patrick.net

Paradise says

You're spot on and accurate in that complete post.

Keep in mind you're listening to the most dishonest asshole on the site, who is not even as smart as most monkeys, and on patnet only spews emotion. His m.o. is this:

YesYNot says

Some of them also suggest that you should never admit when you are wrong. Deflection is the best option, because that is all anyone else would do anyway. This seems about right.

And yet he wants top say everyone else is like this ?

Hell, I've never had evidence that he wanted to understand a single thing I or anyone else has said on this forum. He's the ultimate troll. And he's only agreeing with you because he perceives you to be the enemy of his enemy.

Trust me, he doesn't even understand any of this conversation, and if he is married (doubtful), he probably is incapable of anything more than mind games with her too. His behavior here has something to do with who he really is.

An example

Look at his response after I honestly answer his question as best I can. Does he realize how stupid his question was ? Did he ever understand or attempt to understand my answer ? Or how stupid his question was ? The guy is what his hero, Donald Trump, would call, a total loser.

(in his fantasy world - if he has a snappy and mindless comeback, and puts a couple dislikes on my answer, then he won !!)

Paradise says

marcus says

Hell, I've never had evidence

That's absolutely true!!

Taking something out of context like this is what he apparently considers a put down, that is when he's not saying how he feels sorry for my students.

Paradise says

That's OK, I respect that. I've been on this planet a bit longer than you.

Sadly, you may not live long enough to see the error of your ways on Global Warming. It's a next generation issue rather than a next year issue. I don't want to comment on Trump, other than to say he's a typical red pill guy and his relationships are laughable. Some admire his ability to attract hotties, though.

Paradise says

Like this non answer you gave?

So even now, you would never consider the entire answer. Now what I'm about to say is as honest as I can be.

I really believe that I will never know in cases such as this whether you are too emotionally challenged to even try to understand what I said (because it hurts your feelings).

OR whether you really are incapable of understanding. I swear to you, as far as I can tell I will never know the answer to that.

I hope I gave you some phrases in this comment you can parse in a pathetic attempt to make yourself look clever. Don't forget the dislikes (you're slipping).

YesYNot says

If you read that reddit site, I'd be curious to hear your reply.

I've checked it out. Interesting. Still don't know whether I'm a redpiller. Something reminded me of this. A somewhat unrelated, but very funny video.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vwbKYcBdVyk

Also this

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UjBuicfuJ8I

All this Red Pill crap is just denial, posturing and false hope to keep horny, heterosexual men from having night terrors about their inevitable future: they WILL be dominated, ruled and pussywhipped by a vagina toting creature who will keep them in mortal fear and anticipation of her every tiny arbitrary mood and whim. They will become cringing masses of will-less jelly, enslaved by one of these beings.

They will be absorbed, tamed, and cowed by the Female borg, resistance is futile. The idea of fooling the femmes just long enough to get in their pants and then escaping is nothing more than an idle fantasy to pump the egos of the fragile men until they bite the dust with a loud thud.

Women know that men are just a bunch of blue pill chumps waiting to happen. It's not called the dumb stick for nothing.

Red pill, blue pill, purple pill, black pill, brown pill-is just crap. The world is too complex and people vary across the spectrum. My main thing is that in the age of equality-laws should reflect that. You make choices and you are responsible. Just because you married a guy/gal and he/she earned 100 million in 5 yrs-you are not entitled to half. If you married a drunk burglar who committed 20 murders-do you suffer half a death sentence? Then why only the money and in return you don't provide him/her with half the service for a life a spouse is to provide.

Enough is enough. Change the laws and if people want to be protected in the event of divorce, they they should write prenuptial agreements saying they should get so much -which if fine it is an individual. Otherwise they get nothing.
Children should be with the a parent who can support the child-taking money from one and giving to the other is disgusting. Courts should be a alst resort-if both parents can't afford, then stick the kid in foster care or an orphanage. That will automatically rebuild family in America-because now you might need them when you get in a bind and not just get gubmnt benefits.

At the way we are going, we will run out of money, then all hell will break lose. Until then the feminazis will keep enjoying.

Take the laws out of it and then people can do whatever they want-who cares as long as they are not hurting somebody. Equality is here, embrace it and accept it -time for the training wheels to come off.

YesYNot says

I was struck by some of the attitudes toward women on this site, as it's nothing like anything I've encountered in real life. After doing a little research, I've learned the following.

In fairness, some of the extreme pro-Male stuff is just bitter grapes.

I also get the vibe that some like Roosh V. are just old fashioned male types looking for old fashioned women and frustrated/jaded.

lostand confused says

The world is too complex and people vary across the spectrum. My main thing is that in the age of equality-laws should reflect that. You make choices and you are responsible. Just because you married a guy/gal and he/she earned 100 million in 5 yrs-you are not entitled to half.

I agree.

lostand confused says

Children should be with the a parent who can support the child-taking money from one and giving to the other is disgusting.

In many cases, neither could afford to support the kid on their own. Kids are expensive. Also, if this were the case, anyone who decided to be a stay at home parent would give up any chance of maintaining custody in the event of a divorce. This would require 100% submission, usually on the part of the woman. Making a guy live in poverty so the spouse and kid can maintain the same standard of living in divorce is ridiculous. But basing custody entirely on financial ability (if that is what you meant) is just as bad

thunderlips11 says

I also get the vibe that some like Roosh V. are just old fashioned male types looking for old fashioned women and frustrated/jaded

Well, that era has gone couple of decades ago. The laws were put in place for the old fashioned system. It has been a few decades, we have a woman running for President-time to take the training wheels off.

Instead the feminazis are asking for more, alimony is not enough-the sluts want palimony-basically announcing themselves as hookers. I slept with you-hand me the cash. Disgusting. Enough-time for this charade to end. I think feminazis are finally acknowledging that the landscape is changing and hence posts like the op-oh some small subset living in fantasy world, red pill, blue pill-obfuscate and never talk the issues. How can they win -in an equal world a woman is responsible for her choices and for herself-they can't admit that, men have to pay. The only issue is that quite a few women are now earning more than their mates and are subject to the same laws they helped create-that may be the only reason why this ends.

The real problem is that society hasn't put the infrastructure in place where the onus of a woman's actions are on the woman.

Pregnant out of wedlock in a society that offers free and widely available birth control? Tough shit, deal. No Welfare. Can give child up for adoption or abort.
Seriously, any planned parenthood or college infirmary offers free birth control, from condoms to BC shots. BC isn't expensive anyway.

My #1 reform for everybody: Whoever files for the divorce, without abuse or abandonment, automatically does not get primary custody or alimony. That's fair, why punish the spouse who didn't initiate the process?

Maybe the filer automatically has to pay the ex-spouse.

Do that and I guarantee the divorce rate will drop substantially.

Some other more extreme reforms: Ban no-fault divorce, and make marriage more difficult. Require licenses to have children.

YesYNot says

Also, if this were the case, anyone who decided to be a stay at home parent would give up any chance of maintaining custody in the event of a divorce. This would require 100% submission, usually on the part of the woman

Nope. meg Whitman had two kids , a husband and managed to be the CEO of a company. In all the big corporations I work, I see very successful women who have families/kids and still managed it. I even know of one very successful lady, who got divorced, raised her kids practically on her own, paid alimony to her ex-husband and also child support. he was in a very low paying job , didn't care much for the kids either and used her money to live well and shack up with a bimbo.

So again, that is where I ask -where is the submission. if a high school dropout "chooses" to stay at home, ride horses, go shopping and spend her husband's money-that is her choice. She should not be rewarded for it. There are millions of women with kids with full time jobs-if one is less successful, they that is their luck/folly.

As for money, if a woman is incapable of earning money and supporting the kids-perhaps in the day of equality-one must give the kids to the most responsible parent-that will actually be good for our culture-where is responsibility is cherished and laziness is not encouraged. I choose not to have kids for a long time and now am ready. Something could still happen financially, but ready. Why does someone who does not give such thoughts be given money-one kid can be an accident-but some have multiple and are supported by the state/exes etc.

lostand confused says

Nope. meg Whitman had two kids ,

CEOs like Meg Whitman can easily afford child care. I've already agreed that people shouldn't keep half of the productivity of a 1%er. Most dual income professionals can also afford child care, and do. But, I've had plenty of friends where the wife made less than $50K, and it just didn't make sense for her to work. Staying home was better for the kids, better for the husband, and better for the family's bottom line

As an aside, @Patrick whenever I use a less than sign, the site assumes that I'm starting an html tag, and the rest of the message gets deleted. I don't know if there is an easy fix for this, but it's annoying.

Meg Whitman was not born a CEO-but rose to the top-inspite of having a family and a husband that has a full time job.

YesYNot says

But, I've had plenty of friends where the wife made

Exactly made the choice-then they suffer the consequences for their choices. This is not the 50s, this is what women fought for-choice. If you make a choice, then suffer the consequences. If she made less than 50k, than maybe she should be more qualified and get a better job /career-choices and equality and all?

if as a unit they make the choice together, that is when they should have a prenup/post nup and write out the terms according to their individual situation . The gubmnt should not be in everybody's business as the feminazis want it to be. You just can't quit, enjoy life, refuse to get back in the workforce and then send gubmtn thugs to get half and make the man/woman a slave for life.

thunderlips11 says

My #1 reform for everybody: Whoever files for the divorce, without abuse or abandonment, automatically does not get primary custody or alimony. That's fair, why punish the spouse who didn't initiate the process?

Sounds fair enough. It might lead to a lot of marriages that are similar to being underwater on a house - loveless crap-heaps where no one can afford to move on. Perhaps that just reflects reality and doesn't put the burden on the guy. I guess the lower or no earning spouse would have some time to establish a career prior to initiating a divorce.

lostand confused says

if as a unit they make the choice together,

They did

that is when they should have a prenup/post nup and write out the terms according to their individual situation .

People can do this if they have specific financial concerns.

You just can't quit, enjoy life, refuse to get back in the workforce and then send gubmtn thugs to get half and make the man/woman a slave for life.

Is this even a thing? Do many women say they are going to have a career, then after a few years of marriage just decide to become a freeloader and hold the guy hostage? I've literally never seen this.

YesYNot says

Sounds fair enough. It might lead to a lot of marriages that are similar to being underwater on a house - loveless crap-heaps where no one can afford to move on. Perhaps that just reflects reality and doesn't put the burden on the guy. I guess the lower or no earning spouse would have some time to establish a career prior to initiating a divorce.

A loveless marriage is okay, so long as the children are loved. The evidence is pretty strong: Divorce for children in an otherwise functioning household (they are fed, homework help, diapers changed, etc.) leads to worse outcomes for children. The adults need to be adults, forget about their romantic life for a while, and suck it up for the kids. Maybe they can be friends or partners in child rearing.

Fuck the 70s EST/Self-Actualization/Live the Life You Want Crap. Deal with the responsibilities. That selfish bullshit is for the birds. "But my secretary is hot, my wife has wrinkles, and I can afford a sportscar, and lots of opportunities to bang twenty somethings on my business trips" or "My husband's hyena laugh and toilet seat uppage is too much, besides he's balding and doesn't bring me flowers" is a bullshit reason to screw over children.

You can hire all the buxom redhead escorts or get an internal message from Franz the Bodybuilding Masseuse at 50, after the kids have grown and left.

Divorce after the kids turn 18 has minimal effect on the outcomes for those children.

YesYNot says

They did

that is when they should have a prenup/post nup and write out the terms according to their individual situation .

People can do this if they have specific financial concerns

Now the gubmnt makes the choice in a one size fits all-due to the feminazis. Instead it should be up to the individual couple-if the wife is worried about financial security ten years down the line, then she should discuss and have a contract written up-that will make all parties more responsible and real.

YesYNot says

Is this even a thing? Do many women say they are going to have a career, then after a few years of marriage just decide to become a freeloader and hold the guy hostage? I've literally never seen this.

Yup, plenty-only because the law lets them. I even know of one couple where the woman does not cook, clean and won't drop the kids at school, is out riding horses and shopping all day-the guy is a consultant in a big 5 firm and has to travel. I asked him why he won't divorce and he says he will never get to see his kids and will lose a ton in alimony/child support anyways so puts up with that crappy specimen of a human. Just because you refuse to see reality, does not mean it does not exist. Now I am actually seeing men do this, where the woman is earning and he loses his job and does not make an effort to get another one-alimony laws are gender neutral, so men are beginning to wake up and saying what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. This stupid law only benefits the irresponsible folks of either gender and is making us into a culture of lazy entitled freaks. The feminazis inspired law is what supports this.

thunderlips11 says

A surprising number of Women with boy children are becoming anti-feminist as well.

They would do their boy a huge disservice - bordering on child abuse - if they didn't. Child care and education these days is catered to girls. Boys usually don't want to sit still and do group work but run around outside and get rough. They are often silenced with medication as bs diagnoses of the likes of ADHD are thrown around. That is child abuse. Yet they are not allowed to experience the firm male authority most of them need so much as part of being rough and testing boundaries. Interestingly boys also need more affirmation (when they are little) next to tough love. If you have a boy the best thing you can do is let him run around, ruffle a lot of feathers and power him out each and every day, and be rough with him (do not break up fights unless absolutely necessary and do not helicopter-parent), show him lots of rough and tough love and keep him away as far as possible from gender-mainstreaming and feminism.

thunderlips11 says

Reports that Foreign Men, especially Asian Men, get attacked by the mothers of young women, even teenagers, blushing in tow. "You marry my daughter! She #1 wife.

This sounds like trading on your American citizenship. Oohh, marry me, and we will go back to the states and have good life. OTOH, I see similar relationship dynamics with white guys and first gen Asians who came to the US on their own. The ones who made it to a US grad school are presumably the more adventurous or ambitious and smart ones.

What's an ABC male?

lostand confused says

Yup, plenty-only because the law lets them. I even know of one couple where the woman does not cook, clean and won't drop the kids at school, is out riding horses and shopping all day-the guy is a consultant in a big 5 firm and has to travel. I asked him why he won't divorce and he says he will never get to see his kids and will lose a ton in alimony/child support anyways so puts up with that crappy specimen of a human. Just because you refuse to see reality, does not mean it does not exist.

Did this woman have career aspirations when they married? Has this guy consulted a lawyer, or is is really not that serious? Also, this anecdote obviously does not make the rule.

On this note, the funniest canard is that men are becoming obsolete. First of all, there are plenty of recovering feminists, though it often happens sadly late in their lives. Second, the truth is, if men disappeared tomorrow, the world would literally collapse.

Men work the container ships, unload the container ships, drive the container to the warehouse. That's almost completely male, especially the first two. Female dockworkers, merchant mariners, etc. are almost unheard of.

Pipe bursts? IHL Plumbers are probably 1 in 50 plumbers. Transformer goes? I've never seen a female lineman in my entire life. Cattle Rustlers? Slaughterhouse Workers? Male to a man, pardon the pun. From the tractor drivers, to the hay balers, to train conductors, the grain industry is male dominated. The fraction of a fraction of women who know how to do these jobs simply couldn't even begin to meet the demand.

Power Plant Engineers? Oil Rig Personnel? Even in Norway and India, 80-90% of the personnel are male.

Without males, the basic infrastructure of the world would collapse within hours. It would be worse than a zombie contagion.

YesYNot says

This sounds like trading on your American citizenship. Oohh, marry me, and we will go back to the states and have good life. OTOH, I see similar relationship dynamics with white guys and first gen Asians who came to the US on their own. The ones who made it to a US grad school are presumably the more adventurous or ambitious and smart ones.

Nope. This is true for those who relocate. The Philippines, Thailand, South America, Poland, is full of American males living there. Many women, especially Asian women, don't want to leave their families. These are family-first cultures and not nuclear-oriented. In China,many people thought that when Americans visit their parents, they get a bill from them for Thanksgiving dinner, and find nursing homes appalling.

In Paraguay, and in most of South America, couples live with their parents until they have so many kids it's no longer possible; and even then, it's more common for people to expand the house than to get one of their own. And that's true for those who can afford it, too. The idea of a kid leaving the house before they have their own children, much less marriage, is totally alien to them.

People will wait for years and pay well above market price to live down the street from relatives. This is the world-normal; it's North America that's exceptional here.

Even among the well educated, where the kid goes to med school in America or Europe and works for a while, as soon as they marry and have kids, they generally move right back down the road from Mom and Dad.

ABC = American Born Chinese.

thunderlips11 says

Nope. This is true for those who relocate.

So, do the women in these countries throw themselves only at American men, or are they desperate to be married to any man? If the latter, why is there a shortage of men in their own countries. If the former, what's the appeal of the American, other than money?

It appears from the stories shared in this thread that there should be some form of feminazi recognition training in the teenage formative years.
A lot of you have married these creatures, apparently blind to their personality characteristics.
Prenuptial agreements should become mandatory to get married so there are no blind spots going in.
As a famous man once said, "In marriage as in life, you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate."

YesYNot says

So, do the women in these countries throw themselves only at American men, or are they desperate to be married to any man? If the latter, why is there a shortage of men in their own countries. If the former, what's the appeal of the American, other than money?

First of all, women are attracted to men with resources, period. It's not the only thing, but it counts for a lot. This is biological and hardcoded; the man who provides a good income can support children better.

Second, you should hear the shit that gets said to my married with children, late 20s housekeeper at the busstop by obnoxious, nasty, reeking men in broad daylight at 9AM. Then you'd understand why Polish, Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, etc. women like gentlemen.

Third, American men are widely famous for being Doting Fathers and Caring, Loyal Husbands. Many South American and Eastern European guys stay out all night watching soccer and getting drunk - and whoring with floozies at the bar if not having a mistress(es) on the side.

Fourth, in countries where there is no welfare state, alimony, etc a woman simply can't pack up and get child support or alimony, or only a fraction of what she had. Which is why she values greatly the above option. Also, the social pressure is reverse: Whereas we always assume the woman had it rough and "had to" file for divorce; in most places, other women, including her mother, sisters, grandparents will be like: "Why didn't you screw him stupid so he didn't look elsewhere?"

Fifth, American Males tend to have prestigious occupations. In most countries, Engineering, IT Work, and even Teaching English is only a rung or two down from Movie Star or Doctor. Teachers of any kind, including English or Music Teachers, are worshiped in most countries.

Sixth, money is relative. An IT guy who relocates to the Philippines can easily get a job freelancing, consulting, or managing locally. While they might make $15-20k a year, it's still double or triple the average income.

Seventh, these are family oriented societies. A nice man and doting father that doesn't cheat (much) and supports his wife in good style and can be brought to family dinners without causing fights or incidents is an asset. Life here is about Families, not complete Self-Actualization Personal Fulfillment at any price. "What do you do?" is a less important question than "Who you are."

SoftShell says

Prenuptial agreements should become mandatory to get married so there are no blind spots going in. As a famous man once said, "In marriage as in life, you don't get what you deserve, you get what you negotiate."

Prenups would be a good idea, or at least discussing things with a lawyer so that in the absence of a prenup, you are aware of and agree with the prevailing law. There are other situations where default law exists for what it is, like inheritence. Life insurance, wills, etc. are also important to get right if you don't want to use the default prevailing law to decide what happens when you die. It surprises me how many people are on cruise control.

thunderlips11 says

First of all, women are attracted to men with resources, period. It's not the only thing, but it counts for a lot. This is biological and hardcoded; the man who provides a good income can support children better.

Your first, fifth, and sixth is basically about marrying down financially in an effort to improve your pick of woman. You're basically trading earning power to get a better looking, smarter, or less crazy woman. You can do this in the US if you are a high earner. If you really want to do this and cannot earn that much, then you can go find some place where the competition is less. If the prevailing standard of living is such that hunger is a real possibility, then you probably get more bang for your buck by marrying down. But, if you are trading money for a better choice in spouse, you should know that they are expecting a bit of a free ride for their choice. You can't have it both ways. Your number four amplifies numbers 1, 5, & 6. Your #s 3 and 7 are about the value of being a good father. This may be devalued in our society - I don't know.

YesYNot says

Your first, fifth, and sixth is basically about marrying down financially in an effort to improve your pick of woman. You're basically trading earning power to get a better looking, smarter, or less crazy woman.

In other words, normal human behavior. The great misconception is that this is somehow wrong or evil. It's good practice, both for individuals and societies, for decent, good earning (or at least prestigious occupation) men to marry good looking, smarter, and/or less crazy women as it produces better-off children and families.

Mistresses act as an outlet for hot but crazy or irresponsible women with Princess Complexes to get a sugar daddy figure, while generally (not always) not producing children of their own. It's pretty common to see 40-50 year old dudes with 20-something little hotties they fawn upon. Since these women value wealth and indulgence above family, this is good for everybody since they generally make crap mothers and are often attracted to guys who make crap fathers.

Being a good father is certainly devalued in modern society. Fathers are shown to be incompetent doofuses at best, "Put up with" by the ever-suffering, good hearted wife.

thunderlips11 says

A surprising number of Women with boy children are becoming anti-feminist as well.

They don't want their sons, who are carrying their genes, to be falsely accused of rape, turned into an alimony slave you can be arrested and thrown in prison if they don't make payments, or otherwise screwed over by the court systems. The psuedo-feminism of the 1970s was not about equality like the real feminism of the early 20th century. The former was always about the selfish interests of individual women. Once those women have sons, their selfish interests lies in preventing other women from doing to their sons what they did to other women's sons. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

To be fair, many men have an equivalent hypocrisy. They want to bang every chick, but as soon as they have a daughter they become the biggest cock-blockers.

Parenting involves a lot of hypocrisy, trying to keep your children from doing the things you did and are happy you have experienced like screwing around, smoking pot, underage drinking, and basic partying. Few parents would be willing to remove those experiences from their own youths if they could, but are more than willing to prevent their own children from having the same memories.

marcus says

I wonder about the impact of porn. Guys these days probably often have some unrealistic expectations, if a lot of their learning about sex is from porn.

You've got it backwards, marcus. It is women that have massively unrealistic expectations (requirements) of men relative to their own qualities and qualifications, not just from their intrinsic hypergamic nature, but also very much influenced by all the senseless pandering to women (=consumers) on TV, and I think also from porn.

Going back to the 1990s again, women used to spout regularly about "how men had looked at too many playboy centerfolds and had unrealistic expectations about what real women looked like". (Actually they still say things like that, but with different words.) Of course this was just rubbish and it was essentially a tactic to get good men to accept mediocre women. It was indeed exactly the opposite that was true, women had all kinds of supremely unrealistic requirements of men.

YesYNot says

Is this even a thing? Do many women say they are going to have a career, then after a few years of marriage just decide to become a freeloader and hold the guy hostage? I've literally never seen this.

Whoa, you have never seen this? It is rampant!

thunderlips11 says

In other words, normal human behavior. The great misconception is that this is somehow wrong or evil. It's good practice, both for individuals and societies, for decent, good earning (or at least prestigious occupation) men to marry good looking, smarter, and/or less crazy women as it produces better-off children and families.

I don't think it's good or evil to have large wage disparities. At the individual level, it is fine. But it should be recognized for what it is, which is buying attention from someone who otherwise wouldn't love you as much, and who would probably choose someone else absent the money. Current divorce law, which pays the lower/non earner out on the end of marriage codifies this arrangement by providing insurance for the lower wage earner, be they man or woman, should the arrangement go south. The only way this works at the societal level is to either suppress women's income so that all guys can marry down or to accept that there will be many men in the lower income bracket. I wouldn't want to be in either position in a marriage with a disparate income.

Here's a less dire (compared to red piller's) view on the issue of women making more than a guy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/05/05/female-breadwinners-how-income-disparity-affects-couples/

YesYNot says

Current divorce law, which pays the lower/non earner out on the end of marriage codifies this arrangement by providing insurance for the lower wage earner, be they man or woman, should the arrangement go south.

This assumes the wealth disparity is great. In the US, it isn't. The IT guy makes $60k and his ex-wife teacher makes $45k. Then, he's paying $30k to his wife in alimony and child support. So she's now in total control of $75k, whereas before she had to split $105k with somebody else . Furthermore, he's paying for services he no longer gets:

* No sex
* No household assistance
* Limited Visitation at the whim of the ex-wife, few judges enforce denied visitation with fines or jail time. There are thousands of full time employed people whose jobs it is to collect alimony and child support, and it's written into the system across the board. There are 0 full time employed people who do nothing but enforce child visitation, and it is not systemically enforced (like an employer docking the pay check or vacation days of an ex-wife who denies court-ordered visitation to her ex-husband due to state or federal laws)

So there is no insurance for men. Men now have to find a new partner with much lower usable incomes, while receiving no services from the ex whatsoever. The woman is better off, since she has two kids and $75k due to her former husband, as opposed to $45k and two kids if she had them out of wedlock. Whereas women are judged by sexiness primarily, and men by income, she comes off the better, especially if she's a MILF. If he's gone bald in the course of the marriage, he's doubly unlucky.

YesYNot says

I don't think it's good or evil to have large wage disparities. But it should be recognized for what it is, which is buying attention from someone who otherwise wouldn't love you as much, and who would probably choose someone else absent the money.

I don't think you understand. To get a woman that is even close to your own level, you have to be much more accomplished (and make considerably more) than her. And you will then have to listen to how the reason you are much more accomplished than her is due sexism and discrimination. And wait for her to become 30+ and realize that she will never accomplish what you have accomplished while she was busy "studying", having a "career" and banging men that would never marry her, while studiously avoiding the "creepy" guys that she would actually have a chance to have a serious relationship with.

This is the experience of a very LARGE fraction of men in the last 20 years, and realistically, probably quite a bit longer. It is just that it never got talked about, because men viewed it as a personal failure, and that view was reinforced by the ever-evil mother-loving matriarchy and feminist propaganda. Well, now we are talking about it. Listen carefully, and watch carefully. Things are changing, albeit slowly.

thunderlips11 says

The IT guy makes $60k and his ex-wife teacher makes $45k. Then, he's paying $30k to his wife in alimony and child support. So she's now in total control of $75k, whereas before she had to split $105k with somebody else .

Where do those calculations come from?

Bigsby says

thunderlips11 says

The IT guy makes $60k and his ex-wife teacher makes $45k. Then, he's paying $30k to his wife in alimony and child support. So she's now in total control of $75k, whereas before she had to split $105k with somebody else .

Where do those calculations come from?

I can't speak for thunderlips, but California has a calculator online:

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/resources/calculatechildsupport/tabid/114/default.aspx

Which, I presume, wouldn't result in his figures except under some pretty extraordinary conditions. If you had those incomes he stated and say 2 kids who you shared custody with, wouldn't the payments be pretty minimal?

We do our daughters a misservice with our nasty bullshit Media created expectations of males and marriage and children and family. Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and North American women are the unhappiest women on the planet

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/Paradox%20of%20declining%20female%20happiness.pdf

This is despite massive gains in female employment, relative incomes, and career opportunities, and the declining authority of the vast majority of men in their immediate world (Work, Family). Men are also becoming more unhappy, though not to the same degree.

Bigsby says

Which, I presume, wouldn't result in his figures except under some pretty extraordinary conditions. If you had those incomes he stated and say 2 kids who you shared custody with, wouldn't the payments be pretty minimal?

Like I said, I cannot speak for those numbers. They may not be for California, they incude allimony, whatever.

But perhaps you now understand why women in the US go all out for full custody? (it maximizes the transfers from the ex-husband) Also, it is common for women to quit their jobs and stay home in the years before divorce. If they do that, their income will be counted as 0, and the transfer will be even bigger. And, glad you asked (I know you didn't), if the husband decides to quit, or loses, his job after divorce, he (and only he) will be held to the standard of "imputed income", which means that child support/alimony will be calculated and demanded as if he still had that income, and men go to jail for not paying up. (Basically, debtors jail has been re-instituted but only for men/fathers).

I think you live in the UK, and divorce laws are already bad enough there (ex-wife demanding and getting millions 20 years after divorce when the ex finally got on his feet and developed a successful business), but in the US the misandry of divorce law and family court practices is off the chart bad. Men are disposessed of their house for years by false accusations of abuse and ensuing "protection orders" (which make it illegal for a man to live in his own house, because, well his wife is there and he has to stay XXX yards away from her, you get the idea how this works), I *personally* know cases where this has happened.

It is incredible how long this has been allowed because so many young men simply do not know what is going on, and the older men are desperate and on the verge off suicide. And the cycle of abuse repeats. But no more, the truth will be told.

Paradise says

I've never seen it either... I've seen couple with kids decide that the net dollar affect of the wife's income, after paying for childcare, wasn't worth it, so she put her career on hold to stay home with the kids.

Which is another way of saying that he wife never had much of worthwhile career to begin with. Op cit, is that how you say it?

Paradise says

But, I've never seen it where the wife intentionally bags her career so she can go to lunch with her girlfriends and shop all the time. You might be watching too much "Housewifes of Orange County"....

These kinds of disgusting TV shows are just the tip of the iceberg, and also validate the feeewings of many a woman that want to do that same. Also note my previous post mentioning TV pandering to women in order to compete for their consumer dollars (women spend 80% of household income).