patrick.net

No, you've approached this matter as an ignoramus, judging a state of being without any personal frame of reference.

Rin says

I've approached this matter as a naturalist, looking at it from a kaleidoscope of experiences.

You've already stated you are not getting married.
No need to repeat...

Rin says

On the whole, I will not engage a person,

Sounds like Rin's been outed....

turtledove says

Harry is a bitter, angry, misogynist with a small penis and highly insecure infatuation with contact sports.

It is the laws. Take the financial incentive away and divorce will fall to historical levels. We are in an unnatural state due to the feminists. Not only have they established legal slavery for married men-in some places they have pushed for palimony and made that legal. it used to be you could raise your kid the way you saw fit. Now the gubmnt determines how you raise your kid , right down to the last penny.

I think the feminists are directly responsible for the mess we are in. For generations now, people-especially men have gotten used to losing their self and obeying gubmn dictats-no matter how unfair-under threat of prison. So slowly we lose our drive. Why work, when the wife who does nothing but enjoy your money, goes shopping, horseback riding etc etc can suddenly say I am done with your old wrinkly ass, I need half and alimony on top of that and need me some toyboys? I mean only the richer party has to give and the ex wife has no mandate to provide any of the services she supposedly did. You work hard, toil away and boom half is gone and you are on your own, your kids are being raised by another younger dude and you pay the bill for all of it and you are considered the evil person. That is the singular achievement of feminism -to take away dignity and self-respect and make whorism a virtue. Then you wonder why men think so highly of modern American women-it is not the women they hate-but the helplessness, the laws stacked against them. I am sure Halle berry and now Sherri Sheperd from the view must feel the same as any man.

Though now a growing number of women -either themselves or as next wives-are beginning to see the personal impact of these draconian laws. In some states, repeal of these laws have been led/supported by these women. So we may come full circle-from women saying they want it all-the ability to work or the ability to stay at home and be supported in the lifestyle they were used to for life , to actually some women now saying women need to grow up and act as adults and be responsible for themselves and their progeny-isn't that what feminism is supposed to be about-for a woman to be an equal and make her way through the world on her own?? Or is feminism is about being an equal and succeeding and when you fail-have the man foot the bill and you live very successfully??.

Next GOP presidential candidate. Would be a Tea Party favorite for sure!

So you think a study on mail order brides is a good basis for comparison?

Obligatory:

In slavic cultures, there's a saying "put pasta on one's ears." Slavic women can be extremely strategic thinkers and fancy themselves as "foxes" because of their cunning ability. To the anglos considering marrying one of them let me give you a word of advice, they will outplay you, out-think you and you will get a nice welcome to the "big leagues." The risk-reward has a much greater downside compared to americans.

dublin hillz says

In slavic cultures, there's a saying "put pasta on one's ears." Slavic women can be extremely strategic thinkers and fancy themselves as "foxes" because of their cunning ability. To the anglos considering marrying one of them let me give you a word of advice, they will outplay you, out-think you and you will get a nice welcome to the "big leagues." The risk-reward has a much greater downside compared to americans.

So no guarantees there either, which brings us back to Rin, the Renaissance Man.. ;)

dublin hillz says

In slavic cultures, there's a saying "put pasta on one's ears."

http://boingboing.net/2009/07/13/im-not-hanging-noodl.html
Not hanging noodles on your ears: Russian - not kidding

He does make some valid points on these topics. It is interesting that a person in his predicament comes to these conclusions but I digress.....

Word, the family is then prepared to suck whatever money they can from the relationship. Example: two of my wife's cousins are Thai and married westerners briefly. One got a ticket to the US and once she had a job she got divorced. The other got her Dutch guy to buy a load of rubber trees for the family plantation, and dumped him a couple years later.
Marrying abroad is more risky than people think. Your wife is only your wife until it's inconvenient.
My wife is American, and although she's not perfect, I'll take her over some foreign bride any day.

Bigsby says

1974

Yuck! Double digit inflation every month, gas lines and shortages, the most poorly built, worst running cars in the postwar era, serial killers (the term hadn't been invented yet) plying their trades on both coasts and north and south...

Bigsby says

Simply not getting divorced isn't a particularly meaningful basis for
quantifying the 'success' of a marriage unless your only criteria for said
'success' is that those people didn't get divorced. I've lived in the Middle
East for over a decade. Hardly anyone gets divorced over there and hardly anyone
I know is remotely happy in their marriage. Obviously according to you, those
marriages are a 'success

Many russian families "stick it out for the kids." Then when kids turn 16-18 the divorce occurs. These families were riding along on at least 10+ years of misery train. They would have been better off divorcing earlier like americans would have done.

I heard that the divorce rate itself is a bit distorted, because there are a significant minority of "Serial Divorcees", people who get married and divorced multiple times, which most people do not do.

In other words: "happy wife, happy life."

If she's unhappy, she's going to ruin everything you love.

This thread has one of the most ridiculous headlines of any on PatNet, including tovbot's gibberish, but the thread has hundreds of comments so I'll just briefly contribute some obvious points of information:

Martha's a grandmother who built a hugely successful business after an earlier career in finance, and yes, she cooks. One might also mention Oprah, and countless others (partisans can pick their favorites between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin). I hope these were mentioned at least once in the pages of prior comments in this thread, but my only word for the OP is, "Nominated."

Where does all this resentment come from? Are you talking about your sisters, your mothers, your daughters?

Patnet is becoming a hell-hole rant fest by a good number of men that seem pretty bent out of shape. But f-ing check your sexism at the door.

There may be some truth to some of the points here about women losing more traditional values. And we women ourselves deeply criticize those women on our own without any help from you guys. For ex, my mother and I were lamenting how my brother's wife is a bit of a lay-about, doesn't cook, doesn't clean, and only just started working a light PT job (at the Neiman Marcus makeup counter) after being a stay-at-home-mom of her child (from an earlier marriage). So my brother works 60 hours a week and has to do all the cooking. But FOR SOME REASON he loves her (btw, she's chinese-american and has that asian sweet smiley thing going for her, so I think she makes an interesting case for those believing that foreign women have better values).

My mom and I will make no excuses for this sister/daughter-in-law since we both work and manage a household part much more than our husbands.

But these women are NOT representative.

Why am I bothering? The rampant unabashed sexism on here is reaching crazy new heights.

What about Paula Deen?

Then wear a condom. And that's 18 years of financial support. Hardly servitude, and not much in comparison to the responsibility of actually raising a child if that is sufficiently taken onboard.

And I presume the man would have the right if he'd carried the baby around for 9 months. And if the baby is abandoned, I presume the father has the right to take that child into his own care.

Your language is ridiculous. Women have had to take complete responsibility for child rearing in the past when the father has buggered off. So modern society has forced men to financially step up. Boo fucking hoo.

You are talking about very recent history.

I refuse to believe that fetus is a life. A woman should be able to do anything to whatever crap inside her body.

Heraclitusstudent says

You apparently don't realize imposing a responsibility on a gender while letting the other off the hook is a very sexist position.

Agreed.

Since we don't care about statistics anymore let's have some "fun" with anecdotal data: I once worked at a company that had to dissolve, fire-sale and lay-off close to the entire staff for the sole reason that the CEO's wife divorced him and demanded an insta-payout/front for the gain in value that the company had acquired during their marriage. She actually toured the facility, once, was super snooty to everyone and then announced it's not worth holding while her husband begged her to keep it going. The guy literally lost like 40 lbs during the whole ordeal and looked all scraggly. A lot of the non (senior) engineers had a hard time finding a new job, some were also quite old already. Of course it was a no-fault divorce. He then apologized to the staff but could no longer take the threat anymore.

mell says

I once worked at a company that had to dissolve, fire-sale and lay-off close to the entire staff for the sole reason that the CEO's wife divorced him and demanded an insta-payout/front for the gain in value that the company had acquired during their marriage. She actually toured the facility, once, was super snooty to everyone and then announced it's not worth holding while her husband begged her to keep it going. The guy literally lost like 40 lbs during the whole ordeal and looked all scraggly. A lot of the non (senior) engineers had a hard time finding a new job, some were also quite old already. Of course it was a no-fault divorce. He then apologized to the staff but could no longer take the threat anymore.

Let me guess - American?

I'm married to a Canadian woman (and I'm Canadian, so she's not foreign to me) and it's working out great. Kids, shelter, communication, responsibility for chores. We disagree, but resolve. She does more kids stuff than me, but I do more rough and tumble kid's stuff. I make more, but we both work. We both cook (I think I do more...) but she buys the groceries. Working well. One data point.

New Renter says

mell says

I once worked at a company that had to dissolve, fire-sale and lay-off close to the entire staff for the sole reason that the CEO's wife divorced him and demanded an insta-payout/front for the gain in value that the company had acquired during their marriage. She actually toured the facility, once, was super snooty to everyone and then announced it's not worth holding while her husband begged her to keep it going. The guy literally lost like 40 lbs during the whole ordeal and looked all scraggly. A lot of the non (senior) engineers had a hard time finding a new job, some were also quite old already. Of course it was a no-fault divorce. He then apologized to the staff but could no longer take the threat anymore.

Let me guess - American?

Yes. But I am more interested in changing the laws than their minds. I think opportunity makes thieves and often it's a friend that has a lawyer or even a lawyer friend who can smell the blood and after the first consultation there is no turning back.

This whole thread is utter trash.

lahossain says

For ex, my mother and I were lamenting how my brother's wife is a bit of a lay-about, doesn't cook, doesn't clean, and only just started working a light PT job (at the Neiman Marcus makeup counter) after being a stay-at-home-mom of her child (from an earlier marriage). So my brother works 60 hours a week and has to do all the cooking. But FOR SOME REASON he loves her (btw, she's chinese-american and has that asian sweet smiley thing going for her, so I think she makes an interesting case for those believing that foreign women have better values).

My mom and I will make no excuses for this sister/daughter-in-law since we both work and manage a household part much more than our husbands.

But these women are NOT representative.

so she's not representative of American women but somehow she is representative of "foreign" women? if you didn't mean to make any generalization on "foreign wives" with your anecdotal case (which is probably full of lies and exaggerations anyways), why even mentioned her ethnicity?

"OH Look!!! a bad foreign wife! men, limit your choices NOW!"

if he's happy why is it any of your damn business or your nosy mother? based on your and your mother's hatred (probably partially fueled by racism) for your brother's beloved wife, i can see why he made the conscious CHOICE to marry Asian. he probably got sick of repulsive women like you and your mom.

Bigsby says

I'm not imposing a responsibility on a gender while letting the other off the hook. I'm stating that is basically what has happened historically for men in child rearing terms

What has happened historically is irrelevant here.

You are condoning laws that say that after conception a man no longer a choice but still has at the minimum financial responsibility, while the mother has all the choices including avoiding any responsibility, financial or otherwise.

The law allows different choices depending on the gender and therefore is discriminating against one: men in this case.

You can argue that's a practical way to ensure adequate support for kids, but this obviously results in a lot of men trapped in child support against their will.

Arguing to use condoms is not reasonable considering the consequences. The decision to have sex in this day and age is clearly not a decision to have a kid.

Heraclitusstudent says

You are condoning laws that say that after conception a man no longer a choice but still has at the minimum financial responsibility, while the mother has all the choices including avoiding any responsibility, financial or otherwise.

The law allows different choices depending on the gender and therefore is discriminating against one: men in this case.

There isn't anything in the law that forces men to raise the child if the women says she doesn't wish to do so, so why not say it is the woman who is discriminated against as that is what society generally expects?
And how does the woman avoid any responsibility financially or otherwise? If the child is born and raised by the mother (alone), then she has both partial financial and full child rearing responsibility. What is the father doing apart from chipping in some cash for his child?
If the woman avoids responsibility for raising the child by putting it up for adoption, then so what? If the father wants the child, let him take custody.

Heraclitusstudent says

You can argue that's a practical way to ensure adequate support for kids, but this obviously results in a lot of men trapped in child support against their will.

And a lot of women are trapped in the far more time consuming task of actually raising a child when it wasn't necessarily their intention to have one.

rationality will always elude women and for good reason. sometimes rationality with no emotion can lead to a disaster. both men and women have to be irrational and emotional for human kind to exist else nobody will have babies. women need a bit more dose of emotion to make them make this choices ( having kids..etc). To make laws which punish these emotions to extreme is very counter productive. at the end of the day, the laws should encourage people to have kids and facilitate good child rearing for the survival of mankind. emotions are just the rational mind of nature against the rational mind of a person.

there is clearly something wrong with the laws of today because they definitively don't serve their purpose. more and more people are getting discouraged to marry.

Bigsby says

You may as well say it's discriminating against the women because it is she, if anyone, who has to raise the child.

IF she chooses too. That's her choice. She can choose to legally abandon the child or give it up for adoption. The man has none of these choices. It's the obligation to pay and shut-up. And also with no say on how the money is spent, whether it is spent on the child education or the mother's enjoyment.

How would you feel if the law forced a women to have the child and care for it after conception, whether she wants it or not?

That's exactly the position in which men are legally today.

And the men have the legal benefit of not having to play any role in the rearing. It's a compromise. So what? Are we supposed to revert back to how it was before where women became pregnant and men could be completely free of any responsibility whatsoever? If that's what you believe, then fine. It's not what I think is for the best.

Bigsby says

And the men have the legal benefit of not having to play any role in the rearing.

Do women not have that right ?

jkaldi1 says

Bigsby says

And the men have the legal benefit of not having to play any role in the rearing.

Do women not have that right ?

And when they decide to raise the child? That doesn't force the father to also put in the time to raise it, does it?

Bigsby says

jkaldi1 says

Bigsby says

And the men have the legal benefit of not having to play any role in the rearing.

Do women not have that right ?

And when they decide to raise the child? That doesn't force the father to also put in the time to raise it, does it?

then we should change that law if that's not the case.

i don't get it when women want symmetry in +ves but not symmetry in -ves. don't we all want symmetry in everything?

Bigsby says

And when they decide to raise the child? That doesn't force the father to also put in the time to raise it, does it?

So what?
It forces a burden on him that the mother is not forced to take.
Therefore it's discrimination.

It's really simple and any reasonable person will admit this is blatantly unfair.

Heraclitusstudent says

So what?

It forces a burden on him that the mother is not forced to take.

Therefore it's discrimination.

It's really simple and any reasonable person will admit this is blatantly unfair.

What? The mother both raises the child and has partial financial responsibility. An absentee father is required to step up with a degree of financial support. Who faces the greater burden? The mother is the one who still gets the short straw. If the child is given up for adoption, then the responsibility switches to the state or the adoptive parents.

jkaldi1 says

when the man decides to raise the child ?

And how often does that happen? And if it does, then the woman should be obliged to give the appropriate financial support.