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.
But there are men who worked hard and earned a lot of money because they invested in their education. Why does the woman have any right to get half his stuff? Even if the man paid for most of the stuff during the marriage?
Do you honestly think that women don't invest in their educations or work hard?? Seriously, what planet do you live on?
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by newdixiegirl
Marriage is a legal partnership of assets. If that partnership dissolves, then the assets should be divided equally.
What do you think a woman should receive? What if the woman, urged on by her husband, took time out of the workforce to raise THEIR children and to care for THEIR home? Should she receive NOTHING?
The men you know did NOT LOSE "half of their belongings." But the women in those divorces did receive their equitable portions of joint assets. If you or any other men have difficulty with that concept, then please do everyone a favor and NEVER marry. Just stay single AND live alone.
Seriously.
If guys don't want income inequality, maybe they should care about education and careers in the women they wish to date. I've never dated a non educated woman since I was 25. I just don't meet them. And I can't imagine being mentally attracted to a person that didn't have a career and career goals (educated or not). That type of commonality is part of being attracted to the entire package for me, it always has been.
If a dude just cares about looks, and someone being pleasant or whatever, that's on them.
Let´s face it, we can talk about "equality" and "emancipation" all day long, but when it comes to dating even women who consider themself to be a "feminist" and "empowered" expect the man to make the first move and to court her. In that sitation all the talk about "equality" goes out of the window. The man has to make the first move, he has to be confident, funny, interesting and he has to pay at the first time. (I know that there are women who are ok with paying their own bill, but I have a feeling they they don´t really like that....they have just adapted to the changes in our dating culture. They know that they have to lower they axpectations if they want to get a date with a guy.)
Oh, here we go with the "blame feminists" crap.
Do you know ANY women (or men) who believe women are NOT entitled to vote, to an education, to own property, to earn and manage their own money? Do you know ANY women or men who feel that women should NOT be "equal" or "emancipated"?
Which brings me to the topic of sex. Since your main dating gripe seems to be that women don't have sex with you (or men generally) as often or as soon as YOU feel they SHOULD, then you clearly believe that a single woman HAS the right to have sex in the first place? You believe that she can choose to have sex whenever, however, wherever and with whomever she chooses, correct? Logically, then, you also believe a woman has the right to access to birth control whenever she wants birth control, yes?
Well, congratulations, sir, YOU are a feminist. Okay, now that we have all of that out of the way, can we now put to rest, once and for all, the tired "feminist" griping, please?
What you and some other men fail to understand is that dating isn't easy for ANYONE. According to you, as long as a woman is reasonably attractive, then she's got the world by the tail. She's got any man she wants (or, at least that she's willing to f***) eating out of her hand. Well, I and plenty of other women on CD can tell you that that assumption is wrong. W-R-O-N-G.
Women, no matter how attractive and fit, experience all the same stuff in the dating world, and in OLD particularly, that you've experienced. We read men's profiles that are angry; we receive emails from men that are vague, poorly written and/or hostile; we, too, receive mixed signals - or no signals at all - from men we're interested in, IRL and online. There are too many "princesses" in OLD? Well, I can tell you that there are just as many "princes."
Entitled women, spoiled women, presumptuous women, rude women, poorly educated women? Every single one of those categories apply to men, as well; I can assure you.
I've said it on other posts, and I'll say it again: the main problem that some men on CD have is their self-absorption and their sense of entitlement. All any of us is entitled to is to be treated with basic respect (IF we also GIVE respect), but NO ONE owes any of us ANYTHING.
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 09-11-2014 at 05:35 PM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by GabrielKnight
But I prefer to live in the real world instead of that fantasy land, most men seem to live in. Even if that means that this can sometimes be quite depressing.
That is a classic statement of a depressed cynic. I know, I used to be one. It can be fixed.
I used to have the "I'm not negative, I deal with reality, I don't pretend the glass is half full crap, I live in the real world". Shoot, I used to be "The glass isn't half full or half empty. They tell you it is half full, but they're skimming off the top, man!"
Not so fast, cupcake. What if the man has brought in most of the assets?
Oh yeah...because it is mostly MEn who insist to marry and have children, right? And all those men who trick women into motherhood by secretly impregnanting her.
Yes, they did. Because now they have to pay child-support and they rarely ever see their own children.
Any assets that either part of the couple has before marriage don't get counted in the divorce settlement. Bogus argument.
Some dudes like to have a "little woman" at home, and want her to care for the kids, so the kids don't get raised by strangers.
The "secretly impregnating" issue isn't relevant here. Another straw man argument.
Why don't they have 50/50 custody? Why do they let the ex get away with denying visitation? That's what lawyers are for. Fact is, a lot of dads aren't into spending much time with their kids. The ones that are tend to fight for their rights.
Lots of bogus arguments here, man. Besides, you're way off-topic. OP's topic is: getting back into dating after a long hiatus.
Bingo! It has nothing to do with love.
If more men would understand this, they would spare themself a lot of trouble.
And women should stop talking about marriage because the "love" the man.
Not so fast, cupcake. What if the man has brought in most of the assets? What if the man has a strong going career and earned a lot of money during marriage while the women just had a low paying job and earned a whole lot less then her husband? Why should the assets be divided equally?
Her fair share. If she helped the man to build a company, she has to be compensated accordingly. If she was a housewife she should get less.
Oh yeah...because it is mostly MEn who insist to marry and have children, right? And all those men who trick women into motherhood by secretly impregnanting her.
If it was a decision made by both to have children and if the wife was a caring mother and housewife, she did a good job and should be compensated for that.
Nope. She should get her fair share. Maybe that means half of their assests, maybe not.
Yes, they did. Because now they have to pay child-support and they rarely ever see their own children. I know one guy who has now contact with his dauther, after she turned 9. Because the daughter demanded to see her father and the mother has run out of arguments. Now they talk on Skype from time to time.
I know another woman who works in a butcher shop. She has 2 kids and owns a house. A woman who works in a bucther shop can by no means afford a house. She got that house after she divorced her husband. And she is not the only woman who earned huge benefits by divorcing her husband.
I am not going to argue with you about the contributions to marriages, families, and joint assets that women make. Clearly you have nothing but contempt for women (tell me, do you have the same contempt for your mother?), so there's no point. Your views are beyond ridiculous.
But do you honestly think that the few divorces you know about apply to all divorces? You don't know what you're talking about.
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.
LOL!
