patrick.net

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.

Bigsby says

esponsibility switches to the state or the adoptive parents.

i think the law should be changed such than both are forced to only put time if both decide to raise a child.

if one of them decides to not raise the child , the other can do the same or raise on their own with no support from other.
completely symmetric law with no mention of a man or woman.

jkaldi1 says

Bigsby says

esponsibility switches to the state or the adoptive parents.

i think the law should be changed such than men are forced to only put time just like women if both decide to raise a child.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Bigsby says

jkaldi1 says

Bigsby says

esponsibility switches to the state or the adoptive parents.

i think the law should be changed such than men are forced to only put time just like women if both decide to raise a child.

What is that even supposed to mean?

it means money is not involved. kid spends time 50% at mom and 50% at dad. of course voluntarily ,any one of them can take the option of taking full financial support responsibility and 0% raising or just not raise the kid at all.

And you think that's practical?

Bigsby says

And you think that's practical?

what does that have to do with the law ? practicality is not an argument for discrimination ?
people have been arguing that both men and women working is not practical for ages...did we not solve the issue or just live with the consequences ?
equal rights take precedence over everything else !

either you solve the issue or live with it but you cannot discriminate ...period !

equal rights for women is not more special than equal rights for men. everybody should get equal rights !

the best way to write the laws involving a man and woman is to write it with no mention of the word woman or man. if its done that way, it means its completely symmetric law and fully non-discriminatory.

Not having your idea of forcing every child to live with each parent 50% of the time written into law is not an issue of discrimination. There is flexibility in custodial arrangements for obvious reasons.

Bigsby says

Why should the financial responsibility be switched solely to the women or often the tax payer to support that child just because you think fathers should have the right to avoid contributing money to the raising of their own child?

nobody is forcing her to take on the responsibilty ...its a CHOICE she is making.

Bigsby says

Once the pregnancy is carried to term, she has every right to seek financial aid to help raise that child. T

WHY ?

Both should have the right to raise the child on their own or not raise at all.
1) Any one of the partners can completely say no to any responsibility.
2) Any one of the partners can raise the child completely on their own.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

I am not using woman and man above so its completely just to both sides.

Bigsby says

Why should the financial responsibility be switched solely to the women or often the tax payer to support that child just because you think fathers should have the right to avoid contributing money to the raising of their own child?

You are being totally irrational, ignoring the whole point about having a choice. The women can of course choose to have a child. If the man doesn't want to have the child, why should he be dragged into it against his will?

I know an example where, right now, a woman is trying to get pregnant from a guy, while the guy is ignorant of this fact. I know because she told her girl friends. She is totally planning to stick the guy with child support. Of course this is totally legal.

Do you think this is fair to the man?
And do you think this is a good way to bring children into this world?

If yes then you are an incredibly sexist and evil person. That's all there is to it.

jkaldi1 says

Both should have the right to raise the child on their own or not raise at all.

1) Any one of the partners can completely say no to any responsibility.

2) Any one of the partners can raise the child completely on their own.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

I am not using woman and man above so its completely just to both sides.

Re-phrased:

Any one of the partners can take responsibility while the other partner pays child support.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

I am not using woman and man above so its completely just to both sides.

And this version actually makes sense.

ch_tah2 says

Any one of the partners can take responsibility while the other partner pays child support.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

I am not using woman and man above so its completely just to both sides.

And this version actually makes sense.

agreed....lets apply that to pregnancy as well while we are at it.
one person cannot terminate a pregnancy if the other party is willing to support.

unjust for child but completely just for both partners :

1) Any one of the partners can completely say no to any responsibility.

2) Any one of the partners can raise the child completely on their own.

3) both partners can get into 50:50 arrangement either financially or taking care.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

or

Best care scenario for child and completely just for both partners :

1)Any one of the partners can take responsibility while the other partner "has to" pay child support.

2) Any one of them can take financial responsibilty while the other person "has to" care of the child.

3) both partners can get into 50:50 arrangement either financially or taking care.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

completely symmetric in all angles

jkaldi1 says

1) Any one of the partners can completely say no to any responsibility.

I can't agree to that. It's not fair to the other partner. You can't completely give up responsibility. If you are responsible for creating a child, then you are responsible for supporting that child.

My version was fine as is.

ch_tah2 says

If you are responsible for creating a child, then you are responsible for supporting that child.

My version was fine as is.

then why is a woman free to abandon the child ?