are in the vaccuum, proceed with caution.

I like Cucumbers, to me celery tastes like crap, I hate that stuff...bamboo shoots too.

vaticanplum
09-15-2006, 11:24 AM
Or does it bother you that I hold an opinion that refutes your obviously flawed blanket statement?

I don't think that's a "flawed blanket statement". he said they were hellish; as I really don't think he means that in the literal sense of a place of fire with a small pointy-eared man with a pitchfork, I assume he meant it as a metaphor and thus an opinion. It's his feeling about it. You're free to disagree with your own, but his statement is not "flawed" any more than someone saying "I hate the city".

Your response of urban areas being "crime ridden, dirty nasty places" is not metaphorical. That sounds like an opinion being presented as a fact to me. It doesn't "refute" what he said because first of all it's a fallacy (it's attacking something separate, not dealing with the thing that he brought up) and secondly because it's a different kind of statement.

Ltlabner
09-15-2006, 11:40 AM
I don't think that's a "flawed blanket statement". he said they were hellish; as I really don't think he means that in the literal sense of a place of fire with a small pointy-eared man with a pitchfork, I assume he meant it as a metaphor and thus an opinion. It's his feeling about it. You're free to disagree with your own, but his statement is not "flawed" any more than someone saying "I hate the city".

Your response of urban areas being "crime ridden, dirty nasty places" is not metaphorical. That sounds like an opinion being presented as a fact to me. It doesn't "refute" what he said because first of all it's a fallacy (it's attacking something separate, not dealing with the thing that he brought up) and secondly because it's a different kind of statement.

Actually he said "suburban hell". Not hellish or hell-esque or hell-like.

And my comment is based on several back and forths we've had on the subject in the past on other threads so I know pretty clearly what he thinks of them.

That is why I called him on it. I don't care for him slandering those of us who live in suburbs because his his flawed view of them. He has every right not to care for suburbs, but don't label those of us who choose to live there, which is what has happened in the past.

I don't care to be labled based on where I choose to live anymore than someone in the city would care to be labled for their choice.

But I don't want to hijack the thread any further. If you care to discuss this further Rojo, just PM me.

Rojo
09-15-2006, 01:25 PM
My wife and I have a little sound we make when we hit those new fangled suburbs with the tiny treees and Mcmansions, it equals the sound of the last drop of air leaving something...Pfffttttt.... as you now are in the vaccuum, proceed with caution.

I like Cucumbers, to me celery tastes like crap, I hate that stuff...bamboo shoots too.


Of course, part of me is glad people want to live there. Rents are already high enough in the city.

Seems to me, that villages are the natural pattern of development. You take any city, and they're essentially a bunch of villages -- business districts surrounded with houses and apartments -- clustered around a downtown.

I'm a walker and can't abide having to get in my car just to get a quart of milk. And, I like not having to worry about having a few drinks and getting home.

I'm not a fan of celery either but cucumbers taste like the rind of some other vegetable/fruit.

westofyou
09-15-2006, 01:35 PM
Of course, part of me is glad people want to live there. Rents are already high enough in the city.

Seems to me, that villages are the natural pattern of development. You take any city, and they're essentially a bunch of villages -- business districts surrounded with houses and apartments -- clustered around a downtown.

I'm a walker and can't abide having to get in my car just to get a quart of milk. And, I like not having to worry about having a few drinks and getting home.

I'm not a fan of celery either but cucumbers taste like the rind of some other vegetable/fruit.
http://www.deadballart.com/redszone/crumb.gif

vaticanplum
09-15-2006, 01:40 PM
That is why I called him on it. I don't care for him slandering those of us who live in suburbs because his his flawed view of them. He has every right not to care for suburbs, but don't label those of us who choose to live there, which is what has happened in the past.

I don't care to be labled based on where I choose to live anymore than someone in the city would care to be labled for their choice.

I didn't get the impression of slander or labeling, especially of people, from just that.

But if this is related to other threads, then I'm probably missing something.

Roy Tucker
09-15-2006, 01:50 PM
As a denizen of a large Cincinnati suburb, I resent the term "suburban hell".

I prefer "leafy burb hell". :cool:

Jeez, go figure, some people like the city and some like the burbs. Some people want to be married and some don't.

I'm shocked, you hear, shocked to hear of this.

Heath
09-15-2006, 01:56 PM
As a denizen of a large Cincinnati suburb, I resent the term "suburban hell".

I prefer "leafy burb hell". :cool:

Jeez, go figure, some people like the city and some like the burbs. Some people want to be married and some don't.

I'm shocked, you hear, shocked to hear of this.

Some people like Adam Dunn. Some don't.

Almond Joy has nuts. Mounds don't.

westofyou
09-15-2006, 01:57 PM
Some people like Adam Dunn. Some don't.

Almond Joy has nuts. Mounds don't.

Some like oysters, some like snails... some like both.....I like both Mounds and Almond Joy

zombie-a-go-go
09-15-2006, 02:00 PM
Suburbs are like rice cakes.


IMO.

Heath
09-15-2006, 02:02 PM
Suburbs are like rice cakes.


IMO.



The local rock group down the street
Is trying hard to learn their song
Seranade the weekend squire, who just came out to mow his lawn

Another pleasant valley sunday
Charcoal burning everywhere
Rows of houses that are all the same
And no one seems to care

See mrs. gray shes proud today because her roses are in bloom
Mr. green hes so serene, hes got a t.v. in every room

Another pleasant valley sunday
Here in status symbol land
Mothers complain about how hard life is
And the kids just dont understand

Creature comfort goals
They only numb my soul and make it hard for me to see
My thoughts all seem to stray, to places far away
I need a change of scenery

Ta ta ta...

Another pleasant valley sunday
Charcoal burning everywhere
Another pleasant valley sunday
Here in status symbol land

Another pleasant valley sunday...


For the record I live in a "bedroom community" not a suburb. :thumbup:

Rojo
09-15-2006, 02:03 PM
I would never expect that of them. Other people don't have to feel the same way that I do, nor should they cater to anyone else's lifestyle.

edit: can we get a lesson in how this double quote thing works? I can't seem to do it.

I don't think it was meant to imply selfishness. Its just that after 30, people start having babies and its harder to get their time. You have to pick your spots carefully. We used to have several camping trips a year with 7-8 people. Now, I'm lucky if I can get four together once a year.

Like you, I like having my calendar open, don't like to over-plan etc... but I'm finding I have to if I'm going to have any kind of social life.

vaticanplum
09-15-2006, 02:17 PM
I don't think it was meant to imply selfishness. Its just that after 30, people start having babies and its harder to get their time. You have to pick your spots carefully. We used to have several camping trips a year with 7-8 people. Now, I'm lucky if I can get four together once a year.

Like you, I like having my calendar open, don't like to over-plan etc... but I'm finding I have to if I'm going to have any kind of social life.

I think we need to go back to my original post here. The whole planning thing was taken out of context, and the subsequent questions and explanations have skewed my meaning or at least begun to explore a totally separate issue. What I initially said was essentially how could I commit to someone for the next 50 years when I sometimes have trouble committing to something next week. And this too was related to a larger context of how I feel about the institute of marriage.

By no means do I have problems with the idea of planning, and most of my friends at this point are quite far away so I CANNOT spend time with them without a great deal of planning. I like planning. I have a calendar and everything. Actually, I have three: my little daily planner, my Yankees wall calendar, and my "we love you big cousin vaticanplum here is your annual Office Max-made calendar of us, your little cousins, so you can remember every day how cute we are" calendar (it even beats Bernie Williams).

Roy Tucker
09-15-2006, 02:21 PM
I don't think it was meant to imply selfishness. Its just that after 30, people start having babies and its harder to get their time. You have to pick your spots carefully. We used to have several camping trips a year with 7-8 people. Now, I'm lucky if I can get four together once a year.

Like you, I like having my calendar open, don't like to over-plan etc... but I'm finding I have to if I'm going to have any kind of social life.

When I was single, there was a group of guys that I hung with where we went out for beers every Friday night. And I mean *every* Friday. At the same bar. Girlfriends came, girlfriends went, some guys joined, some guys dropped out, but it was the same core group. We did that for 10-15 years.

Then, we all got married, had kids, blah blah blah and life got busy. Now we get together for lunch once a month. *Lunch* for God's sake. On a *Wednesday*. How pathetic is that.

dabvu2498
09-15-2006, 02:28 PM
When I was single, there was a group of guys that I hung with where we went out for beers every Friday night. And I mean *every* Friday. At the same bar. Girlfriends came, girlfriends went, some guys joined, some guys dropped out, but it was the same core group. We did that for 10-15 years.

Then, we all got married, had kids, blah blah blah and life got busy. Now we get together for lunch once a month. *Lunch* for God's sake. On a *Wednesday*. How pathetic is that.

I haven't even talked to my two best friends from college for two years. Two guys I lived with for three years, went out together, went on roadies together, shared virtually everything with.

Time, space and circumstances.

Those were the best times... or so I thought until I met my wife and we had a son together.

And the way I understand it, if I give it another 5 years, I won't even recognize the life I'm living now. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Ltlabner
09-15-2006, 02:33 PM
I don't know about you guys but I am horrible about keeping up with people from previous phases of my life.

The truth is, I really don't care to go back and "re-live" some part of my life from the past. And just getting together to hang out when we have next to nothing in common anymore really doesn't interest me.

I haven't kept up with anybody from high school, university or my young adult life. Frankly, I'm more interested in my life now than visiting with someone from the past.

I think it's just because I am horribly self centered.

Heath
09-15-2006, 02:38 PM
I don't know about you guys but I am horrible about keeping up with people from previous phases of my life.

The truth is, I really don't care to go back and "re-live" some part of my life from the past. And just getting together to hang out when we have next to nothing in common anymore really doesn't interest me.

I haven't kept up with anybody from high school, university or my young adult life. Frankly, I'm more interested in my life now than visiting with someone from the past.

I think it's just because I am horribly self centered.

I think you nailed it about a life-change. I don't think it's being self-centered, in fact it's the exact opposite.

I'm enjoying who I am hanging out with now than any time in my life. I'm sober, happily married, a happy father, and the opportunity to do stuff with pals. It's what you make of it, I guess.

Ltlabner
09-15-2006, 02:41 PM
I think you nailed it about a life-change. I don't think it's being self-centered, in fact it's the exact opposite.

I'm enjoying who I am hanging out with now than any time in my life. I'm sober, happily married, a happy father, and the opportunity to do stuff with pals. It's what you make of it, I guess.


With the excpetion of fatherhood, I am in the exact same place.

I think it helps that this is has been the best period of my life and to try to "reconnect" with the past makes no sense because it would be going backwards.

And with hard work and a little luck, hopefully the next period of my life will be even better than this one!

Roy Tucker
09-15-2006, 02:51 PM
There are some people I've kept in touch with from previous lives and some I haven't. If they are important enough, I make the effort.

I try hard to keep at least a once-every-6/12-months communication link up, be it email, letters, phone calls, Christmas cards, or whatever.

I still email my ex-wife for God's sake.

vaticanplum
09-15-2006, 03:03 PM
The truth is, I really don't care to go back and "re-live" some part of my life from the past. And just getting together to hang out when we have next to nothing in common anymore really doesn't interest me.

I grapple with this sometimes. I have just a few friends with whom I grew up that I still keep in touch. Their lives are completely different from mine. And when we get together a few times a year, I always sort of dread it. But I always make myself do it, and afterwards I am always glad that I did. Our LIVES have nothing in common, it's true. But we shared our childhoods, we helped each other through stuff for years, and even if we don't spend time reliving that, there's been a basis there for friendship, something about our cores that connected when we were kids that still holds. A shared past can be important, even if you don't talk about it. They are good, smart people, and we always have interesting things to talk about, and they remind me that the world is bigger than my world. I can't relate to everything in their lives, nor they to mine...but I think that's good. Important, even, at least to me. We don't judge each other at all, which is a trap I think some people fall into.

I have cousins that I have even less in common with, one in particular who is 180 degrees removed from me in every way, and we're incredibly close. They're all a big reason I recently moved back to Cincinnati for a little while, so I could get to know them better as adults. A lot of them are people I never would have met or even liked had I not been related to them, and that's the crux of family to me. You don't even choose them, you have to (usually) like them, and if you can get to a point where you like them by choice, it's golden. I see old-school friends in sort of the same light. Reliving the past is stupid, but using it as a foundation to spend time with good people whom it would be easy to ignore under other circumstances can be very good. but I do still dread those Christmas get togethers a little bit. I do.

I'm unemployed, by the way, if that isn't painfully obvious right about now. If anyone wants to shut me the hell up I implore you to please give me a job.

dabvu2498
09-15-2006, 03:31 PM
I try hard to keep at least a once-every-6/12-months communication link up, be it email, letters, phone calls, Christmas cards, or whatever.
For some reason, I gave up on that. Sometimes I think, man, I should shoot Greg an email or I hear something stupid on the radio and it reminds me of Matt... and I know I'd be glad if they contacted me... but I think I'll be a bother to them if I call or email.

GAC
09-15-2006, 08:34 PM
If what you're saying about people (men or women) being forced to "pay" financially or with property for their adultery is true, I'm a little perplexed as to why that is.

Mainly because of the design of the laws. You see, no one denies that there are alot of men out there that are cads and deadbeat Dads - thus the structure of the laws which favor the woman in divorce judgments. Especially if there are children involved. So I fully understand, and am in agreement with such laws to an extent.... again, especialy when there are children involved.

But IMHO, it has gone a little too far. While the pecentages may be high, not all men involved in divorces are at fault, and yet they are made to pay a high price.


I can see adultery being legal grounds for divorce, of course. I can even see it being grounds for custody being taken away on the basis of character issues, though I don't know if I necessarily agree with that in every case. (I could see that being dangerous: "You cheated on me so I'm taking the kids" regardless of how fit the non-cheating spouse is to raise children -- in fact I'd like to throw that out as a possible factor in some of the cases you're talking about. Does it necessarily follow that if someone cheated, he or she is a bad parent?)

IMHO it sure doesn't make them a good parent. Again - how is that gonna affect the kids? It seems OK, when a husband cheats, to take the kids away from him - except for the periodic visitation - but not the woman?


But how does receiving money make up for someone cheating on you?

It doesn't. So how does TAKING money make it better?


It doesn't take away the pain that was caused; nor was anything financially lost in an affair (well, I guess it could be, but not inherently). So what is it, just an appeasement thing? The cheated-on spouse suffered so money will make him or her feel better? I guess I never really thought about it. That seems weird to me.

Not appeasement, but trying to provide some sort of financial stability... again, especially when children are involved. And when a husband does it, IMHO, he "reaps what he sows".... he cheated on his wife (and his family as a whole), and basically threw it all away. And it will normally cost him via the legal process. And rightfully so. But again, when a wife does it, besides her marriage (which she threw away anyway by her actions) - what does it cost her?

If a woman is so unhappy in a marriage relationship, wants out so bad that it drives her to cheat, then when she does leave via divorce, why does it financially strap the soon-to-be ex-husband and leave him in a position where it hard for him to recover and re-establish his life?

I can understand it occurring when the man does it. He deserves it IMHO. But when the wife does it he still pays the price for her betrayal. Seem fair?

vaticanplum
09-16-2006, 10:56 AM
I can understand it occurring when the man does it. He deserves it IMHO. But when the wife does it he still pays the price for her betrayal. Seem fair?

I think you missed my point on this one. I was not pitting men against women, I was asking why financial recompense existed as a punishment for cheating. The two are exclusive in my opinion. I want to know why this law developed as it did.


IMHO it sure doesn't make them a good parent. Again - how is that gonna affect the kids? It seems OK, when a husband cheats, to take the kids away from him - except for the periodic visitation - but not the woman?

Is cheating the be-all and end-all of finality of custody arrangements in your opinion? What if, for example, the woman has been unfaithful, but she is still the one home with the children most of the time, the one involved in their activities, the one who knows them the best and is in all other ways a good mother, and the father -- while he has never been abusive or unfaithful -- is a workaholic who is simply never there? Is it right to automatically grant full custody to the father? Infidelity seems to be one issue you're really focusing on here, and I don't know that it's as black-and-white as you make it sound when it comes to custody of children. I could see children becoming a serious tool of revenge if that were the only, or most important, factor. And again, I'm not using this as a men vs. women issue -- I mean this to go both ways; you can take the example above and switch it around. I'm asking about the issue itself.

RANDY IN INDY
09-16-2006, 11:13 AM
All hypothetical situations, none of which are the constant. Unfaithful mothers may not be the proverbial good mother, either. All situations should be judged on their own merit, not on some hypothetical idea, which I think sometimes is the case. There are a lot of fathers out there who are much more capable of taking care of their children than people sometimes give credit.

Falls City Beer
09-16-2006, 06:30 PM
Some like oysters, some like snails... some like both.....I like both Mounds and Almond Joy

I've got big balls, she's got big balls;
but we've got the biggest balls of them all.

GAC
09-17-2006, 05:30 AM
I think you missed my point on this one. I was not pitting men against women, I was asking why financial recompense existed as a punishment for cheating. The two are exclusive in my opinion. I want to know why this law developed as it did.

There is no specific law or statute that if you cheat you pay. It is simply the general result/ruling from divorce judgments.



Is cheating the be-all and end-all of finality of custody arrangements in your opinion? What if, for example, the woman has been unfaithful, but she is still the one home with the children most of the time, the one involved in their activities, the one who knows them the best and is in all other ways a good mother, and the father -- while he has never been abusive or unfaithful -- is a workaholic who is simply never there?

And that is justification to cheat?.... you work too much and are never there! Maybe the reason he is working so much is to provide for his family OR his job demands it?

How about trying to talk to that spouse first, or seek counseling, before having an affair?

Right now I'm forced to worked mandatory Saturdays. I don't like it at all, though the money is nice, but it keeps me away from my family. But it is no fault of mine that I have to work. So would that be justification for my wife to have an affair?

Why is it if a man cheats he is seen as an SOB and terrible husband?... How could he do such a thing! But if a woman cheats it still goes back on the man as far as something he did to drive her to do it?

It seems anymore like it's a lose-lose situation for the guy! :lol:


Is it right to automatically grant full custody to the father?

It certainly seems to be alright to automatically grant custody to the woman, evn when she is the culprit guilty of the marriage dissolving.


Infidelity seems to be one issue you're really focusing on here

Infidelity is just one example; but it's also one of the prime reasons for divorce these days.


and I don't know that it's as black-and-white as you make it sound when it comes to custody of children.

It's pretty "cut n dry" within the legal system - though there are exceptions/aberrations - that when a couple go into divorce court, the man is going to pay/get hit pretty hard financially economically regardless of who is at fault/responsible for the marriage breakup.


I could see children becoming a serious tool of revenge if that were the only, or most important, factor.

You don't think they aren't being used that way know in alot of cases? And don't get me wrong VP.... if I cheat on my wife, abandon her and the kids, I could fully understand her wanting to nail me and make me pay in court (i.e. the revenge factor) because I have hurt her (and the kids) emotionally and pschologically. And as I've stated before - I'd get what I deserve.

There's a guy at work with 5 kids, and he was messing around at work. He got caught, wife divorced him, and now he is whining about having to work alot of O.T. to support them and also try to live/establish his separate life. It's sad, but he got what he deserved.

In that sense, the legal system isdesigned to, and did, the right thing to protect and provide for the woman.

Now turn the table around, and it's now a female co-worker that was at work fooling around. Unless there are other mitigating circumstances involved, and they are proven in court to bolster the case of the husband, they are still gonna grant her custody of the kids, as well as other financial/economic restitution. Now does that seem fair? And these are no longer isolated cases or aberrations anymore.

vaticanplum
09-17-2006, 03:19 PM
GAC -- there is no justification for cheating and I've never implied such.

We continue to argue about different things. I'm exhausted with this thread, I'm going to stop now.

zombielady
09-18-2006, 08:47 AM
Rice Cakes? Suburbs taste like cardboard?

I'm all for urban renewal... I'm just not sure that means revamping old houses and selling them for twice what you paid for them...

Ok, if the woman cheats, but still gets custody, she still need help supporting the kids. Alimony and separate maintenance payments aren't the norm. I beleive in Ohio, you have to be married for a certain amount of time, and you are hard pressed to prove that you have grown used to a lifestyle, that you are unable to maintain on your own, before you can get it, and that's only if you have a really good lawyer. You generally also have to prove that the marriage prevented you from pursuing that lifestyle on your own. (IE; I left school to support him through med school, otherwise, I'd be a doctor too.)

Now, if the wife cheats (and it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt), chances are, she won't get alimony... The parent who does not have residential custody, regardless, is required to help the residential parent maintain a lifestyle for the child.