"against" and you also badmouth the validity of "emotional unfulfillment".
So, what about sexual unfulfillment? Is a man justified in divorcing a woman whose weight skyrockets and becomes entirely undesireable?
One more thing...
Women grow accustomed to the lifestyle of luxury and use it as justification for taking alimony. Men grow accustomed to having a warm wet place to stick it in. If you decide to get a divorce, face it, your lifestyle is going to change. Too ****ing bad.
Intent may determine a lot with regard to law, but that hardly matters in this instance. If my girlfriend were to attack me she knows damned well that she isn't going to beat me up, but if I attack her I sure as hell will. Me punching her as hard as I can is not the same as her punching me as hard as she can, legally or morally.
I never said it wasn't harmful, trumpt, you're swerving again. It's a different animal, though, there's a big difference between being in the hospital and not being in the hospital.
"against" and you also badmouth the validity of "emotional unfulfillment".
Actually what you were responding to had the woman as the breadwinner, which made your sexist crap even more egregious.
That's not all you said, bud, "women will".
You equate NOW (which in itself isn't a totally unified organization with only one spokesperson) with "women and women's group". If you don't see the problem with that I can't help you.
I guess we can say Osama bin Laden speaks for my friends here at UT who are from Saudi Arabia.
First of all how is it "just factual"?
And again you fail to acknowledge the victim attitude. Read it again, I'll bold the parts you should note.
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.
"It's all up to the women. Men have no choice, they are poor victims. Give them kleenex."
Not to mention you don't back the assertion up with any facts.
Why "must" it be hers? Do you see how your sexist crap reinforces your baseless conclusion before it is even reached in a circular argument.
Step one: Women want lots of money and don't like a man who isn't working.
Step two: Women must send their men to work. Reason: See Step one.
Whatever the woman wants. I would have NOW independently audit each case and go with their recommendation.
7-10% maybe, not the 1200% difference you claim, nor even 700-1000%.
As for who would win if you and your girlfriend punched each other, you are the one swerving here bucko. I made it quite clear that women operate differently with regard to how the initiate and carry out violence. In a head to head confrontation she would lose as you mentioned. That is why she would operate differently. If she wanted to hurt you, she wouldn't just up and punch you in the face, as you could her. Rather she would wait until you were asleep and take a bat to your skull.
Both of those are the same morally and legally. If anything (and someone mentioned this too) women are sentenced longer for these crimes because the intent shows clear premeditation.
Likewise most men will fail to seek medical or societal help for their abuse. When you go to a shelter and tell them that a two hundred pound man got the hell kicked out of him by his 130 lbs girlfriend/wife, they just are skeptical. I mean sure the bat/scissors/knife/you sleeping gave her quite the edge, but most treat it just as you have. A collective "yeah right" insures that most men don't report.
Against and emotional unfulfillment, you bet your butt I consider emotional unfulfillment to be invalid. Against, a court motion has to be filed against someone. That party is the man. If you want to be picky about something, then use your nose. You can bet your last buck that if men were filing 66%+ of the divorces against women because they were "emotionally unfulfilled" it would be a big deal. Likewise if the men got to keep the house, the kids and order her to work, it would be considered outragious and horrifically oppressive. If you tossed in the man being "more fulfilled" by his girlfriend who moves in soon afterward and her being order to work under threat of jailtime it would be oppressive. Lastly if someone noticed that the women subjected to this commmitted suicide 1000% more the last thing we would be doing is rolling our eyes at it.
If you don't want to see the forest for the trees, that's fine but you are the one wearing blinders.
The hunter/gatherer thing, who knows. You posted a partial quote and I tried to remember it. I'm not Mr. PC 24/7 and don't intend to spare everyone feelings all the time. I thought you hated this kind of picky PC bullshit. Where people won't engage and instead try to gauge intent with one word or partial phrase, is just nonsense and usually you are the first one calling it as such. To sit here and argue my "intent" about an idea instead of just discussing the idea is way below how you normally operate. Intent, complaining that I speak with some generalities (NOW isn't all women, duh, but they do lobby lawmakers and influence policy) in a forum where my posts are already excessively long and the format doesn't lend it self to writing, oh chapters, footnotes, etc. is inane. I'm doing my best considering we are discussing ideas with semo-multi paragraph posts in a public forum.
So, what about sexual unfulfillment? Is a man justified in divorcing a woman whose weight skyrockets and becomes entirely undesireable?
One more thing...
Women grow accustomed to the lifestyle of luxury and use it as justification for taking alimony. Men grow accustomed to having a warm wet place to stick it in. If you decide to get a divorce, face it, your lifestyle is going to change. Too ****ing bad.
*waits for the "now I know you aren't married because any married man knows that not getting any (from your wife) after the divorce is NOT a lifestyle change in the least" reply*
7-10% maybe, not the 1200% difference you claim, nor even 700-1000%.
The guy whose study you keep referring to says the following:
...women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.
If I said "a dozen" then that's 12.
Quote:
That is why she would operate differently. If she wanted to hurt you, she wouldn't just up and punch you in the face, as you could her. Rather she would wait until you were asleep and take a bat to your skull.
And that would be in the statistics. Sorry.
Quote:
Likewise most men will fail to seek medical or societal help for their abuse.
Ok... so?
Quote:
When you go to a shelter and tell them that a two hundred pound man got the hell kicked out of him by his 130 lbs girlfriend/wife, they just are skeptical. I mean sure the bat/scissors/knife/you sleeping gave her quite the edge, but most treat it just as you have. A collective "yeah right" insures that most men don't report.
You pull this out of thin air.
Quote:
Against and emotional unfulfillment, you bet your butt I consider emotional unfulfillment to be invalid.
Quote:
You can bet your last buck that if men were filing 66%+ of the divorces against women because they were "emotionally unfulfilled" it would be a big deal.
Divorces filed under "emotional unfulfillment" fall under the No Fault area as far as grounds.
I am only familiar with Texas, but as far as my state goes you only get alimony if (1) you were abused within the last 2 years (before divorce filing) or if you've been married for more than 10 years & (2) you are unable to support yourself from phsyical/mental incapacity or in custody of a child who requires sufficient care or you "clearly lack" the means to survive in a labor market to provide "minimum reasonable needs". And past that there are 16 factors to determine alimony. And alimony can't last for more than 3 years unless there's a "compelling impediment" to "gainful employment".
It's not like you walk into a freaking courtroom and the evil woman says "GIVE ME MONEY!" and the judge kicks you in the nuts and says "OK, bailiff! Take all his money and buy her a Mercedes!"
As far as custody the court determines what best. I don't know if you can come up with a hard-and-fast formula.
Do you feel this is as valid a reason as the female equivalent "he's not making enough money so I'm going to leave and take half anyway" reason?
Certainly. I don't see the necessity to phrase it as you did. Unless of course the husband is trolling his family/friends as you troll this message board.
"OMG MOM I AM GETTING A DIVORCE 'CUZ I NEED A WET PLACE TO STICK IT!"
Certainly. I don't see the necessity to phrase it as you did. Unless of course the husband is trolling his family/friends as you troll this message board.
"OMG MOM I AM GETTING A DIVORCE 'CUZ I NEED A WET PLACE TO STICK IT!"
It's really ironic that you call someone else a troll considering the content of your posts the last six months or so.
Clears up a few myths from all sides. Apparently written by Gelles.
One trumpt and I seem to be wrangling over, a perspective from the guy who did the study:
Can't believe I missed this post.
Here, let me put an absolute end to this since you mentioned that particular study.
Quote:
It has been commonly said -- by those who concede that the rates of violence are roughly equal -- that, at the same time, women are six or seven times more likely than men to be seriously injured by their partners. Straus and Gelles themselves have said this. This is based on their finding that about 3% of female victims of domestic violence, but about 0.5% of the male victims, reported having sought medical care as a result of a dom. violence incident.
Okay so the six to seven times comes from women seeking medical care 3% of the time versus .5% for men. I mentioned a difference of perhaps 7-10% in a mocking manner concerning your most. The difference in injury rates is 2.5% hardly catastrophic.
Then take this information into consideration as well with regard to men and underreporting.
Quote:
Cal State Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert has compiled and summarized 117 different studies with over 72,000 respondents that found that most domestic violence is mutual and, in the cases where there was only one abusive partner, that partner was as likely to be female as male.
Studies by researchers R.I. McNeeley and Coramae Richey Mann show that women are much more likely than men to use weapons and the element of surprise. These weapons often include guns, knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and baseball bats.
Neither male nor female domestic violence can generally be dismissed as self-defense. According to Straus, for example, roughly 10 percent of women and 15 percent of men perpetuate partner abuse in self-defense. Dr. David Fontes, the director of Stop Abuse for Everyone (SAFE), has also found that only a small percentage of female abusers are acting in self-defense.
Crime statistics do indicate that women are more likely to suffer serious injury in domestic violence than men are. But such statistics are misleading because surveys show that an abused woman is nine times as likely to report abuse as an abused man. Many men hesitate to call the police because they assume, often correctly, that the police will automatically treat them as if they are the perpetrator.
How many men don't report because they could end up in jail for claiming abuse has occured to them thanks to stereotypes like you are pushing?
Here is a well written piece that sums up my feelings on this pretty well.
Lastly you didn't claim a dozen-fold difference versus 7-101 between men and women. I was just being polite and not trying to make you feel like an ass. You were obviously using some overheated rhetoric, which in my opinion is okay around here as long as we are discussing ideas and expressing opinions. Here is what you actually claimed.
Quote:
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.
Hundreds to one, not .5% vs. 3%, and of course that would be those who have had violence done to them in a manner harmful enough to seek medical care. I was speaking about initial violent actions which again are equal not a 7,10-12 or even 100+fold difference.
Okay so the six to seven times comes from women seeking medical care 3% of the time versus .5% for men. I mentioned a difference of perhaps 7-10% in a mocking manner concerning your most. The difference in injury rates is 2.5% hardly catastrophic.
Where you get 7-10% from I have no idea.
"7-10 times" != 7-10%
"7 times" = 700%
"10 times" = 1000%
If you have $7 and I have 7 times that amount I have $49, not $7.49.
Quote:
How many men don't report because they could end up in jail for claiming abuse has occured to them thanks to stereotypes like you are pushing?
The stereotypes backed up by the statistics you post?
Quote:
Hundreds to one, not .5% vs. 3%, and of course that would be those who have had violence done to them in a manner harmful enough to seek medical care.
If you have $7 and I have 7 times that amount I have $49, not $7.49.
The stereotypes backed up by the statistics you post?
Straus/Gelles say I'm right.
700%-1000%
Basic math.
The 7-10% was from me. I said I mentioned it mockingly to show how small the actual percentage difference. When you get to such small sample sizes, of course large swings can occur. I mean a nickle is 500% more than a penny right?
The point remains, in straight percentages, women seek medical assistance 3% of the time and men .5%. That is 600% more. However this statistic is essentually meaningless. It is inflated not because huge numbers of women are being hospitalized, but rather because so few men seek medical care. Again 5 cents is 500% more than 1 cent, but it doesn't mean either one is making you rich. Likewise 3% of women versus .5% of men doesn't make women non-violent and men profoundly violent.
However what you said and what I quoted was not a percent, it was a ratio. Hundreds being plural would mean a minimum of 1 to 200. That is not 700% more, that is 20,000% more.
Quote:
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.
Have to bring this one up again, and I will until you a) post about the actual thread or b) just say you were wrong. Men and women are equally violent with regard to initiating and continuing domestic abuse against each other. Men seek medical attention less because they are presumed violent and likely will be charged, even if all they did was take a beating. Women have plenty to gain from reporting the abuse. They can have the man taken out of their home. They can be taken to a shelter. They can put the man in jail for the night. Thus they are 9 times more likely to report.
The rate at which they seek medical attention is not the rate at which they are physically violent. Men and women are equally violent in domestic abuse.
You are just flat out wrong no matter what stat you wish to cling to. Men are not 20,000% more likely to be physically abusive.
And regardless of all of this, you have given NO reason why men should be at a disadvantage with regard to custody. They should be entitled to a full 50% of custody.
And regardless of all of this, you have given NO reason why men should be at a disadvantage with regard to custody. They should be entitled to a full 50% of custody.
Do we have at least a general understanding of why decisions were made to default custody to the female/mother?
Do we have at least a general understanding of why decisions were made to default custody to the female/mother?
The reason most often is that she wants it and seeks it. Both parties can want it, but in much more than the majority of the cases, women get it. To me, barring both parents being fit, the only clear reason would be sexism on the part of the court.
Likewise when you consider that child support is based on the percentage of the time the mother can keep the children away from the father, you have a scenario where she benefits by seeking to deny him custody.
You can watch his payment grow as she chooses to work less and less, and additionally chooses to let him see the kids less and less.
A father making $5000 a month with 50% custodial time pays the mother $1200 a month in child support when she earns $1000 working part time. If she can take full custody from him, his support payment becomes $2000 a month.
So lets see, before the household income was $6000 a month. ($5000 from him and $1000 from her working part time.) Half for each of them would be $3000. She files for divorce and manages to get full custody. She gets half the assets including the house, has her $1000 from part time work and $2000 a month in child support payments. If he gets behind, he gets his credit ruined, license taken, jailed, etc.
And exactly what has she lost by getting divorced here?
Here is my simplistic point of vue about the issue speaking of custody for kids.
Bad father : kids in charge of the mother
Bad mother : kids in charge of the father
Equally good parents : kids in charge of the mother with time sharing with the father.
Equally bad parents : send them in hell
A father is not a mother, if the mother is defective he can make the job, but otherwise since milleniums the mother pass more time with her kids, than the father. The father has an important role, but it's a different one from the mother. It's absolutely normal that the mother has the priority. However if the father ok, the justice should allow them to have the right to keep them for holidays or week ends. In France even, the grand parents have the right to see their little childs.
Divorce sucks, it's not really new, people should take this into consideration before divorcing or having childs. Marriage is not always a peaceful river, sometimes you have to make great efforts to keep it alive. Any separation of the parents is always bad for the kids, any violence physical or verbal between parents is even worse.
Doing a bit of research, this is a very interesting topic (domestic violence, not custody).
trumptman:
Quote:
It is inflated not because huge numbers of women are being hospitalized, but rather because so few men seek medical care.
.5% and 3% are both very small.
1 out of every 200 men report abuse.
3 out of every 100 women report abuse.
There is a difference, yes, but both are very small.
Quote:
Again 5 cents is 500% more than 1 cent, but it doesn't mean either one is making you rich. Likewise 3% of women versus .5% of men doesn't make women non-violent and men profoundly violent.
I never said women were non-violent and men were profoundly violent. You just made that up on the spot, straw-man argument.
What is true is that women are more often physically abused than men and far more likely to end up injured because of that abuse. If you want to ignore that that's fine, but you should read your own stats before you post them.
Quote:
However what you said and what I quoted was not a percent, it was a ratio. Hundreds being plural would mean a minimum of 1 to 200. That is not 700% more, that is 20,000% more.
I underestimated violence initiated against men, but not necessarily the effects of that violence.
Quote:
Have to bring this one up again, and I will until you a) post about the actual thread or b) just say you were wrong.
That's funny that you demand concession from me, considering how blindly your plow through all the proof of your being wrong. But that's ok, I can admit my mistakes.
Quote:
Men and women are equally violent with regard to initiating and continuing domestic abuse against each other.
Well... the Department of Justice doesn't use "nagging" numbers in their study of "violent domestic abuse".
Between 1993 and 2001, according to the DOJ, intimate violence against women has decreased 49%, against men decreased 43%.
In 1976 1,357 men were killed by an intimate. In 2000, 440 were killed by an intimate (women killed by an intimate fell from 1,600 to 1,247 in the same period).
Quote:
Men seek medical attention less because they are presumed violent and likely will be charged, even if all they did was take a beating.
You have no facts on this. Please source.
Quote:
Women have plenty to gain from reporting the abuse. They can have the man taken out of their home. They can be taken to a shelter. They can put the man in jail for the night.
WAHOO! That sounds like a blast! A woman's shelter!
Saddle up, girls, time to call the cops, put the hubby in the tank for the night and party down at the woman's shelter!
Quote:
Thus they are 9 times more likely to report.
I have no idea whether or not that is true (is that from Straus/Gelles?), but considering they are 7-10 times more likely to be injured I'd say it's reasonable even if true.
Quote:
And regardless of all of this, you have given NO reason why men should be at a disadvantage with regard to custody. They should be entitled to a full 50% of custody.
That's not what I'm discussing, which is why I have given NO reasons for any of that.
Women grow accustomed to the lifestyle of luxury and use it as justification for taking alimony. Men grow accustomed to having a warm wet place to stick it in. If you decide to get a divorce, face it, your lifestyle is going to change. Too ****ing bad.
And why should they not become accustomed to the lifestyle of luxury that their husband chose to share 50/50 with them when they married?
And unless the marriage vows have some very small print I don't think the woman would be agreeing to allow the man to "stick it in" her "wet place" without her consent *during* the marriage and so doing so after a divorce is waaaaay out of the question.
Anyway, is prostitution not illegal?
Note to all married men: you are *not* paying your wife for sex. And therefore you will continue paying after the sex stops. This has been a public service announcement. Thank you for your attention.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
"against" and you also badmouth the validity of "emotional unfulfillment".
So, what about sexual unfulfillment? Is a man justified in divorcing a woman whose weight skyrockets and becomes entirely undesireable?
One more thing...
Women grow accustomed to the lifestyle of luxury and use it as justification for taking alimony. Men grow accustomed to having a warm wet place to stick it in. If you decide to get a divorce, face it, your lifestyle is going to change. Too ****ing bad.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Granted, 7 to 10 is not 12. You got me there.
Intent may determine a lot with regard to law, but that hardly matters in this instance. If my girlfriend were to attack me she knows damned well that she isn't going to beat me up, but if I attack her I sure as hell will. Me punching her as hard as I can is not the same as her punching me as hard as she can, legally or morally.
I never said it wasn't harmful, trumpt, you're swerving again. It's a different animal, though, there's a big difference between being in the hospital and not being in the hospital.
"against" and you also badmouth the validity of "emotional unfulfillment".
Actually what you were responding to had the woman as the breadwinner, which made your sexist crap even more egregious.
That's not all you said, bud, "women will".
You equate NOW (which in itself isn't a totally unified organization with only one spokesperson) with "women and women's group". If you don't see the problem with that I can't help you.
I guess we can say Osama bin Laden speaks for my friends here at UT who are from Saudi Arabia.
First of all how is it "just factual"?
And again you fail to acknowledge the victim attitude. Read it again, I'll bold the parts you should note.
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.
"It's all up to the women. Men have no choice, they are poor victims. Give them kleenex."
Not to mention you don't back the assertion up with any facts.
Why "must" it be hers? Do you see how your sexist crap reinforces your baseless conclusion before it is even reached in a circular argument.
Step one: Women want lots of money and don't like a man who isn't working.
Step two: Women must send their men to work. Reason: See Step one.
Whatever the woman wants. I would have NOW independently audit each case and go with their recommendation.
7-10% maybe, not the 1200% difference you claim, nor even 700-1000%.
As for who would win if you and your girlfriend punched each other, you are the one swerving here bucko. I made it quite clear that women operate differently with regard to how the initiate and carry out violence. In a head to head confrontation she would lose as you mentioned. That is why she would operate differently. If she wanted to hurt you, she wouldn't just up and punch you in the face, as you could her. Rather she would wait until you were asleep and take a bat to your skull.
Both of those are the same morally and legally. If anything (and someone mentioned this too) women are sentenced longer for these crimes because the intent shows clear premeditation.
Likewise most men will fail to seek medical or societal help for their abuse. When you go to a shelter and tell them that a two hundred pound man got the hell kicked out of him by his 130 lbs girlfriend/wife, they just are skeptical. I mean sure the bat/scissors/knife/you sleeping gave her quite the edge, but most treat it just as you have. A collective "yeah right" insures that most men don't report.
Against and emotional unfulfillment, you bet your butt I consider emotional unfulfillment to be invalid. Against, a court motion has to be filed against someone. That party is the man. If you want to be picky about something, then use your nose. You can bet your last buck that if men were filing 66%+ of the divorces against women because they were "emotionally unfulfilled" it would be a big deal. Likewise if the men got to keep the house, the kids and order her to work, it would be considered outragious and horrifically oppressive. If you tossed in the man being "more fulfilled" by his girlfriend who moves in soon afterward and her being order to work under threat of jailtime it would be oppressive. Lastly if someone noticed that the women subjected to this commmitted suicide 1000% more the last thing we would be doing is rolling our eyes at it.
If you don't want to see the forest for the trees, that's fine but you are the one wearing blinders.
The hunter/gatherer thing, who knows. You posted a partial quote and I tried to remember it. I'm not Mr. PC 24/7 and don't intend to spare everyone feelings all the time. I thought you hated this kind of picky PC bullshit. Where people won't engage and instead try to gauge intent with one word or partial phrase, is just nonsense and usually you are the first one calling it as such. To sit here and argue my "intent" about an idea instead of just discussing the idea is way below how you normally operate. Intent, complaining that I speak with some generalities (NOW isn't all women, duh, but they do lobby lawmakers and influence policy) in a forum where my posts are already excessively long and the format doesn't lend it self to writing, oh chapters, footnotes, etc. is inane. I'm doing my best considering we are discussing ideas with semo-multi paragraph posts in a public forum.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
So, what about sexual unfulfillment? Is a man justified in divorcing a woman whose weight skyrockets and becomes entirely undesireable?
One more thing...
Women grow accustomed to the lifestyle of luxury and use it as justification for taking alimony. Men grow accustomed to having a warm wet place to stick it in. If you decide to get a divorce, face it, your lifestyle is going to change. Too ****ing bad.
*waits for the "now I know you aren't married because any married man knows that not getting any (from your wife) after the divorce is NOT a lifestyle change in the least" reply*
7-10% maybe, not the 1200% difference you claim, nor even 700-1000%.
The guy whose study you keep referring to says the following:
...women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.
If I said "a dozen" then that's 12.
That is why she would operate differently. If she wanted to hurt you, she wouldn't just up and punch you in the face, as you could her. Rather she would wait until you were asleep and take a bat to your skull.
And that would be in the statistics. Sorry.
Likewise most men will fail to seek medical or societal help for their abuse.
Ok... so?
When you go to a shelter and tell them that a two hundred pound man got the hell kicked out of him by his 130 lbs girlfriend/wife, they just are skeptical. I mean sure the bat/scissors/knife/you sleeping gave her quite the edge, but most treat it just as you have. A collective "yeah right" insures that most men don't report.
You pull this out of thin air.
Against and emotional unfulfillment, you bet your butt I consider emotional unfulfillment to be invalid.
You can bet your last buck that if men were filing 66%+ of the divorces against women because they were "emotionally unfulfilled" it would be a big deal.
Divorces filed under "emotional unfulfillment" fall under the No Fault area as far as grounds.
I am only familiar with Texas, but as far as my state goes you only get alimony if (1) you were abused within the last 2 years (before divorce filing) or if you've been married for more than 10 years & (2) you are unable to support yourself from phsyical/mental incapacity or in custody of a child who requires sufficient care or you "clearly lack" the means to survive in a labor market to provide "minimum reasonable needs". And past that there are 16 factors to determine alimony. And alimony can't last for more than 3 years unless there's a "compelling impediment" to "gainful employment".
It's not like you walk into a freaking courtroom and the evil woman says "GIVE ME MONEY!" and the judge kicks you in the nuts and says "OK, bailiff! Take all his money and buy her a Mercedes!"
As far as custody the court determines what best. I don't know if you can come up with a hard-and-fast formula.
So, what about sexual unfulfillment? Is a man justified in divorcing a woman whose weight skyrockets and becomes entirely undesireable?
That would be the exact same as "emotional unfulfillment" and would be filed as No Fault.
Sorry, not nearly as clever as you thought you were.
Originally posted by groverat
BR:
That would be the exact same as "emotional unfulfillment" and would be filed as No Fault.
Sorry, not nearly as clever as you thought you were.
I asked if a man was justified in doing so, not how it could be filed.
Sorry, not nearly as clever as you thought you were.
I asked if a man was justified in doing so, not how it could be filed.
What the hell do you mean by "justified" then?
Originally posted by groverat
BR:
What the hell do you mean by "justified" then?
Do you feel this is as valid a reason as the female equivalent "he's not making enough money so I'm going to leave and take half anyway" reason?
Do you feel this is as valid a reason as the female equivalent "he's not making enough money so I'm going to leave and take half anyway" reason?
Certainly. I don't see the necessity to phrase it as you did. Unless of course the husband is trolling his family/friends as you troll this message board.
"OMG MOM I AM GETTING A DIVORCE 'CUZ I NEED A WET PLACE TO STICK IT!"
Originally posted by groverat
BR:
Certainly. I don't see the necessity to phrase it as you did. Unless of course the husband is trolling his family/friends as you troll this message board.
"OMG MOM I AM GETTING A DIVORCE 'CUZ I NEED A WET PLACE TO STICK IT!"
It's really ironic that you call someone else a troll considering the content of your posts the last six months or so.
Originally posted by groverat
Helpful link re: Straus/Gelles. click
Clears up a few myths from all sides. Apparently written by Gelles.
One trumpt and I seem to be wrangling over, a perspective from the guy who did the study:
Can't believe I missed this post.
Here, let me put an absolute end to this since you mentioned that particular study.
It has been commonly said -- by those who concede that the rates of violence are roughly equal -- that, at the same time, women are six or seven times more likely than men to be seriously injured by their partners. Straus and Gelles themselves have said this. This is based on their finding that about 3% of female victims of domestic violence, but about 0.5% of the male victims, reported having sought medical care as a result of a dom. violence incident.
Okay so the six to seven times comes from women seeking medical care 3% of the time versus .5% for men. I mentioned a difference of perhaps 7-10% in a mocking manner concerning your most. The difference in injury rates is 2.5% hardly catastrophic.
Then take this information into consideration as well with regard to men and underreporting.
Cal State Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert has compiled and summarized 117 different studies with over 72,000 respondents that found that most domestic violence is mutual and, in the cases where there was only one abusive partner, that partner was as likely to be female as male.
Studies by researchers R.I. McNeeley and Coramae Richey Mann show that women are much more likely than men to use weapons and the element of surprise. These weapons often include guns, knives, boiling water, bricks, fireplace pokers and baseball bats.
Neither male nor female domestic violence can generally be dismissed as self-defense. According to Straus, for example, roughly 10 percent of women and 15 percent of men perpetuate partner abuse in self-defense. Dr. David Fontes, the director of Stop Abuse for Everyone (SAFE), has also found that only a small percentage of female abusers are acting in self-defense.
Crime statistics do indicate that women are more likely to suffer serious injury in domestic violence than men are. But such statistics are misleading because surveys show that an abused woman is nine times as likely to report abuse as an abused man. Many men hesitate to call the police because they assume, often correctly, that the police will automatically treat them as if they are the perpetrator.
How many men don't report because they could end up in jail for claiming abuse has occured to them thanks to stereotypes like you are pushing?
Here is a well written piece that sums up my feelings on this pretty well.
Domestic violence
Lastly you didn't claim a dozen-fold difference versus 7-101 between men and women. I was just being polite and not trying to make you feel like an ass. You were obviously using some overheated rhetoric, which in my opinion is okay around here as long as we are discussing ideas and expressing opinions. Here is what you actually claimed.
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.
Hundreds to one, not .5% vs. 3%, and of course that would be those who have had violence done to them in a manner harmful enough to seek medical care. I was speaking about initial violent actions which again are equal not a 7,10-12 or even 100+fold difference.
Nick
Okay so the six to seven times comes from women seeking medical care 3% of the time versus .5% for men. I mentioned a difference of perhaps 7-10% in a mocking manner concerning your most. The difference in injury rates is 2.5% hardly catastrophic.
Where you get 7-10% from I have no idea.
"7-10 times" != 7-10%
"7 times" = 700%
"10 times" = 1000%
If you have $7 and I have 7 times that amount I have $49, not $7.49.
How many men don't report because they could end up in jail for claiming abuse has occured to them thanks to stereotypes like you are pushing?
The stereotypes backed up by the statistics you post?
Hundreds to one, not .5% vs. 3%, and of course that would be those who have had violence done to them in a manner harmful enough to seek medical care.
Straus/Gelles say I'm right.
700%-1000%
Basic math.
Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:
Where you get 7-10% from I have no idea.
"7-10 times" != 7-10%
"7 times" = 700%
"10 times" = 1000%
If you have $7 and I have 7 times that amount I have $49, not $7.49.
The stereotypes backed up by the statistics you post?
Straus/Gelles say I'm right.
700%-1000%
Basic math.
The 7-10% was from me. I said I mentioned it mockingly to show how small the actual percentage difference. When you get to such small sample sizes, of course large swings can occur. I mean a nickle is 500% more than a penny right?
The point remains, in straight percentages, women seek medical assistance 3% of the time and men .5%. That is 600% more. However this statistic is essentually meaningless. It is inflated not because huge numbers of women are being hospitalized, but rather because so few men seek medical care. Again 5 cents is 500% more than 1 cent, but it doesn't mean either one is making you rich. Likewise 3% of women versus .5% of men doesn't make women non-violent and men profoundly violent.
However what you said and what I quoted was not a percent, it was a ratio. Hundreds being plural would mean a minimum of 1 to 200. That is not 700% more, that is 20,000% more.
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.
Have to bring this one up again, and I will until you a) post about the actual thread or b) just say you were wrong. Men and women are equally violent with regard to initiating and continuing domestic abuse against each other. Men seek medical attention less because they are presumed violent and likely will be charged, even if all they did was take a beating. Women have plenty to gain from reporting the abuse. They can have the man taken out of their home. They can be taken to a shelter. They can put the man in jail for the night. Thus they are 9 times more likely to report.
The rate at which they seek medical attention is not the rate at which they are physically violent. Men and women are equally violent in domestic abuse.
You are just flat out wrong no matter what stat you wish to cling to. Men are not 20,000% more likely to be physically abusive.
And regardless of all of this, you have given NO reason why men should be at a disadvantage with regard to custody. They should be entitled to a full 50% of custody.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
And regardless of all of this, you have given NO reason why men should be at a disadvantage with regard to custody. They should be entitled to a full 50% of custody.
Do we have at least a general understanding of why decisions were made to default custody to the female/mother?
Originally posted by bunge
Do we have at least a general understanding of why decisions were made to default custody to the female/mother?
It's simple. Old prejudicial stereotypes.
Originally posted by bunge
Do we have at least a general understanding of why decisions were made to default custody to the female/mother?
The reason most often is that she wants it and seeks it. Both parties can want it, but in much more than the majority of the cases, women get it. To me, barring both parents being fit, the only clear reason would be sexism on the part of the court.
Likewise when you consider that child support is based on the percentage of the time the mother can keep the children away from the father, you have a scenario where she benefits by seeking to deny him custody.
Here have fun..
Child support calculator
You can watch his payment grow as she chooses to work less and less, and additionally chooses to let him see the kids less and less.
A father making $5000 a month with 50% custodial time pays the mother $1200 a month in child support when she earns $1000 working part time. If she can take full custody from him, his support payment becomes $2000 a month.
So lets see, before the household income was $6000 a month. ($5000 from him and $1000 from her working part time.) Half for each of them would be $3000. She files for divorce and manages to get full custody. She gets half the assets including the house, has her $1000 from part time work and $2000 a month in child support payments. If he gets behind, he gets his credit ruined, license taken, jailed, etc.
And exactly what has she lost by getting divorced here?
Nick
Bad father : kids in charge of the mother
Bad mother : kids in charge of the father
Equally good parents : kids in charge of the mother with time sharing with the father.
Equally bad parents : send them in hell
A father is not a mother, if the mother is defective he can make the job, but otherwise since milleniums the mother pass more time with her kids, than the father. The father has an important role, but it's a different one from the mother. It's absolutely normal that the mother has the priority. However if the father ok, the justice should allow them to have the right to keep them for holidays or week ends. In France even, the grand parents have the right to see their little childs.
Divorce sucks, it's not really new, people should take this into consideration before divorcing or having childs. Marriage is not always a peaceful river, sometimes you have to make great efforts to keep it alive. Any separation of the parents is always bad for the kids, any violence physical or verbal between parents is even worse.
trumptman:
It is inflated not because huge numbers of women are being hospitalized, but rather because so few men seek medical care.
.5% and 3% are both very small.
1 out of every 200 men report abuse.
3 out of every 100 women report abuse.
There is a difference, yes, but both are very small.
Again 5 cents is 500% more than 1 cent, but it doesn't mean either one is making you rich. Likewise 3% of women versus .5% of men doesn't make women non-violent and men profoundly violent.
I never said women were non-violent and men were profoundly violent. You just made that up on the spot, straw-man argument.
What is true is that women are more often physically abused than men and far more likely to end up injured because of that abuse. If you want to ignore that that's fine, but you should read your own stats before you post them.
However what you said and what I quoted was not a percent, it was a ratio. Hundreds being plural would mean a minimum of 1 to 200. That is not 700% more, that is 20,000% more.
I underestimated violence initiated against men, but not necessarily the effects of that violence.
Have to bring this one up again, and I will until you a) post about the actual thread or b) just say you were wrong.
That's funny that you demand concession from me, considering how blindly your plow through all the proof of your being wrong. But that's ok, I can admit my mistakes.
Men and women are equally violent with regard to initiating and continuing domestic abuse against each other.
Really?
I'll post a few excerpts for your edification:
691,710 non-fatal "violent victimizations"
Female victims - 588,490 (85% of total)
Male victims - 103,220 (15% of total)
Well... the Department of Justice doesn't use "nagging" numbers in their study of "violent domestic abuse".
Between 1993 and 2001, according to the DOJ, intimate violence against women has decreased 49%, against men decreased 43%.
In 1976 1,357 men were killed by an intimate. In 2000, 440 were killed by an intimate (women killed by an intimate fell from 1,600 to 1,247 in the same period).
Men seek medical attention less because they are presumed violent and likely will be charged, even if all they did was take a beating.
You have no facts on this. Please source.
Women have plenty to gain from reporting the abuse. They can have the man taken out of their home. They can be taken to a shelter. They can put the man in jail for the night.
WAHOO! That sounds like a blast! A woman's shelter!
Saddle up, girls, time to call the cops, put the hubby in the tank for the night and party down at the woman's shelter!
Thus they are 9 times more likely to report.
I have no idea whether or not that is true (is that from Straus/Gelles?), but considering they are 7-10 times more likely to be injured I'd say it's reasonable even if true.
And regardless of all of this, you have given NO reason why men should be at a disadvantage with regard to custody. They should be entitled to a full 50% of custody.
That's not what I'm discussing, which is why I have given NO reasons for any of that.
Originally posted by BR
One more thing...
Women grow accustomed to the lifestyle of luxury and use it as justification for taking alimony. Men grow accustomed to having a warm wet place to stick it in. If you decide to get a divorce, face it, your lifestyle is going to change. Too ****ing bad.
And why should they not become accustomed to the lifestyle of luxury that their husband chose to share 50/50 with them when they married?
And unless the marriage vows have some very small print I don't think the woman would be agreeing to allow the man to "stick it in" her "wet place" without her consent *during* the marriage and so doing so after a divorce is waaaaay out of the question.
Anyway, is prostitution not illegal?
Note to all married men: you are *not* paying your wife for sex. And therefore you will continue paying after the sex stops. This has been a public service announcement. Thank you for your attention.