Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, I've already provided numbers that, at minimum, cast doubt upon your numbers.
Second, you seem to oblivious to the fact that much of the cash that women spend is for men. You know, the housewife that buys the groceries that the man eats...for one example
Those married men must be rapacious.
Percent Currently Married by Race and SexPercent Married
White Men 44 %
White Women 51%
Black Men 32%
Black Women 26%
Hispanic Men 43%
Hispanic Women 45%
There is no point to a marriage with this list. Basically any trouble and you are out. Drug abuse is illness. Heavy drinking is illness. Neither drug abuse nor drinking just pop up out of nowhere on the 2nd year of marriage. You just can't hide those predispositions. Why marry in the first place? If it's something (rare) that developed during a marriage - suck it up to the end. "Cheating" - OK. "Mistreatment of children" - is rather a philosophical and loosely defined, it could be little more than different approaches to raising them. "Controlling and demanding" is so loose, it can mean anything. "Mental illness" is illness covered by "till death us do part". "Choosing not to get help" for something that's poorly defined = my way or highway. Why marry with that attitude?
And to go back to my other comment, you are basically implying that children should be raised in a house with a drug addict or alcoholic, rather than the couple divorcing and the children living with the healthier parent?
So a man or a woman should never have the option of divorcing an alcoholic that won't get help?
Alcoholism is a predisposition that can be seen far away. Why marry somebody with this predisposition? Minuscule % of men & women become heavy drinkers/drug users out of the blue. In this case, it's an illness covered by "Till death do us part". Sometimes men&women (heavy on positive attitude & self-help) refuse to accept that fate is blind to their expectations of "happiness", life is not always about you, and sometimes you are dealt really crappy cards. Ironically, one may get greater sense of "happiness" by dealing with those cards instead of tossing them in a garbage can.
Alcoholism is a predisposition that can be seen far away. Why marry somebody with this predisposition? Minuscule % of men & women become heavy drinkers/drug users out of the blue. In this case, it's an illness covered by "Till death do us part". Sometimes men&women (heavy on positive attitude & self-help) refuse to accept that fate is blind to their expectations of "happiness", life is not always about you, and sometimes you are dealt really crappy cards. Ironically, one may get greater sense of "happiness" by dealing with those cards instead of tossing them in a garbage can.
No guarantee that 'till death do us part' was part of the vows.
I'll answer your questions, but if you notice I'm not really concerned about benefits and disadvantage of marriage. Easy access to divorce and all the downfalls of such is the real problem, and when people speak about marriage not being worth it for men, divorce is the major cause given, 2nd being the "milk for free" crowd.
In the post you quoted, I was clearly talking about the end result when things don't work out. As I said before, marriage is just fine for men as long as it doesn't end in a devastating divorce. Outside of child custody, in a non-married situation, it's much less devastating if the other person wants to leave you, and that person can't profit from splitting up the family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
I think young women do want the benefit of marriage. Why would a woman who wanted to raise a family not want the benefit of having a legitimate child as opposed to a bastard child.
I agree that young women in general want the benefit of marriage, whether they care about the "bastard" label or not.
My only caveat in regards to "bastard": This primarily matters for people who care about the "bastard" label. That's not as prevalent except among more traditional, religious, and rural folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
One of the initial motivations for marriage was to insure legitimacy for inheritance of the father’s name and wealth.
Right, and this is no longer guaranteed with easy access to divorce. Without his consent, your hypothetical father's "wealth" can potentially be placed into the hands of, and spent by a person he no longer is on friendly terms with. After the split there is no guarantee the children's inheritance won't be wasted. That potential issue is a strike against getting married vs. cohabitating and having an undisturbed, direct line to giving his children their inheritance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Why would she not want some assurance that the child will be taken care of and she be taken care of financially while caring for the child. Seems stupid not to.
I'm not arguing against women's benefit in marriage. I've already agreed with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
What makes you believe divorce is only devastating for men. The majority of women work and contribute as much financially towards assets and living expenses, they have as much invested emotionally in the family and raising of children and upkeep of the home.
I didn't say divorce was ONLY devastating for men. I said not getting married is more beneficial for men, and getting married is more beneficial for women. Note the word "more" vs "only".
That being said, with kids in the picture, the woman has a better shot of receiving an income transfer since she is statistically more likely to keep the kids and hence the house. Also, women in general marry up, so even if she is contributing, it's not necessarily equal. That's not women's fault, that's men's consequence for marrying down. That tradition seems to be changing toward a marriage of equals and I'm happy about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
When it comes down to it, legally married or just cohabitating there are still the same legal issues in a dissolution, child custody and support and separation of assets and debt. The only thing I can see different is that investments and retirement doesn’t enter into the equation.
There is a world of difference. Dealing with child custody is devastating enough and yes it is similar in both married and non-married breakups. But, to add additional financial / legal issues to the pie only makes it worse and creates a more adversarial situation in a breakup that doesn't exist for non-married couples. I don't see how separation of assets and debt are a factor in non-married couples. Since there's no marriage license, those issues are resolved personally, or at least outside of "family court".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
What are the marriage incentives men had in the past that they do not have today?
Predictability that it wouldn't end on a whim and losing your kids, home, assets. After the devastation, being forced to pay monthly for that other person's decision, even if that person was a cheater or caused the demise on their own.
I'm not saying I want to go back to the "good ole days". I just want things to be more equal if the marriage doesn't work out. 50/50 custody offered upfront, no more alimony except in extreme cases, yet only long enough to learn a skill (2 years).
The incentives men had back then are the same they have today that people on this forum always list as benefits for marriage. The difference is the big cliff at the end, which they can be pushed off at any time.
Last edited by Freedom123; 01-08-2013 at 01:13 PM..
In the post you quoted, I was clearly talking about the end result when things don't work out. As I said before, marriage is just fine for men as long as it doesn't end in a devastating divorce. Outside of child custody, in a non-married situation, it's much less devastating if the other person wants to leave you, and that person can't profit from splitting up the family.
Right, and this is no longer guaranteed with easy access to divorce. Without his consent, your hypothetical father's "wealth" can potentially be placed into the hands of, and spent by a person he no longer is on friendly terms with. After the split there is no guarantee the children's inheritance won't be wasted. That potential issue is a strike against getting married vs. cohabitating and having an undisturbed, direct line to giving his children their inheritance.
[/font][/color]
I'm not arguing against women's benefit in marriage. I've already agreed with that.
That being said, with kids in the picture, the woman has a better shot of receiving an income transfer since she is statistically more likely to keep the kids and hence the house. Also, women in general marry up, so even if she is contributing, it's not necessarily equal. That's not women's fault, that's men's consequence for marrying down. That tradition seems to be changing toward a marriage of equals and I'm happy about that.
There is a world of difference. Dealing with child custody is devastating enough and yes it is similar in both married and non-married breakups. But, to add additional financial / legal issues to the pie only makes it worse and creates a more adversarial situation in a breakup that doesn't exist for non-married couples. I don't see how separation of assets and debt are a factor in non-married couples. Since there's no marriage license, those issues are resolved personally, or at least outside of "family court".
Predictability that it wouldn't end on a whim and being forced to pay for that other person's decision.
I've read many of your posts. I can understand how some men have the perception of marriage as not being advantageous. I disagree with the use of your word profit though. For average people no one profits, and everyone's standard of living goes down once the couple has two households.
As far as your statements about breakups being less adversarial when a couple isn't married, that may be true in some cases, but the longer any couple has been together the messier things can get. It certainly doesn't mean legal action can't occur.
Alcoholism is a predisposition that can be seen far away. Why marry somebody with this predisposition? Minuscule % of men & women become heavy drinkers/drug users out of the blue. In this case, it's an illness covered by "Till death do us part". Sometimes men&women (heavy on positive attitude & self-help) refuse to accept that fate is blind to their expectations of "happiness", life is not always about you, and sometimes you are dealt really crappy cards. Ironically, one may get greater sense of "happiness" by dealing with those cards instead of tossing them in a garbage can.
No the predisposition for alcoholism can't always be predicted in advance.
Do you think kids should be subjected to an alcoholic parent that won't get help? Or would that be an okay reason to divorce?
Alcoholism is a predisposition that can be seen far away. Why marry somebody with this predisposition? .
I'm intrigued by this. Perhaps RememberMee could explain to us how a predisposition toward alcoholism could be spotted from a distance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
