Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-26-2011, 04:55 PM
 
6,540 posts, read 7,260,164 times
Reputation: 3806

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KatieCountrycm View Post
especially if they're financially dependent on the woman
As if women were known for getting interested in men who are below their level.....only the exceptionalists.

 
Old 04-26-2011, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
5,353 posts, read 5,775,906 times
Reputation: 6561
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I filed, in my case. I'm a male.

I think maybe men are a little more willing to make things work?
I think men are willing to work harder, at least in my case. I would have done anything to save my marriage. She filed and had no good reason to do so.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 05:30 PM
 
Location: tampa bay
7,119 posts, read 8,614,944 times
Reputation: 11744
Men can barely get around to putting the toilet seat down, let alone filing for a divorce! Unless his new girlfriend is pressing him to do it!
 
Old 04-26-2011, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
5,353 posts, read 5,775,906 times
Reputation: 6561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishiis49 View Post
Men can barely get around to putting the toilet seat down, let alone filing for a divorce! Unless his new girlfriend is pressing him to do it!
Wow, cynical? I'm a loyal guy who puts the toilet seat down, fyi. Because of that loyalty and love, I wouldn't have filed for my divorce. But hey, most people don't think like that anymore. I was fooled.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 06:05 PM
 
3,644 posts, read 10,917,721 times
Reputation: 5514
I vote for the lazy factor. My dh and I are having fight after fight these days. He says what he wants to say, but when I try to respond, he leaves the room saying, "If you don't like it, leave".

What he doesn't know is that I'm working on it. I tried to give him the 'head's up' today - and tell him what it will take for me not to leave, which just led into a fight (of course) where he accused me of keeping him away from the children.

As an example of how I keep him away from the children, tonight was his only night off this week - he's working nights these days, so he leaves about 30 minutes before the kids get home. Tonight was his chance to spend time with them. For dinner, I made lasagna. I served it at the table. He walked in, picked up his plate and ate in front of the TV - again. He left the room when they came home from school, while I helped with their homework and signing folders. He's been back and forth between the TV and the computer (video games, of course) all night - the kids follow his example and ignore him right back.

There was a time he was an involved father. That's not been the case for a long time though. A lot of things have changed. The day I had to hock my wedding/engagement set to pay for the gas to attend my stepmom's memorial service pretty much clinched it for me. Things have been tough - our business went under and I was ill. I kept asking dh to get a job, but he lived in denial for a long time. Money was tight, he wouldn't quit smoking or drinking soda (1 pack a day, 8-10 cans a day) - he had a collection of $2 bills which he kept saying he couldn't find, then hocked my brand new $300 bike for $10. While we (me and the kids) were out of town, he somehow found the money to eat out nightly - naturally, he was too lazy to hide the fast food bags. We're on food stamps, I had to hock my rings, the kids are wearing uniforms that are too small for them - but he can afford cigs, soda and fast food. Guess he found the $2 bill collection while we were out of town.

I'll be starting a new job soon. I estimate that it will take me two years before I can file - time to work up to full time at the new job, time to save up enough to live on without assistance for at least a year. I completely doubt he will do anything to change my mind. We had a 'deal' when we got married - he's completely reneged on it, unapologetically.

I'm tired of his "if you're unhappy, then leave"... I know he doesn't mean it, but that's too bad for him. I've decided to take him at his word.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,645 posts, read 38,563,555 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooting Stars View Post
Would you rather have been aborted, or completely neglected after you are born?

I know which one I'd choose.
The way I feel right now, that's not a good question to ask.

I was just pointing out that the moms in that scenario aren't any better than the dads. Neither did their job as parents.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 08:37 PM
 
1,960 posts, read 4,649,283 times
Reputation: 5416
Since we're playing the generalization game, here's a theory. Women in post-feminist America have been socially conditioned to expect a lot out of the "contract" of marriage. When these material and non-material expectations are not met to a T, they feel as though they aren't getting their money's worth and press to hit the reset button. Men could feasibly feel the same, but why don't they with the same spedyness? The answer is: Time sensitive perceptions of worth.

Put simply, women have an underlying understanding that their age and body is their biggest marketing trait, their ultimate social worth in a fierce world that doesn't apologize nor is fair. Even in equal-participation-in-the-labor-market America they mentally favor these visceral qualities of "worth" and traditional gender roles [even when they reject that very traditionalism by their embrace of "point-making" via overt sexual promiscuity], thence staying in a relationship that is not providing the expected dividends is truly a bet they cannot afford. In essence, women are always in a bigger hurry to get nowhere, sociologically speaking.... In a hurry to have children, in a hurry to upgrade their lifestyle. In a hurry.... As such, they pull the pin with much more nonchalance than men. Granted, in many cases these relationships are broken and toxic, and bringing a speedy end to them can be healthy, but that's not a quality that is just reserved for women. Men can just as easily be stuck in relationships where the female is the emotional deserter and the input of toxicity.

The point seems to center around the underlying notion that women feel as though they have an expiration date that men seem to skate under. And statistically speaking, they're largely right. I was able to grab the attention of women much younger than me after my divorce while my exwife had to effectively accept the cost of gaining the attention of a man much older than her (ex and I are the same age) as 30 yo men don't want a 30 yo woman in aggregate, particularly when normalized for percentage of single mothers in that age bracket. This 'unfairness' is part of the reason they are so predisposed to be so privately disloyal to the very contract [state marriage] they push so hard on men with their vagina-leveraging.

Now, is that notion righteous? Of course not. But perception is reality. In the world of American women, where their moral compass is no longer their family, or even the male peer group, but rather their FEMALE PEER group, these irrational feelings of "expiration" make them approach the very marriage they push on men, with one foot always out the door. That's the mother of all dichotomies, not to mention a less than righteous character trait.

I guess if I was a woman and was told every day of my young life, by both word and example of my mothers and high school/college girlfriends with their body image keeping and victoria secret catalogs and cheer meets and 8-hour-a-day grooming, that my altitude in life is ultimately determined and a function of how well I manage the marketing and leveraging of my vagina (women are after all, the pace setters of sexual access and availability), I guess I'd be freggin' out every birthday of my 20s and 30s making sure my marriage is on track with the "checklist" prescribed for me by my peer women.

I raise a glass and toast: to the unintended consequences of feminism! Now I say that and b$tches ('cause these nutjobs are not 'women') come out with the pitchforks and accuse me of asserting I wish all women back in the kitchen. Nonsense. I just wish to declare that you all can't have it all...and you all are losing the game. Your vaginas are losing relevance in the equation of social stability. Marriage is no longer a requirement to have access to sex, or even children. Time to accept you can't have it all. If that means accepting more traditional gender roles for what you value more, then own it. It's not as if men are out there nilly willy living life without abandon or cost. We're still largely living a rougher life and employed in occupations that lower our life expectancy, where the residual wealth is eventually transferred to the surviving female peer. It is what it is. But I don't go out declaring life owes me anything in the realm of material expectations of relationships. And women failed miserably at recognizing that [that men never had it all to begin with, even back then] when they started demanding the world's head in a plate with the feminism mantra.

There's my 2 pesos. To each their own. Call me Taliban for wanting and recognizing that I need a woman who is accepting of a subordinate economic role (and is willing to sign a prenup to prove it) in order to be compatible with the vocational and personal circumstances of my life. I still think such model is capable of being equitable to both parts, even if in paper it's not 50 50. Since there is NO such thing as 50 50 in life anyways...
 
Old 04-26-2011, 08:59 PM
 
5,126 posts, read 7,379,241 times
Reputation: 8396
Quote:
Originally Posted by hindsight2020 View Post
Put simply, women have an underlying understanding that their age and body is their biggest marketing trait, their ultimate social worth in a fierce world that doesn't apologize nor is fair.

I was able to grab the attention of women much younger than me after my divorce while my ex wife had to effectively accept the cost of gaining the attention of a man much older than her (ex and I are the same age) as 30 yo men don't want a 30 yo woman in aggregate, particularly when normalized for percentage of single mothers in that age bracket.

Time to accept you can't have it all. If that means accepting more traditional gender roles for what you value more, then own it. It's not as if men are out there nilly willy living life without abandon or cost. We're still largely living a rougher life and employed in occupations that lower our life expectancy, where the residual wealth is eventually transferred to the surviving female peer. It is what it is. But I don't go out declaring life owes me anything in the realm of material expectations of relationships. And women failed miserably at recognizing that [that men never had it all to begin with, even back then] when they started demanding the world's head in a plate with the feminism mantra.

There's my 2 pesos. To each their own. Call me Taliban for wanting and recognizing that I need a woman who is accepting of a subordinate economic role (and is willing to sign a prenup to prove it) in order to be compatible with the vocational and personal circumstances of my life. I still think such model is capable of being equitable to both parts, even if in paper it's not 50 50. Since there is NO such thing as 50 50 in life anyways...
My thoughts ...

When I got a divorce, I wasn't thinking of my expiration date. I just wanted to be free of that specific relationship. My ex and I are still friends and talk all the time. But the marriage wasn't right.

Even if God himself would have come down and told me that I would never be with another man, I would still have gotten the divorce.

As far as men, I never noticed having to settle for someone much older than me. Although, I have always looked extremely young for my age.

As far as the life that men lead, I have always felt that it was a misnomer to say that men "had it all". No one has ever had it all. They gave up spending more time with their children to support a family.

Now as far as your last paragraph goes; I don't understand it. Are you saying you want a woman who does not work and will sign a prenup? Are you saying she should be content with a reduced amount of money in the event of a divorce?

A prenup is fine. But if you are asking her not to work, then you are asking her to take a gamble . . . unless you are guaranteeing her quite a bit of money.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:07 PM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,901 posts, read 42,597,183 times
Reputation: 42767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucario View Post
But even in your post, you point out an inconsistency.....More men may walk out on their kids (for whatever reason), but if a woman does not want to be a mother, she just kills (aborts) her child before it is even born. So I don't think we can say women are more inclined to want to take care of children they bring into the world (or at least begin that process by getting pregnant).
You're right, I didn't say that. I was explaining why the average single father with custody may be a better parent than the average single mother. The single mother group includes more reluctant parents. If a father does not want to be involved with a child's life, I don't think he is forced to, whereas a baby is with its mother by default.
 
Old 04-26-2011, 09:22 PM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,901 posts, read 42,597,183 times
Reputation: 42767
Quote:
Originally Posted by onihC View Post
I am reading correctly the part where it says that more than 75% of the cases women are awarded custody regardless of who seeked or not, women get it MOST (if not all) of the time. That's just how it is.

So cheating women still get half of what was brought into the marriage, custody, alimony, investments, the house, etc. regardless of those women not contributing to the marriage (economically, sentimentally, to the hose keeping, etc.). Hey, if someone is going to get awarded for their bad conduct or simply if they get bored with the marriage nothing will hold them to get a divorce and move on.
Children typically go with their mothers because of what we've been explaining to you right along: mothers are typically the primary caregivers of children. Kids typically stay with the parent who is more involved in their lives. And the children are entitled to child support, regardless of which parent lives with them. Fathers don't typically petition for custody, for a variety of reasons I'm sure, but when they do they are awarded custody something like 75% of the time. If fathers want to avoid paying child support, they should try to be equal parents and petition for custody if it comes to that.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top