"We" just hit mainstream media

[backbreaker]

An unhappy marriage is better for children than a divorce would be.

spoken by someone who ovbiusly has never had to deal with a broken home situation first hand.

dude you have no clue how toxic a fvcked up marriage can be to a child. from little things to seeing first hand how to be passive aggressive because if you do what she says she won't yell, to mid level things like it being normal that mom and dad are not affectionate anymore to really fvcked up things like watching your dad spiral into depression and becoming an alcoholic and you picking up the habit when you get older. to learning that you can get what you want from a woman if you smack her around a little.

fvck i was 7 years old, and i rem ember going to school proud of the fact that I had a little brother who had a different mom than I did, even though my parents were technically still married. I thought it was "sweet" that i had 2 families. 7 year olds don't know any better. I thought the **** was normal.


all this stupid arguing is a zero sum point. if you want the best women you are going to get married. see my post i made a few months ago on the subject. the only women who don't get married are the women who can't find a man to marry them. women who aren't go;od enough to find a man to marry them, generally aren't the type of boards I f'ed around with. at least long term.

 

[DanelMadr]

spoken by someone who ovbiusly has never had to deal with a broken home situation first hand.

dude you have no clue how toxic a fvcked up marriage can be to a child......

You obviously haven't read my post. I stated that unhappy may be better than divorced (as suggested by Danger) however on condition this unhappy won't turn in to toxic.

And I appealed for father's not to fuel and prolong this toxicity in the name of fathers's rights aka long and hostile court battles.

 

[DanelMadr]

Jophil was divorced,his wife went crazy after they were married a long time...suppose he should have seen it coming 15 years earlier? As far as being a DJ...you aren't qualified to carry his jockstrap. READ his stuff, see how close you are to him[or aren't]. If you've never been married,you really don't have a clue. BUT, you've read a book on it somewhere that makes you an expert...............

That is tragic and I am sure he managed it as best as he could. That was surely one extreme example. We are not talking about extremes like wife becomes insane suddenly.
However your judgment of my qualification seems to be invalid.
Try to prove wrong something about my arguments instead of trashing your "opponent" by meaningless comparisons.

Do you think they aren't men because if they were DJ's they could have handled it different or not gotten into that position? Seems to be what you are saying about marriage. Marriage is a full contact sport...even the best can get hurt through no fault of their own...sh1t happens.

Yes, but the best ones don't file complaints about fouls for three years in order to prove their truth. Especially when they are endangering the whole team.

 

[DanelMadr]

The studiesI linked show that children are actually better off when in a single unhappy, undivorced household, as opposed to a single parent household.

Given that data, do you still feel that divorce should occur? Or should we maximize the benefit of the children and not allow the divorce?

If not, then what is your definition of what is "beneficial" for the children?

I'm sorry I made the post a little bit too long and confusing. I try again.

I believe that unhappy marriage is better than divorce and both parties should try to stay together for the sake of family. And it is often the case.
On other hand once this unhappy turns in to hostile they should be separated. And primarily I was speaking about these examples where both parents hold their ground.

By not allowing divorce we (government, bureaucrats) are telling other people what to do or not do. I prefer maximum freedom. Only then you can see true colors. Government should interfere only when parties can't reach agreement and not by preventive programs like 'make it more hurtful to divorce so they don't'.

 

[DanelMadr]

No. From a historical perspective a disadvantaged single mother would be forced to become efficient at some, often illegal, profession or trade. Often prostitution. A sentence of poverty and degradation to be sure, but not of death.

In case of ancient Egypt, maybe, if they lived in the areas with some civilization. Try to sell some booty in 1000 BC Kavkaz village. Not going to happen.

 

[Nutz]

The studiesI linked show that children are actually better off when in a single unhappy, undivorced household, as opposed to a single parent household.

Given that data, do you still feel that divorce should occur? Or should we maximize the benefit of the children and not allow the divorce?

If not, then what is your definition of what is "beneficial" for the children?

Do these studies account for divorce couples where the kids still had equal access to both parents? I suspect not. The studies that do show that the kids often turn out just fine, which casts into doubt the notion that married but unhappy is better than divorced and happy.

 

[zekko]

The problem with today's system is that we reward women for divorcing, through custody, child support, etc,...

Wow, is that the truth.

I recall hearing that when unfair practices exist that disadvantage males, that "we have to let the pendulum swing the other way for awhile, since women were disadvantaged for so long". Of course, even if you buy into this idea, the question comes up how long do you let the pendulum swing?

But since women still average a smaller salary than men do, I imagine they would claim this as proof that discrimination still exists against them. However, men probably make more money because they are more agressive and ambitious, and don't interrupt their careers to have children (natural gender roles). So unfortunately I doubt that we see any positive change soon.

 

[DanelMadr]

I too, agree with maximum freedom. And I believe people should have the right to divorce and never be forced to stay together.

The problem with today's system is that we reward women for divorcing, through custody, child support, etc,...

You specifically reference when marriages turn hostile, are you aware that most men are not even aware there is a problem when they are slapped with divorce papers? This is indicative that a hostile environment does not exist, yet we are still promoting divorce on the part of the wife.

Are we not damaging the children by enticing women to divorce from a marriage that is not toxic? Should we not remove these rewards so that women do not engage in frivolous divorces, all with the goal of protecting the children?

Husbands being surprised does not surprise me for women are often passive aggressive - not verbalizing their concerns early enough. And yes it is a problem but again we can't change them we can only better ourselves.

But hostile environment would exist if husbands were not clueless as proven when papers arrive. Of course they may be more angry because of the surprise but again, what can we do about that? Frankly, you have to be pretty blind to not see that it goes downhill. That's why on this forum we are advised to work on our relationships and not become complacent or turn in to wussy and lose her respect and love.

Also men do not divorce. We are perfectly fine with one woman in the house who receives money and care about children and other one who we give love and maybe money. Or at worst we survive loveless marriage quite better.

I'm not defending divorcing women for I think they fall for the trap of thinking that Love or Man should or will make them them happy, which will not. On other hand it is true that living with an AFC is certainly a pain.


I agree we should not reward bad behavior but where is the line between reward and punishment - making things harder artificially?
You can't take away the alimony because it is crucial for the children. Demanding a proof of fault (adultery, lack of sex or love etc.) is stupid. And using custody as tool of punishment is plain wrong.

The rewards we have now are not exactly a jack pot compared to having a whole family.

For decades in Denmark single mother is the queen. They receive quite a sum from tax payers. What happened? Almost no marriages. They live together, she claims father is unknown and they both milk the state. Or even if he pays alimony, it stays at home plus the state money. That is plain wrong. In my country it is similar but the sum is no biggie....just to feed and dress the child .

 

[zekko]

The interesting thing, is that the wage gap is a myth.

Looks like those links say that the wage gap does exist, but it isn't the result of discrimination. In other words, it's caused by natural gender differences (the choices each gender makes). Hard to fix that. It's like built in guaranteed victimhood for the girls.

The wife should "suck up" the unhappiness "for the sake of the children". Especially if we are putting children first.

I'm a little on the fence here, but I tend to agree. This is basically the old way of doing things, compared to now. I guess the question to ask ourselves is are things better now, or then?

Women are rewarded for divorce.

I'm sure this is one of the big causes for divorce. The woman's head starts thinking about what she could do with a quick windfall. It's like saying to her "You can stay with your husband or win the lottery, take your choice". People get tempted.

To fix this, you would need something like making joint custody universal. But even that wouldn't work, because you would still have the girls claiming they need more money because of the wage gap.

 

[DanelMadr]

I think we are just going to have to disagree.

If the environment is not hostile, and the wife is "unhappy", then it stands to reason that her unhappiness is a seperate situation from the hostility.

But I suggest, that the unhappiness can easily turn to hostility when forced to cohabit with a person you loath.

The wife should "suck up" the unhappiness "for the sake of the children". Especially if we are putting children first.

Yes that would be marvelous. But sometimes reality is different and they don't svck it up. Making them svck it up is not an option....they have to come to that conclusion on their own.

To incentivize women into filling for divorce by not associating any cost for them whatsoever and simultaneously rewarding them hurts the children.

As proven over ages....Moral directives are not efficient when delivered through outer force.

It makes little sense to only allow men to be punished to help the children while rewarding the women at the expense of them. If one gender has to sacrifice for the children, then both genders should.

For what purpose do you suggest that? Will children be better of when both genders will feel the whip the same? I argue that forced morality has no value.

The fact that only one gender is required to sacrifice, while the other does not have to sacrifice, puts the lie to the statement that this is not about the children at all.....it is and always has been, about the women.

In a nutshell....this is the position as it exists today.

• Women are rewarded for divorce.
• Men are not allowed custody.
• Men have to pay alimony and child support.
• Men should have to sacrifice for the benefit of the child.
• Women do not have to sacrifice because that would hurt the child.

It is about the women to a point only if you consider them as primal care givers. Is it reasonable to change that on general level?

I honestly don't think that a reasonable person could say that this whole setup is for the benefit of the child. The only person that benefits from every step here is the woman. That is exactly who the system was intended to benefit.

The system benefits the person who is "the main"/primal parent. Yes in most cases that is the woman. Frankly, in most cases that is right. In some cases father gets full custody. And in even fewer cases you could flip a coin and you will be right for the father is exceptionally good one.

In addition to the list above, I have to challenge the assertation that custodial mothers are actually better than custodial fathers. Especially given the state of modern society laden with newer generations that have an ever increasing lack of accountability. Something that only men seem capable of instilling in children.

I'm a little bit drunk and very tired, so excuse me if I say suddenly make some typo...blah bjkjduyodf/. Shyt.

Generally speaking women are better parents especially for young children. For older ones it does not matter for they can sound their wishes with whom to stay.

Accountability....yeah it is important and in best situation you have a father rising the children to be accountable and mother who provides all the cuddling and stuff. If you have to choose I believe cuddling is more important ,especially for small children. Fathers become really important in later age and especially for boys. And it is often the case....girls stay with mother, boys stay with father.

It seems we are talking in circles. Bottom line for me is. ...Guys if you get a divorce, swallow your pride and don't make the same mistake as your wife....revenge through children. Your children will realize the truth sooner or later. Be the reasonable ones. Accept the reality and work from that.

Possible bureaucratic solution might be:
1. Primal care giver would be the winner of anonymous psychological testing.
2. He or she then calls the shots. What type of visits or care etc.
3. The other side pays alimony in full but only for children and will receive the bills for control.
4. This bureaucratic overhead is paid by the "loser" of psychological test which might prevent a little the divorce boom.
5. The tests are done annually.
6. Whoever disputes the authenticity of these tests or makes false claims about the bills will be sentenced to 20 lashes on public square.

Welcome to Starship Troopers.

 

[DanelMadr]

I honestly do not think we are talking in circles, I am just challenging the assertation that the setup is for the children, when clearly it benefits the women at every point often even at the expense of the child.

Again, the list I mentioned above.

• Women are rewarded for divorce.
• Men are not allowed custody.
• Men have to pay alimony and child support.
• Men should have to sacrifice for the benefit of the child.
• Women do not have to sacrifice because that would "hurt the child".

Women benefit from EVERY item above, but children do not (particularly when they are ripped away from and kept from their fathers). Thus it is reasonable to assess that the current setup is for the maximum benefit of the woman, and not the child. This list puts the lie to the phrase "for the children".


Hell, abortion laws alone should be enough to convince anyone on this particular subject. Combine that with the list I made above and it paints a very clear picture. That women (and unwitting men) use children as shields in an effort to enact and enforce misandric law.

To say we have to sacrifice the fathers for the benefit of the children is an outright lie. They are sacrificed for the mothers and it doesn't take a genius to see it.

Well, the system does benefit the primal care giver.And it should be that way. The one in custody of the child should call the shots and receive the money.

The problem is should we "punish" the initiator of the divorce? In this case the woman. I say it would be contra productive. For you also punish the child sharing the household with her.

And mainly should be women prime care givers almost by default?
I say in cases of children 0 to 10 years old, it should be so. Women are in general better suited by evolution for everyday care and they can more easily sacrifice their career for the sake of them. Men after all are not willing or can't slack down in that department in order to be more attractive for opposite sex.


To challenge that (women more suitable for rising children, men needing the money) you have to side with the hard core feminists, who tell us that it is all just patriarchal brainwashing.

I don't think they are right. Even social studies made in Kibutz (collective farms in Israel being very close to communist society, where all patriarchal and consumerism is frowned upon) showed that women tend to skip work in order to spend time with their children in the nursery, meanwhile men strive for having better/higher position of power/respect/prestige in the commune.

Tell me, what would you change in to days system to better the children?
No 'no fault' divorce?

What is wrong with abortion laws? (I'm not familiar with problems in your state/country)

Again, someone has to "sacrifice" - in case of NOT equally split care (which even the article you posted mentioned it strains on a child).

Men's movement is not right in this department and they should focus on affirmative action BS, alimony for childless spouses and pandas, they always need our protection for they live in China and they are lazy m@taherfvckers....but so cute.

 

[sodbuster]

The thing about abortion laws... WOMEN have the whole say, they get knocked up by a loser...they can abort. MEN have no say in whether or not they want the child if they knock up a loser....they get to pay child support for 18 years

 

[DanelMadr]

My point is that if we allow abortion, isn't it odd to say that we do everything for the children?

At this point, I am not saying what to change or how to fix it, I am simply challenging the statement that what we do today is completely for the children.

If it were for the children, we would outlaw abortion and no-fault divorce (which would keep families together by eliminating frivolous divorces).

You also seem to believe that the better nurturer is by default the better parent and thus better for the child, I think this is a very dangerous and wildly incorrect assumption.

Well, again prohibiting abortion brings more harm than good like in everything where state forces morality.
Black market where quality of abortion is questionable.
Children murdered/disposed of after birth.
Unwanted children in hands of women not prepared to cope or straight incompetent.

No fault divorce would probably keep the families intact but I doubt it would bring generation of healthier children. It is hard to imagine the adversity between parents wouldn't escalate disturbing the child.
And again forcing adults to conform to moral norms by state seems questionable. If you frown upon "sacrificing" fathers, now you would "sacrifice" both father and mother for the questionable sake of children.

Children are not state property. If they were we could "save them" by issuing certificates to suitable parents, which would have to prove their commitment to each other etc. in order to get permit to have a child. That is fascist state. I'm not sure we want to follow that road.

I don't understand your point in case of 'nurturer better parent mistake'.
I actually believe that active parenting can do more harm than good and that the small child needs only emotional support, comfort and to feel safe.
In older days it needs to be shown by example how to operate in the world and for a guy....well we need some acknowledgment from father figure to have some self worth. After few years reading complaints on this forum I'm not sure fathers do such a good job at that even if they are present ;-)
So if you mean by parenting what I mean, we can't agree. Nurture is more important and crucial for small children.

It brings me to other point....working mothers and/or fathers who put their children to nurseries, baby sitters etc. for longer periods of time and especially in case of small chldren 1-4, should be hanged. They do so despite the clinical evidence that most neurosis and even schizofrenia are directly linked to that. Although it can be purely genetic...parents being neurotic selfish azzholes themselves and stuff.....

 

[DanelMadr]

The thing about abortion laws... WOMEN have the whole say, they get knocked up by a loser...they can abort. MEN have no say in whether or not they want the child if they knock up a loser....they get to pay child support for 18 years

Your statement is true.
However I hope you don't identify with it or even hold some grudge based on it.

My grandpa (the same as last time) said to me:
'Life is not fair. Get over it.'
'If your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.'
'You pay for your mistakes, regardless if others don't.'

So, at least nowadays one gender has the option not to pay. Fair?, nope.
But couple years ago, guy who was stupid enough to knock up a loser had to actually marry her and feed her for the rest of his life or face wrath of whole village.....unless he was a Viking on rampage raping and stuff.

If a guy nowadays is stupid/horny or greedy enough not to pay for condom or pulling out too slow or believing a loser she is on a pill, he should pay double. I certainly wouldn't pay for him a dime, unless he commits a suicide and she becomes a widow....then f@ck it, charity is on.

 

[DanelMadr]

So is a dead unwanted baby (unwanted by the mother at least) better than a live unwanted baby? For whom exactly is it better? Surely not the child?




I agree that having a parent who is unprepared is a bad thing, but are you suggesting that it is better for the baby if the baby is not alive?

It is a dilemma. I am strongly against abortion, however I wouldn't impose my believes on other people - not because I doubt it or think that it is relative or anything, I am 100% sure it is the right/correct/good way- simply because I believe that freedom is more beneficial than forced morality. And that prohibition won't solve it anyway. Those who want abortion will scrape it out the same way people shoot heroin.

I think you have a gross assumption that all divorces are due to angry households. I believe that many divorces are simply done because it makes economical sense for the wife. If she can have the children, the money, and a new man who she is sexually attracted to, why on earth would she NOT do it?

She does not do it because of what she already has - your money and the children. I doubt the reasons are economical (Extreme examples of gold diggers aside.). It is the sexual attraction which they are missing. It is our "deficiency" and therefore it hurts. Good news is we can better ourselves...they can't in most cases due to aging....and being lazy and fat

Imagine, courts would by default put children to men. Can you imagine the bliss? Children to care for, juggling between them, work and dating? No amount of alimony would compensate that, unless we wouldn't have to work

By your logic, prior to no-fault divorce, there must have been a LOT of messed up children who grew up in very angry households where the parents hated eachother but just couldn't divorce. Do you think this is true? My experiences tell me very different.

Past generations, brought up in whole families were not exactly the culprit of emotional stability either. Freud, Jung and others made careers out of that, after all. Two world wars full of very angry people, communism etc. But I honestly can't prove the connection as you can't the opposite ;-)

However, I agree with you, the whole unhappy family is better than divorced. Possible turn to hostility aside, which is I agree not typical, I again believe that freedom of choice is more beneficial and indeed natural than forced good.

Despite legions of pissed of rejected husbands - who were caught unprepared- new generations are quite vary of the responsibility coming with freedom and they don't marry and don't have children unless they are more sure. Which is beneficial and natural....more mature parents - happier children, population is not artificially exploding (no state sponsored canon fodder). And look at this forum...guys ask how to be a love and respect worthy man - as opposed to getting beer balls, knocking her up and live happily ever after, because she can't divorce you. You get my drift.

Nobody is suggesting such a thing. Again, I am merely pointing out that everything at this point benefits the woman, sometimes at the expense of the child, sometimes at the expense of the men. But never at the expense of women. You seem to be avoiding this statement, but do you not find that as a contradiction to your assertation that all things are done for the benefit of the children?

I just don't see the huge benefit women get out of it. Surely they pity the situation and would prefer to stay happily married and again no amount of alimony(in most cases) can compensate that. Also in most cases both parents are reasonable and they do make reasonable agreement on alimony and children. It is a mess but no one is complaining.

Frankly, the fathers, I do see to complain, trash and shout 'murder', are in most cases just hurt egos. If they could swallow their pride and for a second see the reality and actually act like men and stop the duel - diffuse it, accept the rejection whatever- , they would be surprised how the women would be open to agreement. Again extreme examples of angry crazy b1tches aside.

I don't know how else to explain it. Just because women are better at nurturing it does not make them the better parent. For example, I know plenty of mothers who are great at nurturing and protecting their child from being harmed, but are terrible at scolding or reprimanding them. Why? Because it goes against their maternal instincts of protecting the child.

It doesn't mean they are more capable of helping them learn, of correcting mistakes, of guiding them to make the right decisions, of teaching them what accountability and cause and effect mean.

Well, 0-4 year olds are not so hooked up on parenting as they are on nurturing. That is all I say.
Make no mistake I do appreciate fathers parenting but when you have to choose....nurturing is more important and as the article you posted correctly said, distant fathers are more about spoiling the child than parenting....understandable for they don't have 24/7 though.

Women have boobs for milk and can tolerate crying a lot more than a man. That's great, but it doesn't make them a better parent by a long shot.

For 0-4 year olds it makes them actually the parent of the year :-D

For later like when puberty starts, and especially in case of boys, they do very lousy job indeed, no doubt. That's maybe why children look up their distant fathers in this age.

 

[DanelMadr]

Danel,

I agree that life is not fair, but that doesn't mean we should roll over and accept it.

And to tolerate it, or even worse, to promote it is unacceptable.

Women have the right to decide they are not ready for parenting and can abort. Should Men not be afforded the same right?

....And in the name of bvll**** called equality kill even more babies?

Let me remind you that choices and motivation made by women are slightly different than of the men. For that reason there cannot be equality.


Spiritual note:
Resisting the natural flow of life, presumed unfairness aka reality puts enormous strain on ones organism, fuels ones ego, sense of separateness and anger. Surrendering does not mean to not take action when necessary but to take it only with mind clear of that fear and anger.

 

[zekko]

You keep giving women the benefit by not "forcing morality" upon them (often at the expense of children), yet you are ok with forcing morality onto men to "protect the children".

Pretty good point.
*Munches popcorn*

 

[lifeislearning]

In case of ancient Egypt, maybe, if they lived in the areas with some civilization. Try to sell some booty in 1000 BC Kavkaz village. Not going to happen.

Civilization is by no means a prerequisite for a successful sex trade. Prostitution in that village would be a very different operation from the line of provocatively dressed hookers you see on the corner of not-so-nice neighborhoods. More likely a small number of single disadvantaged women or wandering professionals exchanging their "services" for goods of like value.

Weirdly enough I actually research prostitution and I can assure you there is not a time or place in human existence where prostitution has not thrived. What makes us think otherwise is often a lack of documentation and flawed social/historical beliefs (people didn't do 'that' back then). Humans always have and always will possess a desire sex, drugs, and alcohol, and there will always be an illegal outlet for it.

I would love to discuss my research at a later date, but I will relinquish my lessons to the topic at hand...

 

[DanelMadr]

So, why do we not let the father have the baby if the mother does not want it? Why instead do we let her kill the baby?



Again, are you sure that we do everything "for the children" when it comes to male/female relationships?


I think you need to revisit that premise before we can go any further in this discussion.

Because she has to endure 9 months of pregnancy, which would affect her life, career and physique meanwhile the father would be waiting for his beloved minime.

It does not make it right to abort, certainly not from the comfortable living room of my apartment, but even in more absolute terms and I believe women are exchanging superficial pleasures or goals over marvelous of childbirth.
But it certainly does not help the case of men disapproving of the abortion by means of state force. Woman has the final word....she is the incubator after all.

I just see more harm than good in prohibiting abortion. Some will be discouraged by the law, no doubt and we will save some children from murder and surely much of those unwanted will be loved in the end.

All in all it is fairly almost ultimately anti children law and yes pro woman comfort law plus I guess some men are happy too (abortion is cheaper than alimony).

I still wouldn't prohibit it by law for practical reasons like black market etc. but yeah it is pro female law and very immoral one.

 

[DanelMadr]

Danel,

Let me ask straight up again. I may be missing it, but you seem to be avoiding the question....

1. Women are rewarded for divorce and leaving their child without a father role model.
2. Men are not allowed custody.
3. Men have to pay alimony and child support, but no proof is required that the money was spent on the children.
4. Men should have to sacrifice for the benefit of the child.
5. Women do not have to sacrifice because that would "hurt the child".
6. Women have the right to abortion, men have no say.

Given the list above......Do you still stand by your assertation that we do everything for the benefit of the children?

You keep giving women the benefit by not "forcing morality" upon them (often at the expense of children), yet you are ok with forcing morality onto men to "protect the children".

Well, that is true, that I'm forcing morality on men. But I won't make it better by forcing it on women too, just for the sense of equality. Because it would leave out the children totally.

You are forgetting that custody is not given exclusively to women. When you can reasonably prove that you will provide better care, the judge will give the custody to you. Of course it is often not the case because there is no prove (psychological report, alcohol or drug abuse, witnesses of maltreating the children etc.) so judge plays it safe and gave them to the mother for reasons we debated - general evolutionary advantages in taking care of children.

So the rewarded one is the one who gets the custody. She or he decides the visits (more or less) and receives the alimony.

We can pretend that we are in general equally equipped for taking care of the child and it that case the judge can just flip a coin to decide the custody. However I don't think it is like that. For small children mother is more important and older kids have their say in court anyway.

Also having a child is a sacrifice to some extent therefore having a custody is also a sacrifice. Unless you look at it from viewpoint of battle of sexes...in that case having a custody is a touchdown and not having custody is injustice.

I am aware of the fact that some women prevent fathers from seeing their children and milking them of every dime for reasons of hurt, revenge, ego, hate and in the same time some men fight the custody for the same reasons. But it does not justify flipping a coin.

Again I am not against alimony accountability when requested and I would like to see more psychological profiles of parents to prevent excesses in form of revenge etc. But fighting feminists with the same arguments of equality is wrong, because it is not based on true facts and it leaves out the children completely...which was my initial statement.