You owe the woman alimony if you have had children because just as we assume it is the man's fault we assume it is the woman who must sacrifice her career goals to take care of the child. And then act shocked when she demands her lifestyle not change? Is there a big enough rolleyes smiley in the world to express my disgust at how idiotic this whining is?
That's why we hear stupid shit like "they *get* to stay home!". I don't know if I can even have the patience to calmly refute such ignorance. It's ridiculous, the product of countless bitch-sessions between self-pitying men in a culture dominated by men.
Boo-****ing-hoo. Hey here's an idea, geniuses, why not make your marriage work? Why not take more than 3 months to decide whether or not to get married and a few years of marriage before having a kid and being 100% certain this marriage will last before you do that? Why not take responsibility for what you are obligated to do, sack up and be a ****ing man about it?
Going to high school in East Texas I heard more self-pitying "woe is me, the white man is oppressed" garbage than one ever needs and it is ludicrous.
Groverat, if we lived in a world where gross generalizations were the keys to life, and messy specific details of real lives and individual situations never mattered, you'd be hailed as a genius.
Groverat, if we lived in a world where gross generalizations were the keys to life, and messy specific details of real lives and individual situations never mattered, you'd be hailed as a genius.
Of course individualized situations matter, but if you think the original premise of the thread is based on anything more than "women try to fleece men" you're crazy.
And if you're going to get into matters of legal policy then you sure as hell are going to have to deal with generalities. There's no such thing as personally-customized law.
Women are forced by the culture to sacrifice any career goals they have and take on the responsibility of motherhood. My girlfriend is in the top 10% of her UT Law class right now (She's starting her 2nd year this fall), I am a journalism student.
She has the potential to make ~$60k her first year out of college and the sky is the limit after that. Me? $60k/yr is what I'd make maybe 5-10 years from graduation, and it won't get much higher than that.
Which one is socially obligated to further their career while the other one stays home with the child? We are liberalizing more to accept the Daddy Homemaker role but it's not there yet by a longshot.
Which one makes the most sense logically?
You want to talk about a sacrifice, how about sacrificing all your dreams to have a child and raise it while the husband goes to work? And not only that, in a society that is increasingly hostile towards stay-at-home moms; from Hillary Clinton's "I'm not going to stay home and bake cookies" to the ****ing Promise Keepers and whining white men.
Strong women are a threat to male dominated society and this whining is nothing but a sign of reluctance on the part of those who see no problem with this and even seek to retain this unfair and illogical way.
Of course individualized situations matter, but if you think the original premise of the thread is based on anything more than "women try to fleece men" you're crazy.
And if you're going to get into matters of legal policy then you sure as hell are going to have to deal with generalities. There's no such thing as personally-customized law.
Women are forced by the culture to sacrifice any career goals they have and take on the responsibility of motherhood. My girlfriend is in the top 10% of her UT Law class right now (She's starting her 2nd year this fall), I am a journalism student.
She has the potential to make ~$60k her first year out of college and the sky is the limit after that. Me? $60k/yr is what I'd make maybe 5-10 years from graduation, and it won't get much higher than that.
Which one is socially obligated to further their career while the other one stays home with the child? We are liberalizing more to accept the Daddy Homemaker role but it's not there yet by a longshot.
Which one makes the most sense logically?
You want to talk about a sacrifice, how about sacrificing all your dreams to have a child and raise it while the husband goes to work? And not only that, in a society that is increasingly hostile towards stay-at-home moms; from Hillary Clinton's "I'm not going to stay home and bake cookies" to the ****ing Promise Keepers and whining white men.
Strong women are a threat to male dominated society and this whining is nothing but a sign of reluctance on the part of those who see no problem with this and even seek to retain this unfair and illogical way.
The original premise of this thread is simply what it states. Other people toss up dirt/bullsh*t and we discuss that too. Big deal.
Women and women's groups are complaining that men have ANY control over their children after a divorce is initiated. Did you read the NOW recommendations I posted here, or were you to busy dismissing everything with another self-pitying man platitude?
You don't find this a bit EXTREME?
Joint custody should be voluntary, with sole custody default to the primary caregiver at seperation.
Oh yeah, it's only about FLEECING men when a woman's group suggests that the second a woman files divorce she gets SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL custody. In other words the man has absolutley NO RIGHT to see his child.
Woman are not forced by culture to take on the responsibility of motherhood. It is a PREFERENCE. There are plenty of couples who have both parents work full time. There are plenty that have only the man or woman work full time. Likewise when a group like NOW (which I think all parties here can agree are working for women's interests and not men's) suggests that women should get sole custody, it is obviously because most women prefer being a mom over just about any other role. Smart men should follow suit and prefer being dad's and husbands.
I had a friend years ago on a BBS. He was a libertarian and he put it the absolute best when accused of sexism when his wife decided to stay home with their child.
Quote:
The goal is not to have both of us slaving away for some boss who doesn't give a damn about us. The goal is to have NEITHER of us slaving away for a boss who doesn't give a damn about us. We're half way there.
This expectations thing is a two way street. Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work. In otherwords men don't mind supporting a woman, but the reverse is seldom true. Perhaps when you are staying home with your children while your wife is earning away, you will see how "societally acceptable" it is when woman after woman asks her why you are such a deadbeat. Perhaps then you will see who is enforcing a preference.
As for sacrificing all their dreams to stay at home and raise a child... for many women THAT IS THEIR DREAM. It is SOCIETY and specifically FEMINISTS like Hillary Clinton that attempt to make women feel like crap about being a wife and mother. Stupid feminists have followed an even more stupid doctrine that men and women derive their worth from where they work and what they earn. It is delusionally wrong from a male perspective and even more so from a female perspective. It is the height of idiocy to derive who you are and what your worth to society is from a stupid friggin job.
My wife stays at home with our two children as her choice. She is far happier at home than she ever was at work. She has a college degree in English and worked for several years in her field before deciding this. She didn't destroy her dreams by becoming a mom. She fulfilled them. She now dreams of being able to stay home and homeschool our children, taking them to activities, museums, and having them be several grade levels ahead in most activities instead of worrying about sticking them in classrooms with kids who's parents own McMansion's and combined earned 100k a year but don't have time to raise their own children.
I work as a teacher and as a result I have plenty of time to spend with my wife and our children. I will NEVER buy into the concept that my worth is based off of how many e-mails, cell calls I get, how IN THE LOOP I am with regard to company decisions, or how many hours a week I can slave away for someone who doesn't give a damn about me.
As for Promise Keepers, I don't know what your strange obsession is with them, but I have not read of them oppressing women in any way.
This thread is not about income. It is about another role, PARENTING. Groups like NOW believe that men have essentually NO ROLE within the family except to go earn money and periodically donate sperm. While you contend a woman's role is a cultural expectaion. Men's is a LEGAL expectation for which they have been jailed for doing something as innocent as calling their children on the wrong day of the week. Men will subjugate their parenting roles so women may grow theirs within the family. Men will work longer so women don't have too. However if a woman decides to file for divorce, men are no longer obligated to insure they have LESS parenting time so the women have more. It should be equal.
Oh my God. That is just... surreal logic you're using there Groverat. Where do I start?
First let me say: I'm not and have not yet been married, and I have one brother and one very close friend who were married, with child, then divorced. But more on them in abit, first I want to tackle this whole "career woman as societal victim" crap.
Quote:
Of course individualized situations matter, but if you think the original premise of the thread is based on anything more than "women try to fleece men" you're crazy.
Nice assumption. I didn't get that sense. Read to me like he was merely saying divorce / custody proceedings should start at "50/50" and then work their way in one litigant's favor or the other, based on the facts surrounding that family. I didn't get the "women are the root of all evil" thing at all out of it, but that's just me. Maybe based on your prior run-ins with Trumptman in AO you assume too much?
Quote:
And if you're going to get into matters of legal policy then you sure as hell are going to have to deal with generalities. There's no such thing as personally-customized law.
Generalities as a matter of law is one thing, but that's not the argument you seem to be making -- at all. See below.
Quote:
Women are forced by the culture to sacrifice any career goals they have and take on the responsibility of motherhood.
Ok, someone stop me when we get to the "legal generalities" that we have to deal with... so far all I see is is a bunch of feminist bullcrap. This is AMERICA. If you want to get technical about it, no one is forced to do anything. Are these self-sufficient, highly intelligent women forced to take a marriage vow? No. Are they forced to have a child? No. Are they forced to quit their jobs and take care of the kids if they do have a kid? No.
Every couple can make a different choice, based on their particular circumstance, Groverat. I could spend the next five parapgraphs or so citing different examples of couples I know that made the choice to either: have one parent stay back 50% or more of the work week, do daycare almost immediately, or even bring their kids to work. The details are immaterial really; all that matters is that there are choices to be made and rarely is one choice "forced" over another by an outside party or influence. That's just pure fatalist bullshit IMO.
The other point is - and there's not much disputing it, depending on the state you live in - that employers are the ones that are legally forced to give expectant mothers a range of choices for managing their careers while caring for their child. Companies can be sued to hell and back again for threatening to give a woman's job away simply because she's having a child. Even if the companies were likely to win the cases, the simple cost of litigation is enough that they avoid it like the plague.
In short, it is the companies who are frowned upon by society for not making every concession possible to expectant and new mothers (and women in general), in order that they may have fulfilling careers. This society we are living in is so decidedly "pro woman" (or maybe anti-man is a more accurate phrase) in almost every respect, it is truly scary that you do not see it for what it is. But you are still a student so I should not be surprised. Life on campus is nothing like life in the real world, I can promise you.
Quote:
My girlfriend is in the top 10% of her UT Law class right now (She's starting her 2nd year this fall), I am a journalism student. She has the potential to make ~$60k her first year out of college and the sky is the limit after that. Me? $60k/yr is what I'd make maybe 5-10 years from graduation, and it won't get much higher than that.
Which one is socially obligated to further their career while the other one stays home with the child?
"Socially obligated"? Take a step back and ask yourself what that means, because I sure as hell don't know what it means. I know what you *want* it to mean, in order to back up your argument, but it's as hollow a cliché as there is. Society cannot thrust upon any man or woman *any* duty, other than obeying the laws that govern our communities, states and country. People CHOOSE their path in life; it's as simple as that.
There are no laws mandating how a woman must govern her career or home life, in the case of her having a child. Every couple is 100% free to: have the woman or man stay at home full time; have the woman and man split time at home; have the woman or man continue working full time, thus employing day care; have the woman or man (or both) find new, more flexible jobs; etc. The notion that society somehow coerces women to drop their careers because they had a kid is laughable.
You seem to think that there is some ideal living scenario that child-bearing, working women are being systematically denied. However, I can tell you that you were on the right track when talking about taking responsibility for one's decisions. But it's not just the man who needs to "sack up". The woman also: chose her career path, chose her husband / partner, and CHOSE to have a child. That means she KNOWS she will face tough choices once that child is born. That doesn't make her a victim; that's life, friend. That's life. Hard choices and making the best of your choices with the resources available to you.
You show me how society at large can force a person to: take a particular type of job, marry a particular person, have or not have kids, and care for those kids in only one way, and I'll conceed. Otherwise....
Quote:
We are liberalizing more to accept the Daddy Homemaker role but it's not there yet by a longshot.
Again more of this implied societal control stuff. Why do we need to "liberalize" anything for Christ's sake? Why do we have to institutionalize a process that is 100% personal in nature -- between the mother and father? It's not a question of making societal norms for people so they can feel good about their choices at the dinner party. It's a question of the mother and father looking at *their* situation, determining what is best for *their* child and then DOING IT. If that means the woman works 60 hours while the man quits his lower paying job to stay home, then that's what you have to do.
If he feels guilty / inadequate / small-dicked because of it, that's HIS problem, not society's. If I were in that situation and I was forced to chose between my manly pride and my kid, guess which choice I'd make? And on the other side, if in a particular family the woman has a less upwardly mobile job and the man has a better chance to provide for the family, why is it so inconceivable that the woman should perhaps stay home some or all of the work week, until such time as the kid is old enough for daycare or whatever? What about a lesbian couple with a kid. Is the one that stays home being "kept down" by a male-dominated society?
Quote:
You want to talk about a sacrifice, how about sacrificing all your dreams to have a child and raise it while the husband goes to work? And not only that, in a society that is increasingly hostile towards stay-at-home moms
That is the biggest load of shit I'ver ever heard, in descending order. As noted above, no one is forcing the woman to "give up her career forever" and stay home while the Dad works. This isn't Pleasantville we're living in, in case you hadn't noticed. They make whatever choice they make and they live with it, period. And there ARE choices about childcare and work to be made. This is not a question of absolutism.
Two, I have yet to meet ONE single, solitary person who is hostile toward a stay-at-home Moms OR Dads. In the cases I know about, people that know the at-home parent are generally very supportive. I often hear "I think it's great that you chose to spend so much time with your children vs. work". Are you actually familiar with many people who take a negative attitude towards people who stay at home with their kids Groverat? If you are, I think you need to meet some new people because you're hanging out with some serious A-holes.
Quote:
Strong women are a threat to male dominated society...
That's really clever. Did you get that from your girlfriend or the Lifetime network? Oprah maybe? Do yourself a favor and don't spout off cliche crap like that because I know you're smart enough to figure out things aren't that cut and dry in the real world....
Women and women's groups are complaining that men have ANY control over their children after a divorce is initiated. Did you read the NOW recommendations I posted here, or were you to busy dismissing everything with another self-pitying man platitude?
NOW = "women"?
And you wonder why you come across like a sexist neandertal. Do you think I'm stupid enough to say "blacks think this" then bring up Al Sharpton or "Christians think this" and then quote Jerry Falwell? How would *you* feel if someone said OJ Simpson was representative of all men?
Quote:
You don't find this a bit EXTREME?
Yeah, you pick the extremist group and you find an extreme viewpoint, go ****ing figure, eh?
Al qaeda wants all Americans dead, what the hell does that have to do with Arabs?
Quote:
Woman are not forced by culture to take on the responsibility of motherhood. It is a PREFERENCE.
Says the white man.
What society are you living in?
Quote:
Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work.
First off, why don't you show me some statistics and source them. Your word is worth crap on this topic because you're obviously a raving sexist with a chip the size of Montana on his shoulder.
Secondly "send their spouses." I guess women are the only ones with choice, eh? Pathetic hypocrite, you are.
Quote:
In otherwords men don't mind supporting a woman, but the reverse is seldom true. Perhaps when you are staying home with your children while your wife is earning away, you will see how "societally acceptable" it is when woman after woman asks her why you are such a deadbeat. Perhaps then you will see who is enforcing a preference.
You take the exception and speak of it as if it is a rule. And even in your exception to social stigma is proven. Men are supposed to be the providers, yes, that is the social stigma, but you act as if it works only one way. That is why you come across a simpering fool.
Quote:
[b]As for sacrificing all their dreams to stay at home and raise a child... for many women THAT IS THEIR DREAM.
Really? So if you have a daughter all she is is a mindless baby machine? I guess the booming population of women in college are just there to find a husband, eh?
It's difficult to talk to someone who is so blatantly sexist and stuck in a 1950s mode of thinking.
Women aren't just baby machines, jack-ass.
Quote:
It is SOCIETY and specifically FEMINISTS like Hillary Clinton that attempt to make women feel like crap about being a wife and mother.
There is a difference between being a housewife because you love your kids and being a mindless drone who thinks of nothing else.
With stunning logical men like yourself it is a wonder women's rights took so long to advance. The good 'ole rule of thumb!
Quote:
She didn't destroy her dreams by becoming a mom. She fulfilled them. She now dreams of being able to stay home and homeschool our children, taking them to activities, museums, and having them be several grade levels ahead in most activities instead of worrying about sticking them in classrooms with kids who's parents own McMansion's and combined earned 100k a year but don't have time to raise their own children.
Tell me, trumptman, how has your wife managed to not catch the bug of the evil fleecing woman? You hold females in such disdain and fear I wonder how you felt them worthy to bear your children. Dirty fleecing scoundrels.
Why did your wife study English if her dream was to become a mother? A mere diversion?
When did she get her NOW membership since they represent "women"?
---
Moogs:
Quote:
If you want to get technical about it, no one is forced to do anything. Are these self-sufficient, highly intelligent women forced to take a marriage vow?
And who is most often likely to violate those marriage vows?
Think about that for a second and you have your answer.
If you want to dismiss the truth that I speak about a male-dominated society by saying I watch Oprah, that's fine. Your standpoint of two divorced brothers hasn't influenced your logic at all, I'm sure.
And who is most often likely to violate those marriage vows?
That is completely irrelevant. Completely. First off, it is not actually possible to scientifically prove men are more likely to violate their various marriage vows than are women. Second, I'm not talking fault, I'm talking very upwardly mobile women who cherish their careers, and at the same time CHOOSE to get married. If they are so in love with their careers and don't want anyone or anything to slow them down (that's fine...I can understand that), then getting married only makes it more difficult -- subsequently having children makes it doubly so.
The truth you are avoiding is that you can't have your cake and eat it too in life. You have to define what your priorities are and then make choices to attain those priorities / goals. If a woman's goal is to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, GREAT. Guess what though, that makes it really f-ing hard for her to justify having children [during her climb to the top], because children - ALL children - DO need their mothers [to be a part of their everyday lives]. So, make your choice and stick with it.
[Maybe that means Dad quits his job and stays home after the delivery, maybe it means something else. It's up to them. The point is, don't [blindly defend women who bitch about not being able to be a real mother and hold a high-powered job at the same time, because the reality is those two things are completely incompatible. Both the job and the kid require 65+ hours during the work week, so what's it gonna be? Diapers in the boardroom? I think not. That's not male dominance, that's called professionalism. Leave the Pampers at home lady, mmmm K?]
Quote:
Think about that for a second and you have your answer.
See above.
Quote:
If you want to dismiss the truth that I speak about a male-dominated society by saying I watch Oprah, that's fine. Your standpoint of two divorced brothers hasn't influenced your logic at all, I'm sure.
Of course my brother (and friend, not two brothers) has some influence on how I see the divorce aspect of things, but notice my first post was about what happens before the divorce. As I said, we'll get to the custody part as we go and I'll lay out my cards on that part then.
Either way, are you going to bother responding to the meat of my original post or not? Whether or not society is dominated by males (depends on who's asking and under what context if you ask me), that does not = "all women in America are FORCED to choose EITHER their career, or having a kid(s) and staying home". It just doesn't happen that way. There are many options in between that people can and do choose every single day. You seem to be implying women have no control in what happens to them once they get married / pregnant, which I find to be more insulting to woman than anything Trumptman said.
When I seem like the bleeding-heart liberal, you know you've screwed up somewhere.
Moogs:
Quote:
First off, it is not actually possible to scientifically prove men are more likely to violate their various marriage vows than are women.
Are you saying men do not more often violate them?
Quote:
Second, I'm not talking fault, I'm talking very upwardly mobile women who cherish their careers, and at the same time CHOOSE to get married.
And men CHOOSE to get married to them, knowing full damn well what the laws of their state are and what the consequences are.
Quote:
If they are so in love with their careers and don't want anyone or anything to slow them down (that's fine...I can understand that), then getting married only makes it more difficult -- subsequently having children makes it doubly so.
Same goes for the men. You know, the poor pitiful victims.
Quote:
The truth you are avoiding is that you can't have your cake and eat it too in life. You have to define what your priorities are and then make choices to attain those priorities / goals.
I'm sorry, Moogs, am I the one starting threads about evil men and how they oppress poor women? Save your moralizing lectures for the sexist oaf who starts these discussions and refuses to acknowledge that maybe men have their own minds as well.
Quote:
The point is, don't [blindly defend women who bitch about not being able to be a real mother and hold a high-powered job at the same time, because the reality is those two things are completely incompatible.
Did I? Or was I defending women against the very sexist and generalized attacks from trumptman?
Do you have any gripe with what I actually say? Men are more likely to cheat/be abusive. FACT. If it is true that 90% of divorces are filed by women, wouldn't that merely be a result of that FACT?
Quote:
Either way, are you going to bother responding to the meat of my original post or not?
Didn't have time for it (Lifetime was playing a great movie, clever boy), and that's not what I'm getting at. You'll notice I'm not advocating/bemoaning any legislation, I'm not pushing a chip-on-the-shoulder agenda so the meat of your post is either preaching to the choir or has nothing to do with what I posted.
I've covered my views on this in the dozen-other woman-hating threads trumptman has started. Use the search function if you really want to know what I feel about the legislation (or my general feelings on the subject).
Quote:
that does not = "all women in America are FORCED to choose EITHER their career, or having a kid(s) and staying home".
Of course that doesn't happen, but the impetus is generally on the mother. Of course, that's if we're willing to acknowledge that biases work both ways (or if we only want to think they work against men, boo-hoo).
Quote:
You seem to be implying women have no control in what happens to them once they get married / pregnant, which I find to be more insulting to woman than anything Trumptman said.
Never meant to imply such a thing, sorry if you misunderstood. But social structures are slow to change.
Sad that pointing out that not all women are NOW members who want to castrate men in rituals gains one such hatred.
if you don't want to divorce, don't get married (unless you need a green card or something).
i find it unfair to divide kids not 50 - 50 %. and that is also DURING the marriage. if you get kids, involve yourselves BOTH OF YOU to raise the child, before it's too late. i guess that way both of you also have some life outside the baby poos and sandcakes, you are more likely to understand each other and even less likely to divorce.
if a woman is required by law to stay home XXX period of time after getting a child, divide that time by 50 % and force the husband / partner etc to stay home the same 50 % of XXX time too. that way it will also be more likely that getting a female employee under 40 y age, will not lead to those illegal questions about when getting married and what kind of family plans or reproductional insticnts she has. (at least in europe they ask it).
oh - the same-sex marriages with kids that divorce then? 2 men divorcing will each get 20 % of time and 2 women divorcing both get 80 %? \
Not even sure we're arguing about the same thing at this point, but...
I am not advocating, should a husband and wife both have demanding careers, that the woman always be the default "stay at home" choice when the children come along. It has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and sometimes, the woman WILL be the logical choice to stay at home. FACT. However, for some strange reason, when the media looks at a woman who does this, she has been "held down", when a man does this he is merely "sensitive". I just don't get that attitude.
What the media and feminists never acknolwedge is: having children isn't just "something you do" or "are supposed to do" when you get married". It is about sacrifice. It is, if handled responsibly, a full-time job all by itself. FACT.
Having children should be a conscious decision, one that requires you put the child's needs and wants ahead of your own, and for a number of years not just 3 months. It is in its purest sense an act of selflessness -- willingly bringing another human being into the world so that you can care for and raise them. It means putting yourself second and the child first. Novel concept these days I realize... Not saying that's your take on kids, but rather the take of the people on your side of the fence.
To summarize: if you have two people with very demanding careers, and those two people truly want to raise a family, one of them is going to have to change their working arrangements significantly. And of course the man has to honestly evaluate just as the woman should. I just don't see women as being victims when they decide to stay at home with their kids, and regret later on they didn't keep working. That is their decision, they should live with it instead of crying to ... Oprah or Dr. Nill. Regret is part of life. We all face it, we all have to deal with it.
Should I have been a journalism major, or should I have been braver and tried something less traditional? Should I have tried that small company that wanted to hire me out of college (keeping me in Iowa), or should I have done what I did and gone Chicago corporate? Should I have married my college sweetheart? Did I make a mistake not having children earlier in my life? Have I not taken enough risks? Too many risks? You get the idea. Life is full of choices and we don't get to hit a "reset" button when we make one that ends up creating more challenges / difficulties than we anticipated. We f-ing live with it and do the best we can.
*shrug*
I see most of those "career woman feminist" agendas (not saying they're yours but it seemed like it for a while there...) as a case of very spoiled and immature women having a hissy because they can't have their perfect dream job, AND kids, AND the big house, AND AND AND. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their friggin choices anymore (that includes not only greedy husbands, but many career women who choose to get pregnant and then regret it later). It's like they think they have a God-given right to a perfect existence. I say grow up people. Stop whining and go read your kid a story already.
[edit - one other thing...]
you asked:
Quote:
Are you saying men do not more often violate them?
I am saying I have no idea if it is the men or the women who violate the various vows of marriage more often than the other, nor do I have any idea which is more likely to violate them. And neither do you, unless you want to pull some amazing scientific research out of your hat. Because the violations have more to do with personality and character than genitalia.
And genetics have a hell of a lot to do with behavior, and genetics are the undisputed singular cause of genetalia.
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
I'm not talking about women always being oppressed. I'm talking about something very specific, divorce. The one who stayed at home sacrificed their career (whether or not you want it it's a sacrifice) for the raising of the child. 99 times out of 100 this is the woman if there's a stay-at-home. That's my point.
And genetics have a hell of a lot to do with behavior, and genetics are the undisputed singular cause of genetalia.
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
I'm not talking about women always being oppressed. I'm talking about something very specific, divorce. The one who stayed at home sacrificed their career (whether or not you want it it's a sacrifice) for the raising of the child. 99 times out of 100 this is the woman if there's a stay-at-home. That's my point.
Sorry just had to jump in here real quick. I know there are other issues to address in other posts, but this one was the clincher.
Women are just as violent as men. They just express it differently. Women are just as sexual as men and just as likely to cheat. Your assertion that for every violent woman there are hundreds of violent men is pure bullcrap.
A recent meta-analysis of thousands of people across multiple domestic violence studies found women just as inclined to violence as men. Women simply express it differently. Men could simply get the job done with a fist. Women are more inclined to blind side you, get someone else to do it, or use weapons. (In otherwords, don't go to sleep )
Likewise even those statistics could be skewed because one of the most common forms of female bullying is false accusations. Think about what a woman can gain with a domestic violence charge. She can refuse the man visitation with his children. She can get restraining orders. She can basically criminalize all his dealings with her.
Likewise your contention that men violate their wedding vows more than women is pure bullshit as well. Women are again, just as inclined to adultery as men.
Women are just as violent as men. They just express it differently. Women are just as sexual as men and just as likely to cheat. Your assertion that for every violent woman there are hundreds of violent men is pure bullcrap.
"physically violent". Discuss what I say, don't generalize what I say to make refuting it easier. click
Quote:
A recent meta-analysis of thousands of people across multiple domestic violence studies found women just as inclined to violence as men. Women simply express it differently. Men could simply get the job done with a fist. Women are more inclined to blind side you, get someone else to do it, or use weapons. (In otherwords, don't go to sleep )
Sources? Links?
Your link below even says that women are less likely to kill their husbands and points out the obvious, female-on-male physical violence isn't as damaging as male-on-female physical violence.
Quote:
Likewise your contention that men violate their wedding vows more than women is pure bullshit as well. Women are again, just as inclined to adultery as men.
If that's what you want to believe, then fine. You can quote "intellectualconservative" all day long and keep your anti-woman bullshit alive. Have fun in your victim world.
women ARE violent too, but most of them are violent first verbally. snagging, ranting, everything that you (as a man) do or don't, your kids that caused you to become a pissed off, unsatisfied, obese, ugly and miserable house-bound careerless woman "it is YOUR fault (to pre-adolescent daughter) that i am so fat and miserable! i wish you was never born (like the daughter chose to?)", complaining that "you are not the man i married to" (yes, after some years of the continuos rant i can't see how he still could be the blindly in love cutie lover). isn't that violence? my dad beat me physically, but that hurt mostly just as being beaten or a bit after (boiling water hurt some more, whatever) - not as the continuos rant, talk-n-rant-only-to-fill-the-silence by my mum. when i was small, or when i was living with them, i always hoped they'd divorce. if i didint have to be on my nerves 100 % of th time under the same roof with them because they were shouting, argueing etc, i'd have had a lot more energy to other things and i'd been more stable as a person.
living with them left a "if being married is THIS, i'll never marry". they were together because they found no one else to argue with? what if my mum had found some life instead of trying to save her marriage (=have me when the home was to be too empty)? i'd have been more stable if they divorced, but seeing they STILL (@ 70) argue i don't know what they'd be without each other though. more miserable than now i think.
they left also a strong willingness to NOT pass any miserable genes to any future generations.
all that doesn't mean to be alone either. i just refuse to argue like them, and to use the people i care about to suffer if i feel bad. if "marriage" is what i saw, i'd just rather stay mentally something else. i don't want to be like my mum, and if all this again sounds over-negative towards women there might be a reason.
women ARE violent too, but most of them are violent first verbally. snagging, ranting, everything that you (as a man) do or don't,
As irritating as nagging and ranting are, they are signs of dissatisfaction that is dealt with through communication. I grew up with 2 sisters and a mother, surrounded by multitudes of "nagging" females. That is opening the lines of communication in an often irritating way.
If you truly can't handle "nagging" then that's your own fault for being emotionally stunted and immature.
Quote:
isn't that violence?
If you want to draw the definition of "violence" out so broad as to strip it of meaning sure, I guess looking at someone funny is even violence.
But again you'll notice I said "physical violence", something those arguing against me seem eager to ignore.
Quote:
my dad beat me physically, but that hurt mostly just as being beaten or a bit after (boiling water hurt some more, whatever) - not as the continuos rant, talk-n-rant-only-to-fill-the-silence by my mum.
Which would you prefer for your child if you had to pick?
Quote:
when i was small, or when i was living with them, i always hoped they'd divorce. if i didint have to be on my nerves 100 % of th time under the same roof with them because they were shouting, argueing etc, i'd have had a lot more energy to other things and i'd been more stable as a person.
Your mother nagged and your father beat you (and probably her). Your mother probably nagged before your father became abusive, maybe? Is this, in your mind, causation?
Nagging is communication, aggressive and irritating communication but it can easily be worked past. Physical abuse is a whole different animal entirely.
Nagging is communication, aggressive and irritating communication but it can easily be worked past. Physical abuse is a whole different animal entirely.
What, if you have one, is your point?
On one hand, there are issues of fairness in divorce proceedings, and the subsequent issues of child custody, child support, and alimony being.
On the other hand, you keep going on and on about how doing thus and so would avoid divorce in the first place.
So, is your point that if don't make careful decisions about marriage and children, or have bad communication and conflict resolution skills, and end up in divorce... Well, then the fairness of divorce proceedings don't really matter because anyone who doesn't follow your sage advice deserves whatever they get? All the more so when a man gets the worst of it?
Nagging is communication, aggressive and irritating communication but it can easily be worked past. Physical abuse is a whole different animal entirely.
I've agreed with most of everything else you've said in this thread but I think you're wrong about this.
There is a lot more to being a battered wife (or husband) than just physical violence.
At a certain level it is about control and so there are many common 'symptoms' such as restricting the battered partners access to money, verbal attacks aimed at reducing self-esteem, and preventing contact with friends, family and any other support networks. These can be reliably used to predict actual physical violence.
----
Also note that both men and women use verbal and physical violence in relationships though as trumpetman correctly notes a woman attacking a man is more likely to use a weapon due to smaller size/strength .
I'm surprised he didn't also add that recently laws have been changed to shorten the sentences of female battered-spouses who kill in retaliation/self-defence as they were getting longer sentences than male battered-spouses. This was because if a man 'lost it' and killed their abusive wife in a fight they wouldn't get the extra prison time for pre-meditation that the female who stabs her abuser in his sleep (etc.) would.
Also your comment on nagging reminds me of a famous gaffe of Sean Connery's, when he claimed in an interview that it was OK to hit a woman as long as you used an open hand to slap them rather than a fist. I think you're using a relatively benign example to dismiss the very real problem of verbal/mental abuse, both male on female and vice versa.
As irritating as nagging and ranting are, they are signs of dissatisfaction that is dealt with through communication. I grew up with 2 sisters and a mother, surrounded by multitudes of "nagging" females. That is opening the lines of communication in an often irritating way.
If you truly can't handle "nagging" then that's your own fault for being emotionally stunted and immature.
If you want to draw the definition of "violence" out so broad as to strip it of meaning sure, I guess looking at someone funny is even violence.
But again you'll notice I said "physical violence", something those arguing against me seem eager to ignore.
Which would you prefer for your child if you had to pick?
Your mother nagged and your father beat you (and probably her). Your mother probably nagged before your father became abusive, maybe? Is this, in your mind, causation?
Nagging is communication, aggressive and irritating communication but it can easily be worked past. Physical abuse is a whole different animal entirely.
Nagging is NOT a part of communication. I admit it is one of my incapacities not to tollerate it, thus my best friends consist of very few female friends (not solely for this cause). I did not talk about ONLY nagging as a means of "verbal violence", it includes all the things said for the sole purpose of hurting people. For example, a group of 6 years old kids 'nagging' about one of their friends being a 'lardass' in continuation, is not nagging but violence, especially if it leads the kid to be at 80 lb untill she'll / he'll be 30, caused mainly of that 'nagging'. if the continuos nagging of mother to her kids leads the kids to have an impaired image of themselves, not believing in themselves, having addictive behavious (alcoholism, drug abuse, eating disorders, gambling, sportholism etc) it is not 'nagging', it is violence. the nagging isn't supposed to only harm the other individuals, the verbal violence instead does that. if you nag to your daughter (as a mum) always that your miserability (being fat and having no life) is HER FAULT, that is no nagging, that is verbal violence, as in the end she is programmed to believe that all the miserability in her life is really caused by you and feeling always guilty in her life whatever she does. as that is not on the normal conscious level, it is also really hard to un-do as improving your self conception, getting rid of your depression or disorders etc.
As i said before, the physical violence hurts less. Getting badly beaten may hurt a month, but it hurts you less in 20 years than a longer lasting, conitnuos verbal violence did.
As a child, if mine would have divorced, i would not have chosen my mum. That does not mean of having chosen dad either.
As for "my child", as you put it, it remains hypothetical. Firstly, i'm not that americanized that i'd see the divorce as a first alternative. Secondly, if that was an alternative (rather not) and me and my partner would have kids, i don't see why based on my sex i would or should be entitled to have a 80 % time of having the kids in my custody. Have a pair number of kids so you can devide them easier? Let the children choose, they know best who they prefer. Or just 50 - 50 % of time of them for both.
The specialty of mother-child relation is a myth, nothing else. Or i and many other people i know are just the exceptions of this rule. If you have a good relationship with your mother, it is not as solely something based on your genes, it is like any relation something you have constructed. If it is constucted 'dofferently', you never have trusted your mum and have never considered her as a friend, more just as a person that you are socially obbliqued to have a relationship with even as adult and when you just wouldn't like to have.
I don't know when my mum started her behaviour. My father beating anyone was not caused by the behaviours of my mum, more likely just a shadow of his own childhood when he was abused. He mostly managed to break his behaviour patterns as i ran away from home.
Mothers are by no means the only source of the 'verbal violence', by any means. It just seems that i have heard so much more of that as the comments said to their children from mums than dads. Not every male is physically violent or female verbally, Women are just no saints, and verbal violence is no better than the physical.
Comments
That's why we hear stupid shit like "they *get* to stay home!". I don't know if I can even have the patience to calmly refute such ignorance. It's ridiculous, the product of countless bitch-sessions between self-pitying men in a culture dominated by men.
Boo-****ing-hoo. Hey here's an idea, geniuses, why not make your marriage work? Why not take more than 3 months to decide whether or not to get married and a few years of marriage before having a kid and being 100% certain this marriage will last before you do that? Why not take responsibility for what you are obligated to do, sack up and be a ****ing man about it?
Going to high school in East Texas I heard more self-pitying "woe is me, the white man is oppressed" garbage than one ever needs and it is ludicrous.
Let it go, it's ridiculous.
Originally posted by groverat
Let it go, it's ridiculous.
Groverat, if we lived in a world where gross generalizations were the keys to life, and messy specific details of real lives and individual situations never mattered, you'd be hailed as a genius.
If.
Groverat, if we lived in a world where gross generalizations were the keys to life, and messy specific details of real lives and individual situations never mattered, you'd be hailed as a genius.
Of course individualized situations matter, but if you think the original premise of the thread is based on anything more than "women try to fleece men" you're crazy.
And if you're going to get into matters of legal policy then you sure as hell are going to have to deal with generalities. There's no such thing as personally-customized law.
Women are forced by the culture to sacrifice any career goals they have and take on the responsibility of motherhood. My girlfriend is in the top 10% of her UT Law class right now (She's starting her 2nd year this fall), I am a journalism student.
She has the potential to make ~$60k her first year out of college and the sky is the limit after that. Me? $60k/yr is what I'd make maybe 5-10 years from graduation, and it won't get much higher than that.
Which one is socially obligated to further their career while the other one stays home with the child? We are liberalizing more to accept the Daddy Homemaker role but it's not there yet by a longshot.
Which one makes the most sense logically?
You want to talk about a sacrifice, how about sacrificing all your dreams to have a child and raise it while the husband goes to work? And not only that, in a society that is increasingly hostile towards stay-at-home moms; from Hillary Clinton's "I'm not going to stay home and bake cookies" to the ****ing Promise Keepers and whining white men.
Strong women are a threat to male dominated society and this whining is nothing but a sign of reluctance on the part of those who see no problem with this and even seek to retain this unfair and illogical way.
Originally posted by groverat
shetline:
Of course individualized situations matter, but if you think the original premise of the thread is based on anything more than "women try to fleece men" you're crazy.
And if you're going to get into matters of legal policy then you sure as hell are going to have to deal with generalities. There's no such thing as personally-customized law.
Women are forced by the culture to sacrifice any career goals they have and take on the responsibility of motherhood. My girlfriend is in the top 10% of her UT Law class right now (She's starting her 2nd year this fall), I am a journalism student.
She has the potential to make ~$60k her first year out of college and the sky is the limit after that. Me? $60k/yr is what I'd make maybe 5-10 years from graduation, and it won't get much higher than that.
Which one is socially obligated to further their career while the other one stays home with the child? We are liberalizing more to accept the Daddy Homemaker role but it's not there yet by a longshot.
Which one makes the most sense logically?
You want to talk about a sacrifice, how about sacrificing all your dreams to have a child and raise it while the husband goes to work? And not only that, in a society that is increasingly hostile towards stay-at-home moms; from Hillary Clinton's "I'm not going to stay home and bake cookies" to the ****ing Promise Keepers and whining white men.
Strong women are a threat to male dominated society and this whining is nothing but a sign of reluctance on the part of those who see no problem with this and even seek to retain this unfair and illogical way.
The original premise of this thread is simply what it states. Other people toss up dirt/bullsh*t and we discuss that too. Big deal.
Women and women's groups are complaining that men have ANY control over their children after a divorce is initiated. Did you read the NOW recommendations I posted here, or were you to busy dismissing everything with another self-pitying man platitude?
You don't find this a bit EXTREME?
Joint custody should be voluntary, with sole custody default to the primary caregiver at seperation.
Oh yeah, it's only about FLEECING men when a woman's group suggests that the second a woman files divorce she gets SOLE LEGAL AND PHYSICAL custody. In other words the man has absolutley NO RIGHT to see his child.
Woman are not forced by culture to take on the responsibility of motherhood. It is a PREFERENCE. There are plenty of couples who have both parents work full time. There are plenty that have only the man or woman work full time. Likewise when a group like NOW (which I think all parties here can agree are working for women's interests and not men's) suggests that women should get sole custody, it is obviously because most women prefer being a mom over just about any other role. Smart men should follow suit and prefer being dad's and husbands.
I had a friend years ago on a BBS. He was a libertarian and he put it the absolute best when accused of sexism when his wife decided to stay home with their child.
The goal is not to have both of us slaving away for some boss who doesn't give a damn about us. The goal is to have NEITHER of us slaving away for a boss who doesn't give a damn about us. We're half way there.
This expectations thing is a two way street. Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work. In otherwords men don't mind supporting a woman, but the reverse is seldom true. Perhaps when you are staying home with your children while your wife is earning away, you will see how "societally acceptable" it is when woman after woman asks her why you are such a deadbeat. Perhaps then you will see who is enforcing a preference.
As for sacrificing all their dreams to stay at home and raise a child... for many women THAT IS THEIR DREAM. It is SOCIETY and specifically FEMINISTS like Hillary Clinton that attempt to make women feel like crap about being a wife and mother. Stupid feminists have followed an even more stupid doctrine that men and women derive their worth from where they work and what they earn. It is delusionally wrong from a male perspective and even more so from a female perspective. It is the height of idiocy to derive who you are and what your worth to society is from a stupid friggin job.
My wife stays at home with our two children as her choice. She is far happier at home than she ever was at work. She has a college degree in English and worked for several years in her field before deciding this. She didn't destroy her dreams by becoming a mom. She fulfilled them. She now dreams of being able to stay home and homeschool our children, taking them to activities, museums, and having them be several grade levels ahead in most activities instead of worrying about sticking them in classrooms with kids who's parents own McMansion's and combined earned 100k a year but don't have time to raise their own children.
I work as a teacher and as a result I have plenty of time to spend with my wife and our children. I will NEVER buy into the concept that my worth is based off of how many e-mails, cell calls I get, how IN THE LOOP I am with regard to company decisions, or how many hours a week I can slave away for someone who doesn't give a damn about me.
As for Promise Keepers, I don't know what your strange obsession is with them, but I have not read of them oppressing women in any way.
This thread is not about income. It is about another role, PARENTING. Groups like NOW believe that men have essentually NO ROLE within the family except to go earn money and periodically donate sperm. While you contend a woman's role is a cultural expectaion. Men's is a LEGAL expectation for which they have been jailed for doing something as innocent as calling their children on the wrong day of the week. Men will subjugate their parenting roles so women may grow theirs within the family. Men will work longer so women don't have too. However if a woman decides to file for divorce, men are no longer obligated to insure they have LESS parenting time so the women have more. It should be equal.
Nick
First let me say: I'm not and have not yet been married, and I have one brother and one very close friend who were married, with child, then divorced. But more on them in abit, first I want to tackle this whole "career woman as societal victim" crap.
Of course individualized situations matter, but if you think the original premise of the thread is based on anything more than "women try to fleece men" you're crazy.
Nice assumption. I didn't get that sense. Read to me like he was merely saying divorce / custody proceedings should start at "50/50" and then work their way in one litigant's favor or the other, based on the facts surrounding that family. I didn't get the "women are the root of all evil" thing at all out of it, but that's just me. Maybe based on your prior run-ins with Trumptman in AO you assume too much?
And if you're going to get into matters of legal policy then you sure as hell are going to have to deal with generalities. There's no such thing as personally-customized law.
Generalities as a matter of law is one thing, but that's not the argument you seem to be making -- at all. See below.
Women are forced by the culture to sacrifice any career goals they have and take on the responsibility of motherhood.
Ok, someone stop me when we get to the "legal generalities" that we have to deal with... so far all I see is is a bunch of feminist bullcrap. This is AMERICA. If you want to get technical about it, no one is forced to do anything. Are these self-sufficient, highly intelligent women forced to take a marriage vow? No. Are they forced to have a child? No. Are they forced to quit their jobs and take care of the kids if they do have a kid? No.
Every couple can make a different choice, based on their particular circumstance, Groverat. I could spend the next five parapgraphs or so citing different examples of couples I know that made the choice to either: have one parent stay back 50% or more of the work week, do daycare almost immediately, or even bring their kids to work. The details are immaterial really; all that matters is that there are choices to be made and rarely is one choice "forced" over another by an outside party or influence. That's just pure fatalist bullshit IMO.
The other point is - and there's not much disputing it, depending on the state you live in - that employers are the ones that are legally forced to give expectant mothers a range of choices for managing their careers while caring for their child. Companies can be sued to hell and back again for threatening to give a woman's job away simply because she's having a child. Even if the companies were likely to win the cases, the simple cost of litigation is enough that they avoid it like the plague.
In short, it is the companies who are frowned upon by society for not making every concession possible to expectant and new mothers (and women in general), in order that they may have fulfilling careers. This society we are living in is so decidedly "pro woman" (or maybe anti-man is a more accurate phrase) in almost every respect, it is truly scary that you do not see it for what it is. But you are still a student so I should not be surprised. Life on campus is nothing like life in the real world, I can promise you.
My girlfriend is in the top 10% of her UT Law class right now (She's starting her 2nd year this fall), I am a journalism student. She has the potential to make ~$60k her first year out of college and the sky is the limit after that. Me? $60k/yr is what I'd make maybe 5-10 years from graduation, and it won't get much higher than that.
Which one is socially obligated to further their career while the other one stays home with the child?
"Socially obligated"? Take a step back and ask yourself what that means, because I sure as hell don't know what it means. I know what you *want* it to mean, in order to back up your argument, but it's as hollow a cliché as there is. Society cannot thrust upon any man or woman *any* duty, other than obeying the laws that govern our communities, states and country. People CHOOSE their path in life; it's as simple as that.
There are no laws mandating how a woman must govern her career or home life, in the case of her having a child. Every couple is 100% free to: have the woman or man stay at home full time; have the woman and man split time at home; have the woman or man continue working full time, thus employing day care; have the woman or man (or both) find new, more flexible jobs; etc. The notion that society somehow coerces women to drop their careers because they had a kid is laughable.
You seem to think that there is some ideal living scenario that child-bearing, working women are being systematically denied. However, I can tell you that you were on the right track when talking about taking responsibility for one's decisions. But it's not just the man who needs to "sack up". The woman also: chose her career path, chose her husband / partner, and CHOSE to have a child. That means she KNOWS she will face tough choices once that child is born. That doesn't make her a victim; that's life, friend. That's life. Hard choices and making the best of your choices with the resources available to you.
You show me how society at large can force a person to: take a particular type of job, marry a particular person, have or not have kids, and care for those kids in only one way, and I'll conceed. Otherwise....
We are liberalizing more to accept the Daddy Homemaker role but it's not there yet by a longshot.
Again more of this implied societal control stuff. Why do we need to "liberalize" anything for Christ's sake? Why do we have to institutionalize a process that is 100% personal in nature -- between the mother and father? It's not a question of making societal norms for people so they can feel good about their choices at the dinner party. It's a question of the mother and father looking at *their* situation, determining what is best for *their* child and then DOING IT. If that means the woman works 60 hours while the man quits his lower paying job to stay home, then that's what you have to do.
If he feels guilty / inadequate / small-dicked because of it, that's HIS problem, not society's. If I were in that situation and I was forced to chose between my manly pride and my kid, guess which choice I'd make? And on the other side, if in a particular family the woman has a less upwardly mobile job and the man has a better chance to provide for the family, why is it so inconceivable that the woman should perhaps stay home some or all of the work week, until such time as the kid is old enough for daycare or whatever? What about a lesbian couple with a kid. Is the one that stays home being "kept down" by a male-dominated society?
You want to talk about a sacrifice, how about sacrificing all your dreams to have a child and raise it while the husband goes to work? And not only that, in a society that is increasingly hostile towards stay-at-home moms
That is the biggest load of shit I'ver ever heard, in descending order. As noted above, no one is forcing the woman to "give up her career forever" and stay home while the Dad works. This isn't Pleasantville we're living in, in case you hadn't noticed. They make whatever choice they make and they live with it, period. And there ARE choices about childcare and work to be made. This is not a question of absolutism.
Two, I have yet to meet ONE single, solitary person who is hostile toward a stay-at-home Moms OR Dads. In the cases I know about, people that know the at-home parent are generally very supportive. I often hear "I think it's great that you chose to spend so much time with your children vs. work". Are you actually familiar with many people who take a negative attitude towards people who stay at home with their kids Groverat? If you are, I think you need to meet some new people because you're hanging out with some serious A-holes.
Strong women are a threat to male dominated society...
That's really clever. Did you get that from your girlfriend or the Lifetime network? Oprah maybe? Do yourself a favor and don't spout off cliche crap like that because I know you're smart enough to figure out things aren't that cut and dry in the real world....
Women and women's groups are complaining that men have ANY control over their children after a divorce is initiated. Did you read the NOW recommendations I posted here, or were you to busy dismissing everything with another self-pitying man platitude?
NOW = "women"?
And you wonder why you come across like a sexist neandertal. Do you think I'm stupid enough to say "blacks think this" then bring up Al Sharpton or "Christians think this" and then quote Jerry Falwell? How would *you* feel if someone said OJ Simpson was representative of all men?
You don't find this a bit EXTREME?
Yeah, you pick the extremist group and you find an extreme viewpoint, go ****ing figure, eh?
Al qaeda wants all Americans dead, what the hell does that have to do with Arabs?
Woman are not forced by culture to take on the responsibility of motherhood. It is a PREFERENCE.
Says the white man.
What society are you living in?
Why don't you look up some statistics on high income men, women and working spouses. When high income men earn plenty, women CHOOSE to stay home. When high income women earn plenty, they CHOOSE to still send their spouses to work.
First off, why don't you show me some statistics and source them. Your word is worth crap on this topic because you're obviously a raving sexist with a chip the size of Montana on his shoulder.
Secondly "send their spouses." I guess women are the only ones with choice, eh? Pathetic hypocrite, you are.
In otherwords men don't mind supporting a woman, but the reverse is seldom true. Perhaps when you are staying home with your children while your wife is earning away, you will see how "societally acceptable" it is when woman after woman asks her why you are such a deadbeat. Perhaps then you will see who is enforcing a preference.
You take the exception and speak of it as if it is a rule. And even in your exception to social stigma is proven. Men are supposed to be the providers, yes, that is the social stigma, but you act as if it works only one way. That is why you come across a simpering fool.
[b]As for sacrificing all their dreams to stay at home and raise a child... for many women THAT IS THEIR DREAM.
Really? So if you have a daughter all she is is a mindless baby machine? I guess the booming population of women in college are just there to find a husband, eh?
It's difficult to talk to someone who is so blatantly sexist and stuck in a 1950s mode of thinking.
Women aren't just baby machines, jack-ass.
It is SOCIETY and specifically FEMINISTS like Hillary Clinton that attempt to make women feel like crap about being a wife and mother.
There is a difference between being a housewife because you love your kids and being a mindless drone who thinks of nothing else.
With stunning logical men like yourself it is a wonder women's rights took so long to advance. The good 'ole rule of thumb!
She didn't destroy her dreams by becoming a mom. She fulfilled them. She now dreams of being able to stay home and homeschool our children, taking them to activities, museums, and having them be several grade levels ahead in most activities instead of worrying about sticking them in classrooms with kids who's parents own McMansion's and combined earned 100k a year but don't have time to raise their own children.
Tell me, trumptman, how has your wife managed to not catch the bug of the evil fleecing woman? You hold females in such disdain and fear I wonder how you felt them worthy to bear your children. Dirty fleecing scoundrels.
Why did your wife study English if her dream was to become a mother? A mere diversion?
When did she get her NOW membership since they represent "women"?
---
Moogs:
If you want to get technical about it, no one is forced to do anything. Are these self-sufficient, highly intelligent women forced to take a marriage vow?
And who is most often likely to violate those marriage vows?
Think about that for a second and you have your answer.
If you want to dismiss the truth that I speak about a male-dominated society by saying I watch Oprah, that's fine. Your standpoint of two divorced brothers hasn't influenced your logic at all, I'm sure.
Originally posted by groverat
If you want to dismiss the truth that I speak about a male-dominated society by saying I watch Oprah, that's fine.
You watch Oprah? Damn, I just lost some respect for you.
Originally posted by bunge
You watch Oprah? Damn, I just lost some respect for you.
You had any left? Damn I just lost all respect for you. (-> <- BR smilie)
From Groverat
And who is most often likely to violate those marriage vows?
That is completely irrelevant. Completely. First off, it is not actually possible to scientifically prove men are more likely to violate their various marriage vows than are women. Second, I'm not talking fault, I'm talking very upwardly mobile women who cherish their careers, and at the same time CHOOSE to get married. If they are so in love with their careers and don't want anyone or anything to slow them down (that's fine...I can understand that), then getting married only makes it more difficult -- subsequently having children makes it doubly so.
The truth you are avoiding is that you can't have your cake and eat it too in life. You have to define what your priorities are and then make choices to attain those priorities / goals. If a woman's goal is to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, GREAT. Guess what though, that makes it really f-ing hard for her to justify having children [during her climb to the top], because children - ALL children - DO need their mothers [to be a part of their everyday lives]. So, make your choice and stick with it.
[Maybe that means Dad quits his job and stays home after the delivery, maybe it means something else. It's up to them. The point is, don't [blindly defend women who bitch about not being able to be a real mother and hold a high-powered job at the same time, because the reality is those two things are completely incompatible. Both the job and the kid require 65+ hours during the work week, so what's it gonna be? Diapers in the boardroom? I think not. That's not male dominance, that's called professionalism. Leave the Pampers at home lady, mmmm K?]
Think about that for a second and you have your answer.
See above.
If you want to dismiss the truth that I speak about a male-dominated society by saying I watch Oprah, that's fine. Your standpoint of two divorced brothers hasn't influenced your logic at all, I'm sure.
Of course my brother (and friend, not two brothers) has some influence on how I see the divorce aspect of things, but notice my first post was about what happens before the divorce. As I said, we'll get to the custody part as we go and I'll lay out my cards on that part then.
Either way, are you going to bother responding to the meat of my original post or not? Whether or not society is dominated by males (depends on who's asking and under what context if you ask me), that does not = "all women in America are FORCED to choose EITHER their career, or having a kid(s) and staying home". It just doesn't happen that way. There are many options in between that people can and do choose every single day. You seem to be implying women have no control in what happens to them once they get married / pregnant, which I find to be more insulting to woman than anything Trumptman said.
Moogs:
First off, it is not actually possible to scientifically prove men are more likely to violate their various marriage vows than are women.
Are you saying men do not more often violate them?
Second, I'm not talking fault, I'm talking very upwardly mobile women who cherish their careers, and at the same time CHOOSE to get married.
And men CHOOSE to get married to them, knowing full damn well what the laws of their state are and what the consequences are.
If they are so in love with their careers and don't want anyone or anything to slow them down (that's fine...I can understand that), then getting married only makes it more difficult -- subsequently having children makes it doubly so.
Same goes for the men. You know, the poor pitiful victims.
The truth you are avoiding is that you can't have your cake and eat it too in life. You have to define what your priorities are and then make choices to attain those priorities / goals.
I'm sorry, Moogs, am I the one starting threads about evil men and how they oppress poor women? Save your moralizing lectures for the sexist oaf who starts these discussions and refuses to acknowledge that maybe men have their own minds as well.
The point is, don't [blindly defend women who bitch about not being able to be a real mother and hold a high-powered job at the same time, because the reality is those two things are completely incompatible.
Did I? Or was I defending women against the very sexist and generalized attacks from trumptman?
Do you have any gripe with what I actually say? Men are more likely to cheat/be abusive. FACT. If it is true that 90% of divorces are filed by women, wouldn't that merely be a result of that FACT?
Either way, are you going to bother responding to the meat of my original post or not?
Didn't have time for it (Lifetime was playing a great movie, clever boy), and that's not what I'm getting at. You'll notice I'm not advocating/bemoaning any legislation, I'm not pushing a chip-on-the-shoulder agenda so the meat of your post is either preaching to the choir or has nothing to do with what I posted.
I've covered my views on this in the dozen-other woman-hating threads trumptman has started. Use the search function if you really want to know what I feel about the legislation (or my general feelings on the subject).
that does not = "all women in America are FORCED to choose EITHER their career, or having a kid(s) and staying home".
Of course that doesn't happen, but the impetus is generally on the mother. Of course, that's if we're willing to acknowledge that biases work both ways (or if we only want to think they work against men, boo-hoo).
You seem to be implying women have no control in what happens to them once they get married / pregnant, which I find to be more insulting to woman than anything Trumptman said.
Never meant to imply such a thing, sorry if you misunderstood. But social structures are slow to change.
Sad that pointing out that not all women are NOW members who want to castrate men in rituals gains one such hatred.
i find it unfair to divide kids not 50 - 50 %. and that is also DURING the marriage. if you get kids, involve yourselves BOTH OF YOU to raise the child, before it's too late. i guess that way both of you also have some life outside the baby poos and sandcakes, you are more likely to understand each other and even less likely to divorce.
if a woman is required by law to stay home XXX period of time after getting a child, divide that time by 50 % and force the husband / partner etc to stay home the same 50 % of XXX time too. that way it will also be more likely that getting a female employee under 40 y age, will not lead to those illegal questions about when getting married and what kind of family plans or reproductional insticnts she has. (at least in europe they ask it).
oh - the same-sex marriages with kids that divorce then? 2 men divorcing will each get 20 % of time and 2 women divorcing both get 80 %?
Not even sure we're arguing about the same thing at this point, but...
I am not advocating, should a husband and wife both have demanding careers, that the woman always be the default "stay at home" choice when the children come along. It has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and sometimes, the woman WILL be the logical choice to stay at home. FACT. However, for some strange reason, when the media looks at a woman who does this, she has been "held down", when a man does this he is merely "sensitive". I just don't get that attitude.
What the media and feminists never acknolwedge is: having children isn't just "something you do" or "are supposed to do" when you get married". It is about sacrifice. It is, if handled responsibly, a full-time job all by itself. FACT.
Having children should be a conscious decision, one that requires you put the child's needs and wants ahead of your own, and for a number of years not just 3 months. It is in its purest sense an act of selflessness -- willingly bringing another human being into the world so that you can care for and raise them. It means putting yourself second and the child first. Novel concept these days I realize... Not saying that's your take on kids, but rather the take of the people on your side of the fence.
To summarize: if you have two people with very demanding careers, and those two people truly want to raise a family, one of them is going to have to change their working arrangements significantly. And of course the man has to honestly evaluate just as the woman should. I just don't see women as being victims when they decide to stay at home with their kids, and regret later on they didn't keep working. That is their decision, they should live with it instead of crying to ... Oprah or Dr. Nill. Regret is part of life. We all face it, we all have to deal with it.
Should I have been a journalism major, or should I have been braver and tried something less traditional? Should I have tried that small company that wanted to hire me out of college (keeping me in Iowa), or should I have done what I did and gone Chicago corporate? Should I have married my college sweetheart? Did I make a mistake not having children earlier in my life? Have I not taken enough risks? Too many risks? You get the idea. Life is full of choices and we don't get to hit a "reset" button when we make one that ends up creating more challenges / difficulties than we anticipated. We f-ing live with it and do the best we can.
*shrug*
I see most of those "career woman feminist" agendas (not saying they're yours but it seemed like it for a while there...) as a case of very spoiled and immature women having a hissy because they can't have their perfect dream job, AND kids, AND the big house, AND AND AND. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their friggin choices anymore (that includes not only greedy husbands, but many career women who choose to get pregnant and then regret it later). It's like they think they have a God-given right to a perfect existence. I say grow up people. Stop whining and go read your kid a story already.
[edit - one other thing...]
you asked:
Are you saying men do not more often violate them?
I am saying I have no idea if it is the men or the women who violate the various vows of marriage more often than the other, nor do I have any idea which is more likely to violate them. And neither do you, unless you want to pull some amazing scientific research out of your hat. Because the violations have more to do with personality and character than genitalia.
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
I'm not talking about women always being oppressed. I'm talking about something very specific, divorce. The one who stayed at home sacrificed their career (whether or not you want it it's a sacrifice) for the raising of the child. 99 times out of 100 this is the woman if there's a stay-at-home. That's my point.
Originally posted by groverat
And genetics have a hell of a lot to do with behavior, and genetics are the undisputed singular cause of genetalia.
Men cheat. Men beat their spouse. For every physically abusive woman you have hundreds of physically abusive men. If you want stats look at domestic violence rates.
I'm not talking about women always being oppressed. I'm talking about something very specific, divorce. The one who stayed at home sacrificed their career (whether or not you want it it's a sacrifice) for the raising of the child. 99 times out of 100 this is the woman if there's a stay-at-home. That's my point.
Sorry just had to jump in here real quick. I know there are other issues to address in other posts, but this one was the clincher.
Women are just as violent as men. They just express it differently. Women are just as sexual as men and just as likely to cheat. Your assertion that for every violent woman there are hundreds of violent men is pure bullcrap.
A recent meta-analysis of thousands of people across multiple domestic violence studies found women just as inclined to violence as men. Women simply express it differently. Men could simply get the job done with a fist. Women are more inclined to blind side you, get someone else to do it, or use weapons. (In otherwords, don't go to sleep
Likewise even those statistics could be skewed because one of the most common forms of female bullying is false accusations. Think about what a woman can gain with a domestic violence charge. She can refuse the man visitation with his children. She can get restraining orders. She can basically criminalize all his dealings with her.
Domestic violence
Domestic 2
Domestic 3
And the results end up repeatedly with stories like this these.
move aways and accusations
Likewise your contention that men violate their wedding vows more than women is pure bullshit as well. Women are again, just as inclined to adultery as men.
Nick
Women are just as violent as men. They just express it differently. Women are just as sexual as men and just as likely to cheat. Your assertion that for every violent woman there are hundreds of violent men is pure bullcrap.
"physically violent". Discuss what I say, don't generalize what I say to make refuting it easier. click
A recent meta-analysis of thousands of people across multiple domestic violence studies found women just as inclined to violence as men. Women simply express it differently. Men could simply get the job done with a fist. Women are more inclined to blind side you, get someone else to do it, or use weapons. (In otherwords, don't go to sleep
Sources? Links?
Your link below even says that women are less likely to kill their husbands and points out the obvious, female-on-male physical violence isn't as damaging as male-on-female physical violence.
Likewise your contention that men violate their wedding vows more than women is pure bullshit as well. Women are again, just as inclined to adultery as men.
If that's what you want to believe, then fine. You can quote "intellectualconservative" all day long and keep your anti-woman bullshit alive. Have fun in your victim world.
women ARE violent too, but most of them are violent first verbally. snagging, ranting, everything that you (as a man) do or don't, your kids that caused you to become a pissed off, unsatisfied, obese, ugly and miserable house-bound careerless woman "it is YOUR fault (to pre-adolescent daughter) that i am so fat and miserable! i wish you was never born (like the daughter chose to?)", complaining that "you are not the man i married to" (yes, after some years of the continuos rant i can't see how he still could be the blindly in love cutie lover). isn't that violence? my dad beat me physically, but that hurt mostly just as being beaten or a bit after (boiling water hurt some more, whatever) - not as the continuos rant, talk-n-rant-only-to-fill-the-silence by my mum. when i was small, or when i was living with them, i always hoped they'd divorce. if i didint have to be on my nerves 100 % of th time under the same roof with them because they were shouting, argueing etc, i'd have had a lot more energy to other things and i'd been more stable as a person.
living with them left a "if being married is THIS, i'll never marry". they were together because they found no one else to argue with? what if my mum had found some life instead of trying to save her marriage (=have me when the home was to be too empty)? i'd have been more stable if they divorced, but seeing they STILL (@ 70) argue i don't know what they'd be without each other though. more miserable than now i think.
they left also a strong willingness to NOT pass any miserable genes to any future generations.
all that doesn't mean to be alone either. i just refuse to argue like them, and to use the people i care about to suffer if i feel bad. if "marriage" is what i saw, i'd just rather stay mentally something else. i don't want to be like my mum, and if all this again sounds over-negative towards women there might be a reason.
women ARE violent too, but most of them are violent first verbally. snagging, ranting, everything that you (as a man) do or don't,
As irritating as nagging and ranting are, they are signs of dissatisfaction that is dealt with through communication. I grew up with 2 sisters and a mother, surrounded by multitudes of "nagging" females. That is opening the lines of communication in an often irritating way.
If you truly can't handle "nagging" then that's your own fault for being emotionally stunted and immature.
isn't that violence?
If you want to draw the definition of "violence" out so broad as to strip it of meaning sure, I guess looking at someone funny is even violence.
But again you'll notice I said "physical violence", something those arguing against me seem eager to ignore.
my dad beat me physically, but that hurt mostly just as being beaten or a bit after (boiling water hurt some more, whatever) - not as the continuos rant, talk-n-rant-only-to-fill-the-silence by my mum.
Which would you prefer for your child if you had to pick?
when i was small, or when i was living with them, i always hoped they'd divorce. if i didint have to be on my nerves 100 % of th time under the same roof with them because they were shouting, argueing etc, i'd have had a lot more energy to other things and i'd been more stable as a person.
Your mother nagged and your father beat you (and probably her). Your mother probably nagged before your father became abusive, maybe? Is this, in your mind, causation?
Nagging is communication, aggressive and irritating communication but it can easily be worked past. Physical abuse is a whole different animal entirely.
Originally posted by groverat
Nagging is communication, aggressive and irritating communication but it can easily be worked past. Physical abuse is a whole different animal entirely.
What, if you have one, is your point?
On one hand, there are issues of fairness in divorce proceedings, and the subsequent issues of child custody, child support, and alimony being.
On the other hand, you keep going on and on about how doing thus and so would avoid divorce in the first place.
So, is your point that if don't make careful decisions about marriage and children, or have bad communication and conflict resolution skills, and end up in divorce... Well, then the fairness of divorce proceedings don't really matter because anyone who doesn't follow your sage advice deserves whatever they get? All the more so when a man gets the worst of it?
Originally posted by groverat
Nagging is communication, aggressive and irritating communication but it can easily be worked past. Physical abuse is a whole different animal entirely.
I've agreed with most of everything else you've said in this thread but I think you're wrong about this.
There is a lot more to being a battered wife (or husband) than just physical violence.
At a certain level it is about control and so there are many common 'symptoms' such as restricting the battered partners access to money, verbal attacks aimed at reducing self-esteem, and preventing contact with friends, family and any other support networks. These can be reliably used to predict actual physical violence.
----
Also note that both men and women use verbal and physical violence in relationships though as trumpetman correctly notes a woman attacking a man is more likely to use a weapon due to smaller size/strength .
I'm surprised he didn't also add that recently laws have been changed to shorten the sentences of female battered-spouses who kill in retaliation/self-defence as they were getting longer sentences than male battered-spouses. This was because if a man 'lost it' and killed their abusive wife in a fight they wouldn't get the extra prison time for pre-meditation that the female who stabs her abuser in his sleep (etc.) would.
Also your comment on nagging reminds me of a famous gaffe of Sean Connery's, when he claimed in an interview that it was OK to hit a woman as long as you used an open hand to slap them rather than a fist. I think you're using a relatively benign example to dismiss the very real problem of verbal/mental abuse, both male on female and vice versa.
Originally posted by groverat
As irritating as nagging and ranting are, they are signs of dissatisfaction that is dealt with through communication. I grew up with 2 sisters and a mother, surrounded by multitudes of "nagging" females. That is opening the lines of communication in an often irritating way.
If you truly can't handle "nagging" then that's your own fault for being emotionally stunted and immature.
If you want to draw the definition of "violence" out so broad as to strip it of meaning sure, I guess looking at someone funny is even violence.
But again you'll notice I said "physical violence", something those arguing against me seem eager to ignore.
Which would you prefer for your child if you had to pick?
Your mother nagged and your father beat you (and probably her). Your mother probably nagged before your father became abusive, maybe? Is this, in your mind, causation?
Nagging is communication, aggressive and irritating communication but it can easily be worked past. Physical abuse is a whole different animal entirely.
Nagging is NOT a part of communication. I admit it is one of my incapacities not to tollerate it, thus my best friends consist of very few female friends (not solely for this cause). I did not talk about ONLY nagging as a means of "verbal violence", it includes all the things said for the sole purpose of hurting people. For example, a group of 6 years old kids 'nagging' about one of their friends being a 'lardass' in continuation, is not nagging but violence, especially if it leads the kid to be at 80 lb untill she'll / he'll be 30, caused mainly of that 'nagging'. if the continuos nagging of mother to her kids leads the kids to have an impaired image of themselves, not believing in themselves, having addictive behavious (alcoholism, drug abuse, eating disorders, gambling, sportholism etc) it is not 'nagging', it is violence. the nagging isn't supposed to only harm the other individuals, the verbal violence instead does that. if you nag to your daughter (as a mum) always that your miserability (being fat and having no life) is HER FAULT, that is no nagging, that is verbal violence, as in the end she is programmed to believe that all the miserability in her life is really caused by you and feeling always guilty in her life whatever she does. as that is not on the normal conscious level, it is also really hard to un-do as improving your self conception, getting rid of your depression or disorders etc.
As i said before, the physical violence hurts less. Getting badly beaten may hurt a month, but it hurts you less in 20 years than a longer lasting, conitnuos verbal violence did.
As a child, if mine would have divorced, i would not have chosen my mum. That does not mean of having chosen dad either.
As for "my child", as you put it, it remains hypothetical. Firstly, i'm not that americanized that i'd see the divorce as a first alternative. Secondly, if that was an alternative (rather not) and me and my partner would have kids, i don't see why based on my sex i would or should be entitled to have a 80 % time of having the kids in my custody. Have a pair number of kids so you can devide them easier? Let the children choose, they know best who they prefer. Or just 50 - 50 % of time of them for both.
The specialty of mother-child relation is a myth, nothing else. Or i and many other people i know are just the exceptions of this rule. If you have a good relationship with your mother, it is not as solely something based on your genes, it is like any relation something you have constructed. If it is constucted 'dofferently', you never have trusted your mum and have never considered her as a friend, more just as a person that you are socially obbliqued to have a relationship with even as adult and when you just wouldn't like to have.
I don't know when my mum started her behaviour. My father beating anyone was not caused by the behaviours of my mum, more likely just a shadow of his own childhood when he was abused. He mostly managed to break his behaviour patterns as i ran away from home.
Mothers are by no means the only source of the 'verbal violence', by any means. It just seems that i have heard so much more of that as the comments said to their children from mums than dads. Not every male is physically violent or female verbally, Women are just no saints, and verbal violence is no better than the physical.