patrick.net

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).

I just ran that calculator in the situation shown, assuming the woman gets custody 70% of the time. The woman gets 4050 after taxes per month. The guy gets 2850 after taxes per month. If she gets 99% custody, she gets 4660 after taxes. He gets 2240 after taxes. Neither is doing too well, and the calculator situation is allocating about 1/3 of income to take care of the kids and 1/3 to each parent. Seems like it's in the right ballpark to me. How do you suppose things should be split?

justme says

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

This reminds me of the video that marcus posted. The guy thinks that marrying material is an 8 and above looks-wise, and between a 5 & 7 on a scale of 5 to 10 on the crazy scale. So, marriage material is 20% of women based on looks and 3/6 or 50% of the women based on the crazy scale. That is roughly 10% of women making up the marriage material zone. Then, guy's complain when the top 10% won't take them. Seriously, the only reason your observation is true is that other guys apparently think that marrying is a good deal. If they didn't, you wouldn't face such steep competition. If you try to have it both ways (complain that men get such a raw deal in marriage and that the competition is too steep), you just seem like a cry baby. Your best bet is to figure out what you value the most and find a woman that has those traits more so than traits that other men value and who happens to value your particular assets. So, basically, it's just like any other situation where your're looking for a good fit.

thunderlips11 says

Men are also becoming more unhappy, though not to the same degree.

Well, maybe we are not, but it could also be that that men, the very same men that are being chastised for NOT expressing their feelings by women everywhere, will immediately get the full silencing shame treatment if they express their feelings about how mistreated they have been.

I'd say most 20-something women are pretty happy, the real unhappyness sets in when they hit their 30s and their self-induced singledom suddenly becomes both unavoidable and permanant. Of course, women also take much more anti-depressives than men do, so that they keep up a fairly good front, most of the time

thunderlips11 says

He is then federally taxed on $4142 income, but she is only taxed on $2,029. The man loses dependent exemptions, whereas much of the woman's state and federal tax burden is much less.

The calculator is after tax. You can see this by looking at the take home amount.

YesYNot says

you just seem like a cry baby.

Case in point.

you are who you hang with...

justme says

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!

justme says

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)

I don't.
The other side to the story you mentioned was that the ex-husband didn't have to pay any maintenance at the time of the divorce and she had to raise their child without any financial help from him. And contrary to what you claim, she hasn't got millions (she hasn't received anything), and from what I just read, the current situation is that the Supreme Court judges have allowed the case to be heard in the High Court and say she'd only be in line for a comparatively modest sum if she wins the case, presumably some kind of recompense for the cost of raising their child. Somewhat different to what you were claiming.

justme says

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.

Anti-male bias is so bad that when a guy found out his girlfriend, who insisted on total sexual loyalty while claiming she was utterly faithful, slept with half a dozen men, including her boss as well as several VIP Game Reviewers who reviewed her (shitty) product, while lying and committing multiple acts of manipulation on him, including calling him multiple times to insure he was sleeping alone, then when he found out the truth and published it on the internet, he was slapped with a Gag order.

In America, a woman calling her lover a serial, hypocitical dishonest cheater who also had romantic relationships with the people in charge of reviewing his product in the media (without disclosure of the conflict of interest), would be heralded as a hero. A man doing the same is called a sadsack evil, shaming cuck who humiliates poor depression sufferers - and he's a criminal if he violates his Gag Order.

https://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Eron_Gjoni

The allegations of Gjoni, before his Gag Order, set off the Gamergate situation, where the cronyism of the "Game Review" industry came to light. These honest "Journalists" then turned to hating on their own customer base (nerdy white males).

justme says

Case in point.

Is this an attempt at a CIC rebuttal? He does it better.

YesYNot says

justme says

Case in point.

Is this an attempt at a CIC rebuttal? He does it better.

BTW, for those not following the flow on the thread, the remark "case in point" was referring to what I wrote about how men will be shamed (in this case, called a crybaby) if they express any feelings. Notwithstanding a whole industry of magazines and websites demanding on a daily daily basis that men must "share their feelings", and the like.

justme says

YesYNot says

you just seem like a cry baby.

Is it too much to ask that you include the sentence to which I was responding?

SoftShell says

you are who you hang with...

justme says

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!

In feminist circles, what you just did is called "blaming the victim". Oops. I forgot. Only women can be victims. (Sarcasm alert)

YesYNot says

The calculator is after tax. You can see this by looking at the take home amount.

I quote without arsing myself to format (Male first, Female Second): emphasis mine

Monthly Net Disposable Income After Support: 2618.00 4434.00
...
Monthly Federal Taxable Income: 4142.00 2029.00
Monthly Federal Tax Liabilities: 685.00 83.00
Monthly Federal Self-Employment Tax: 0.00 0.00
Monthly FICA (Social Security and/or Medicare): 383.00 291.00
Monthly State Tax Liabilities: 218.00 0.00
Monthly CASDI: 50.00 38.00

His Federal Taxable Income is more than half again his actual after support income; Her Taxable Income is less than half her actual Income after support.

thunderlips11 says

quote without arsing myself to format (Male first, Female Second): emphasis mine

Monthly Net Disposable Income After Support: 2618.00 4434.00

...

His Federal Taxable Income is more than half again his actual after support income; Her Taxable Income is less than half her actual Income after support.

You started with an income of 5000 + 3800 per month. That is 8800/month. Then, somehow they split 7000 per month net. That is because the taxes have already been subtracted.

No, he makes $5000/month or $60k year. The $3800/month is what his wife makes (It should be $3750 for a $45k/year income, but I couldn't be arsed and guessed, not that the extra $50/month would change anything much) from her job.

There is no "Used", I plugged these numbers into the California Calculator with two kids and all the settings on default, and this is what it spewed out. He pays taxes as a single person for close to the amount he actually earns, while the wife gets both his money with no controls or restrictions on the spending, along the lion's share of the tax writeoffs.

This is the best the man can hope for, the bare minimum financial pain by law, again not including lost payments on a house he gave up to the ex-wife or any other decisions the court reached, contributions towards a college fund, nor alimony or anything else.

thunderlips11 says

No, he makes $5000/month or $60k year. The $3800/month is what his wife makes (It should be $3750 for a $45k/year income, but I couldn't be arsed and guessed, not that the extra $50/month would change anything much) from her job.

You seriously think that with $8800 monthly income between the two of them, that the $7052 they split is before tax? Where did the other $1748 go? Do you think it is a coincidence that all of those taxes add up to $1748? His money in that example is after tax. It might not be a great take-home, but it is after tax.

YesYNot says

My wife and I have been very happy this way for the 12 yrs we've been together.

I have to ask: are you a lesbian?
You seem to be implying that you are a man, but everything you say is so one sided that it only makes sense if you are a woman.

Bigsby says

I don't have any idea what the statistics are for quitting jobs and seemingly neither do you, but you do seem to be making a habit of throwing out these sweeping generalizations and claiming them as fact.

I have an explanation as to why women quitting or reducing hours prior to divorce is: People consult attorneys before they file for divorce. Attorneys recommend courses of action.

Most divorces are initiated by women, and (if) all things were equal, that means we have an legal incentive problem, or that men are morally inferior to women across the board. Believing that crap human behavior are roughly equally distributed between genders, I'll go for the former.

thunderlips11 says

I have an explanation as to why women quitting or reducing hours prior to divorce is: People consult attorneys before they file for divorce. Attorneys recommend courses of action.

Most divorces are initiated by women, and (if) all things were equal, that means we have an legal incentive problem, or that men are morally inferior to women across the board. Believing that crap human behavior are roughly equally distributed between genders, I'll go for the former.

Fine, that may be a reason (would that not also be a possibility for the man as well?), but as neither of you can supply the percentages, it would be better to frame it as such, rather than throwing out words like often (etc...)

Heraclitusstudent says

I have to ask: are you a lesbian?

You seem to be implying that you are a man, but everything you say is so one sided that it only makes sense if you are a woman.

Heraclitus would be ashamed to be such a poor teacher. I am a man. I've recently learned that the red pill folks would call me a mangina or white knight. I have a wife and daughter to think about as well as myself. I wouldn't even call myself a feminist, but am put off by the prevailing attitude towards women on this board.

Bigsby says

So you are now comparing your insights to the 2 decades of meticulous work Charles Darwin did? I see.

He has a BA in biology I think. That's close enough.

Bigsby says

Fine, that may be a reason (would that not also be a possibility for the man as well?), but as neither of you can supply the percentages, it would be better to frame it as such, rather than throwing out words like often (etc...)

Bigsby says

Fine, that may be a reason, but as neither of you can supply the percentages, it would be better to frame it in that context, rather than throwing out words like often (etc...)

25 datasets spanning more than a century; women have always been the majority filers.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf

UK is also about 2/3rd of filings initiated by women:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10357829/Why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.html

thunderlips11 says

25 datasets spanning more than a century; women have always been the majority filers.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf

UK is also about 2/3rd of filings initiated by women:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10357829/Why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.html

You've lost me now. I didn't question who filed for divorce more often. The issue was about women quitting employment at the time of a divorce.

Bigsby says

You've lost me now. I didn't question who filed for divorce more often. The issue was about women quitting employment at the time of a divorce.

My bad. I have no idea about the stats on it. However, I'm sure divorcees share advice with each other (and get it from the internet, and their own attorney consults).

Paradise says

The problem with that narrative is that unhappy people will complain 10 times more frequently than the happy people. It's the same way with companies, services, etc. If you're going to search the web for Red Pill references, it's only common sense you'll find more examples. The happy guys won't be sitting on a message board bashing woman, they're out enjoying their lives and their woman.

You see you can do it CiC (make a reasonable point that is).

Bigsby says

I don't.

The other side to the story you mentioned was that the ex-husband didn't have to pay any maintenance at the time of the divorce and she had to raise their child without any financial help from him.

So what? Either she didn't ask for support or he had none to give her. In either case, that does not entitle her to a payoff later. If she wanted to get that, she should have stayed with him and not divorced him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2991193/Hippy-tycoon-facing-2m-divorce-payout-ex-wife-30-years-split-claims-comfortable-life-home-says-bought-washing-machine.html

Bigsby says

And contrary to what you claim, she hasn't got millions (she hasn't received anything), and from what I just read, the current situation is that the Supreme Court judges have allowed the case to be heard in the High Court and say she'd only be in line for a comparatively modest sum if she wins the case, presumably some kind of recompense for the cost of raising their child. Somewhat different to what you were claiming.

Well, hooray, maybe there is hope still. BTW, London has a huge rate of divorce tourism, were as many as 20% of divorce cases are brought by women flying in from other countries to get the preferential treatment that the UK provides to them.

Reference: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/feb/24/divorce-rich-husband-london-english-law

Paradise says

Heraclitusstudent says

His arguments on women on this forum are just not so easily refuted.

The problem with that narrative is that unhappy people will complain 10 times more frequently than the happy people.

He's not complaining, he's giving logical arguments.
I guess to a woman they may sound like complaining.

Paradise says

The happy guys won't be sitting on a message board bashing woman,

Do you want to argue that, objectively, nothing at all: no laws and no cultural attitudes are ever unfair to men?
Is that your point?
Assuming it isn't, then why would it be a sign of maladjustment for men to talk about it.