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.
I understand what you mean -- my concern though, and as I think the earlier poster touched on well, is that the modern marriage laws are fundamentally stacked against men. We live in a society where (rightly or wrongly), a woman can divorce a man, and also financially destroy him if she elects to, by literally taking him to the cleaners financially. Never mind that the odds are that she's also working herself. So we still apply pre-equality era, 1950s-ish laws to men (men are liable for paying alimony, entitlement to an ex-husband's retirement account, etc. to a divorced spouse), whereas women who *are* fully equal now are getting the benefit of pre-equality era laws, and even if they are also working.
22% of couples have a higher earner spouse be the woman. So the argument that women are do-it-all pillars of the American household is factually incorrect. Men are still the preponderance of breadwinners. Which makes them, because of that fact [higher earning], losers in the gauntlet of marital dissolution. Women can get taken to the cleaners too, provided they are the higher earning/saver spouse. Which statistically speaking they are still NOT, by a large margin. Ergo, men stand much more to lose in marriage, for a benefit they can attain [companionship] without having to sign that certificate in the first place. It's not about woman hating. As I've said before, sign that prenup sweetie, and I'll quit my banter. Equal is equal.
Dewdrop93,
What is the hateful part of this paragraph? He was simply saying a fact. All you had to do is say why you agreed or disagreed with it just like he responds to you. Interesting things he mentions though.
Dewdrop93,
What is the hateful part of this paragraph? He was simply saying a fact. All you had to do is say why you agreed or disagreed with it just like he responds to you. Interesting things he mentions though.
I don't know what he wrote - I think I stated this. I stopped reading his posts when he made it clear that he thought of most wives as being the same thing as prostitutes. Then again - since you pretty much have the same views on women - or rather, American women, I can understand why you would not understand what is hateful about that.
Of course you find his posts interesting! That doesn't surprise me at all!
22% of couples have a higher earner spouse be the woman. So the argument that women are do-it-all pillars of the American household is factually incorrect. Men are still the preponderance of breadwinners. Which makes them, because of that fact [higher earning], losers in the gauntlet of marital dissolution. Women can get taken to the cleaners too, provided they are the higher earning/saver spouse. Which statistically speaking they are still NOT, by a large margin. Ergo, men stand much more to lose in marriage, for a benefit they can attain [companionship] without having to sign that certificate in the first place. It's not about woman hating. As I've said before, sign that prenup sweetie, and I'll quit my banter. Equal is equal.
At least in this paragraph he doesn't insult women. What is your opinion in that paragraph?
22% of couples have a higher earner spouse be the woman. So the argument that women are do-it-all pillars of the American household is factually incorrect. Men are still the preponderance of breadwinners. Which makes them, because of that fact [higher earning], losers in the gauntlet of marital dissolution. Women can get taken to the cleaners too, provided they are the higher earning/saver spouse. Which statistically speaking they are still NOT, by a large margin. Ergo, men stand much more to lose in marriage, for a benefit they can attain [companionship] without having to sign that certificate in the first place. It's not about woman hating. As I've said before, sign that prenup sweetie, and I'll quit my banter. Equal is equal.
At least in this paragraph he doesn't insult women. What is your opinion in that paragraph?
I don't know why I am bothering - I know this isn't going to make any sense to you - but here goes...
In many cases - when people have children, one parent stays home. In most cases but certainly not all, the husband is the breadwinner and the wife takes care of the children, the chores, the shopping, etc. In many cases - this situation has come about because both the husband and wife have agreed upon it. In cases where one income is enough to support the family - it is often easier to have one person stay home to take care of the children and the home. In these cases - if there is a divorce, is the spouse that has stayed home entitled to nothing? Being the primary caregiver and household keeper may not bring home an income - but it certainly is a job in it of itself. Paying alimony in these cases is not in place to take the husband to the cleaners - but to provide for the children. Also - some husbands make their wives quit their jobs when they get married of have children. In these cases - are the women entitled to nothing because their husband didn't allow them to work?
You can look at statistics all you want - but there is so much more to a relationship and the inner workings of a marriage than you can read about on paper. For instance - if my husband and I got divorced (which we both vow will never happen - but hypothetically speaking) - he has made much more money that I have. I did, however, came into the relationship with more assets. We are about to have a baby - so if we got divorced after we already had the baby - I would hope that he wouldn't leave me high and dry simply because he had better paying jobs than I did. I would also not try to get sole custody since I know he will be a wonderful father. So if we have joint custody - and since he made more money than I did - do you think it's fair that he gets everything and I get nothing? I took care of the house, the finances, the baby, etc. - but since I didn't make as much as he did - should he get almost everything and I get almost nothing that we both worked hard to attain? The life that we have made for ourselves could not be possible without either one of us. My husband understands this. He understands that money isn't everything and that there is so much more to a relationship than money.
If you can't understand that there are things in this world more important than money and who pays for what and who makes what - none of this will make sense to you. And judging from most of the posts by the both of you - this is a concept that you just can't grasp. When you get married to someone - you are saying that you are equal partners in life. This does not mean that you will make equal pay or have equal chores - it means that you are equal in live and in love. The rest of those things are things that each couple works out for themselves. If you are not ready for a partner and sharing your life with someone - and all that that entails - you are not ready for marriage.
I don't know why I am bothering - I know this isn't going to make any sense to you - but here goes...
In many cases - when people have children, one parent stays home. In most cases but certainly not all, the husband is the breadwinner and the wife takes care of the children, the chores, the shopping, etc. In many cases - this situation has come about because both the husband and wife have agreed upon it. In cases where one income is enough to support the family - it is often easier to have one person stay home to take care of the children and the home. In these cases - if there is a divorce, is the spouse that has stayed home entitled to nothing? Being the primary caregiver and household keeper may not bring home an income - but it certainly is a job in it of itself. Paying alimony in these cases is not in place to take the husband to the cleaners - but to provide for the children. Also - some husbands make their wives quit their jobs when they get married of have children. In these cases - are the women entitled to nothing because their husband didn't allow them to work?
You can look at statistics all you want - but there is so much more to a relationship and the inner workings of a marriage than you can read about on paper. For instance - if my husband and I got divorced (which we both vow will never happen - but hypothetically speaking) - he has made much more money that I have. I did, however, came into the relationship with more assets. We are about to have a baby - so if we got divorced after we already had the baby - I would hope that he wouldn't leave me high and dry simply because he had better paying jobs than I did. I would also not try to get sole custody since I know he will be a wonderful father. So if we have joint custody - and since he made more money than I did - do you think it's fair that he gets everything and I get nothing? I took care of the house, the finances, the baby, etc. - but since I didn't make as much as he did - should he get almost everything and I get almost nothing that we both worked hard to attain? The life that we have made for ourselves could not be possible without either one of us. My husband understands this. He understands that money isn't everything and that there is so much more to a relationship than money.
If you can't understand that there are things in this world more important than money and who pays for what and who makes what - none of this will make sense to you. And judging from most of the posts by the both of you - this is a concept that you just can't grasp. When you get married to someone - you are saying that you are equal partners in life. This does not mean that you will make equal pay or have equal chores - it means that you are equal in live and in love. The rest of those things are things that each couple works out for themselves. If you are not ready for a partner and sharing your life with someone - and all that that entails - you are not ready for marriage.
*applauds wildly*
I can't even highlight any segments of your post in particular, because every sentence is spot on.
How about when there are no children involved and women still take men to the cleaners? I'll get back to the other points she shared.
Why bother? All you see when you look at a woman is money. How much she makes, what she pays for, how often she treats. You don't understand love and relationships. We are never going to see eye to eye and you are always going to think that men get the raw end of the deal. Most men in the real world are capable of seeing things differently. My husband is. He's the best man I know.
I disagree. Many women not only have to support the household and work F/T, but they do the majority of housework, are in charge of the running of the home, have and care for the children and essentially have a second child-husband to care for in the way of responsibility. Nothing about that is against men. Those are some of the reasons I waited until I found a good man. He's one in a million.
Barring having children, you just summed my former marriage up perfectly.
As my wasband said to me after our divorce, when he pulled up in a brand-new car, "Being married to you was great for my credit."
The notion that men are any more vulnerable in marriage or divorce than women is patently ridiculous. Men have long been the ones to fare better, and as has been hashed over in many, MANY threads about this--so many that the discussion is trite at this point--it is women who still suffer the lion's share of financial damage after a divorce.
The men who are complaining here are self-selecting for permanent bachelorhood. That is a good thing, because if they are that mistrustful of women, the word "marriage" shouldn't be in their vocabulary in the first place. With nearly 7 billion people on the planet, somehow I think the species will survive without these fellows marrying.
Being the primary caregiver and household keeper may not bring home an income - but it certainly is a job in it of itself
A job that women make it sound as if it is a complete hell, when it is not. Yet, the law and society rewards women greatly as if the man, the one who brought the food/kept a roof/transportation/education/etc., is seen as if he did nothing. So the women is protected/favored by law for what she contributed to marriage while the man is not?
Quote:
I took care of the house, the finances, the baby, etc. - but since I didn't make as much as he did - should he get almost everything and I get almost nothing that we both worked hard to attain?
So what did he do to keep a roof over your head, food on the table, clothes for you and the baby, transportation, etc.? Did he just walk somewhere to get it for free or did he have to work for it?
I find it interesting how women talk about how men should do half of this half of that, contribute, etc. But when it comes to dating it is women who support the idea that men should be the ones who take care of the initiative, romancing, expenses, chivalry, etc. So I guess the whole teamwork thing should be applied in marriage only, right?
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.
