"We" just hit mainstream media

[DanelMadr]

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...

I'm just saying that wandering professional in some poor corner of the world would hardly survive let alone her kid.

All I wanted to say was that purpose of the marriage is to secure ones genes - the child. And solidify the community - so you don't have to pay for children of irresponsible men. For me the purpose of marriage laws is obvious.

 

[DanelMadr]

Fair enough. So in society today, the life, career and physique of a woman are more important than both the life of a baby and the desire of a man to father said baby, combined.

Sadly that is true. At least those who do prefer these values over children obviously do not have them to spoil the gene pool. From evolutionary point of view there is some good in otherwise very sad and wrong setup.

In some cases, forcing morality on women would benefit the children, especially using the abortion example above.

I understand your points, I am just trying to illustrate how today we have built a culture that benefits women at every point and that in fact we are not doing everything "for the children".

"For the children" is the battlecry used by women to further their own agenda, but as you can see from my points above, it stops short once it has a negative impact on the options of women.

Yes that is true. The battle cry is misused in this example by some women to promote their freedom without strings attached.

However once we permit divorce and put women as primal custody giver, they will benefit. And they will benefit because of the child. So in some sense it is good for the child....they receive alimony and call the shots.

Where you and I disagree is on the morality of giving all of the power to Women while imposing sacrifices only upon the Men.

Either ban the divorce to benefit the children or order split custody by default (not very good for children). In other scenarios someone has to loose. Having no milk etc. it is mostly the men, we should get over it....in general.
The reality is divorce cannot be banned. Or can it? So, let's get over it?

Unfortunately this situation creates a dangerous and unstable Moral Hazard which will inevitably create a backlash that benefits nobody, children included.

I just don't see it that bad in long run...hopefully not too long. Planet is overpopulated after all. Men will be forced to choose better and be better, it will put pressure on women too to better themselves. Those who prefer easy living and abortion to motherhood will win the Darwin's prize.

Putting bans, obstructions and laws will only slow or temporarily divert the evolution of human species.

 

[sodbuster]

In the 1700's if a woman divorced the man, the children were his and she lost his support. It would have to be bad for a woman to want to leave. Now, we have no fault divorce,women almost automatically get the children,child support and alimony. They have a financial incentive to be unhappy. IF I offered you $1 with 6 or 7 zero's behind it and we all told you your girlfriend is "oppressing" you...would you break up with her? {since I can tell you've never been married}{ single men have all this foolishness about being a better man and she'll stay stuck in their heads}.You can't control what a woman thinks in entirety,only to degree's.

After 15 years of hearing you snore,fart in your sleep,not taking out the garbage the exact second she wants,etc.,etc. When she realizes that she has a financial incentive to leave,she'll come up with a reason. I know you think "I'll find a GOOD one" But Solomon said"only 1 man in 1000 is upright,of women, I have not found one" The man had hundreds of wives and concubines,richest man on the planet at the time...but he couldn't find an upright woman?

All the guru's tell you to treat women like annoying children,but we've given the children the keys to the candy store and no responsibility for any of their actions.

 

[Nutz]

Relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRdq2zqGxgY

Http://www.Reddit.com/r/mensrights

 

[DanelMadr]

In the 1700's if a woman divorced the man, the children were his and she lost his support. It would have to be bad for a woman to want to leave. Now, we have no fault divorce,women almost automatically get the children,child support and alimony. They have a financial incentive to be unhappy. IF I offered you $1 with 6 or 7 zero's behind it and we all told you your girlfriend is "oppressing" you...would you break up with her? {since I can tell you've never been married}{ single men have all this foolishness about being a better man and she'll stay stuck in their heads}.You can't control what a woman thinks in entirety,only to degree's.

After 15 years of hearing you snore,fart in your sleep,not taking out the garbage the exact second she wants,etc.,etc. When she realizes that she has a financial incentive to leave,she'll come up with a reason. I know you think "I'll find a GOOD one" But Solomon said"only 1 man in 1000 is upright,of women, I have not found one" The man had hundreds of wives and concubines,richest man on the planet at the time...but he couldn't find an upright woman?

All the guru's tell you to treat women like annoying children,but we've given the children the keys to the candy store and no responsibility for any of their actions.

You say I am naive and in the same time you paint one very dark picture. like I can't possibly find a good woman and rise our kids with her....at least not in these circumstances. Be thankful for the challenge.

I don't say your observations do not happen but in reasonable number of cases it is not like that. Not everyone gets a divorce. There are couples which are tolerant to each other, not superficial or greedy or vain or simply do stay together because of the children despite of their feelings.

Why should I even want to control what my woman thinks?
If I pick a wrong one who wouldn't smell roses after I fart , or some who will leave me at first sign of troubles or she changes or I change to worse, well too bad. I get a divorce. Hopefully we will remain friends or at least not enemies and she will let me see our children and won't demand my whole paycheck. I pay the alimony for I would give the money to them anyway. Not seeing children every day will hopefully make us appreciate each other even more.

Or

I will pick a good woman, a team player. Hopefully I won't turn to wussy or unhappy or lazy guy (will seek motivation here) and neither will she. Hopefully I will be faithful and stress free support for my loved ones. Hopefully I will make reasonable money and have time for my kids.

If not...C'est la vie.

No need to go on rampage to bring around 1700's century laws making us stay together no matter how shytty we turn out.

No alimony for childless partners...YES
Easier accountability for alimony when requested...YES
Sharia laws....NO
Equality...HELL NO

Frankly, your motivation for 1700's century return seems more like cry of despair of hurt man than a reasonable call for unification of family for sake of children.

 

[DanelMadr]

Danel,

If we are only concerned about the children, and not equality, then the 1700's makes perfect sense.

1. One working parent.
2. One parent home raising the children.
3. No dragging children to strangers every day to raise them from 8am to 5pm.
4. Men play the role of Men - Providing and Securing.
5. Women play the role of Women - Nurturing and Homemaking.

Absolutely.
But the balance, which is obviously off, should not be restored by force. Because it would only be temporary and it is not achievable in democracy. People won't vote for anything restricting their freedom of choice and rightly so.

The situation we have now is actually not that bad. It promotes competition in men and girls too. We wouldn't be here otherwise. And we should cherish that women can choose us more than ever freely, not being forced by societal or financial pressure.

Also I don't think the laws or lack of them is the main reason for the divorce rate. Overall prosperity is. It gives us opportunities, superficial spoils, too much time to think and dwell in our unhappy minds. It spoils people. But you can't cut prosperity.

Actually that is the reason Salafists fight the west (or rather north) to death. They are afraid of this phenomena. But I say to them 'Does Allah like it more when you behave because you have to or because you want to?'

You can't change other people, you can only change yourself and hopefully you will attract the reasonable behavior in others.

So what is your proposed solution? Ban of no fault divorce? Initiator of divorce looses the children?

Sounds good but let's look at the caveats>

What will happen is that women or men who can't prove adultery, physical or psychological abuse, sexual abuse of the children will be truly f@cked at least much longer until they get a proof. Extreme example, I know but it will happen. Will it compensate for many whole unhappy families, where frustration is often poisoning the air anyway?

 

[Findog]

My understanding is that liberalized divorce laws came about to make it easier for women trapped in physically abusive marriages to leave and that's a good thing...but I agree that as things are currently set up, women are incentivized to leave marriages for frivolous reasons. At any point she can tap out and get primary custody, child support/alimony, even have the husband forced to cover her attorney's fees. She can get all of this even if she committed infidelity.

I'm all in favor of making it as easy as possible for a woman to leave her abuser but divorce/family law needs to be revamped. There has to be a happy medium between the two pole positions.

 

[DanelMadr]

I am not at the point of providing a solution, I am merely pointing out what is in the best interest of the children, equality be damned.

OK. That I can't argue with, shyt

What force would be required to restore it to the 1700's?

At this point, we are already using force to the point of imprisoning fathers who cannot afford to pay the mothers. And it still does not succeed in benefiting the children.

Well, he ought to pay for his children, because I won't pay the bills. I guess it is just my greedy me speaking, not willing to share my $ with strangers' children and of course the 'for the children' me...at least we have one force favoring the children. Should we make one more?

To be sure this force is not benefiting women, making them prone to divorce I suggest a law making alimony accountable. The money would have to be accounted for to the last cent or penny. I mean it.

Actually we are getting some results.

If we are going to use force, we should be doing it to benefit the children, should we not?

Of course what a better reason to have However as I pointed out, no fault divorce could actually endanger the children in case of abusive parent.

 

[DanelMadr]

My understanding is that liberalized divorce laws came about to make it easier for women trapped in physically abusive marriages to leave and that's a good thing...but I agree that as things are currently set up, women are incentivized to leave marriages for frivolous reasons. At any point she can tap out and get primary custody, child support/alimony, even have the husband forced to cover her attorney's fees. She can get all of this even if she committed infidelity.

I'm all in favor of making it as easy as possible for a woman to leave her abuser but divorce/family law needs to be revamped. There has to be a happy medium between the two pole positions.

'ncentivized' ? I wanted to thank you for enlarging my vocabulary...but then suddenly my Chrome dictionary underlined that in red :-D

Never mind , you made some good points.
I have a brain food for you.
Don't you think there was something really rotten in a marriage which ends suddenly with the woman tearing flesh (fees, anti children visits) of her man?
Do we really want those two people to be together only for the sake of children having both parents under one roof?

I don't say we should allow laws which can be misused as revenge or ego trip.
So the attorney fee sounds really bad, however it boils down to the fact that the one with primal custody can't be in debt. The alimony wouldn't go for the child then.....unless the accountability law I proposed.

EDIT> Good night everyone and thanks for inspiring debate. Danel has to take a shyt and go to sweet sleep.....no snoring wife aka fat friend turning to enemy soon beside me, therefore sweet.

 

[Findog]

'ncentivized' ? I wanted to thank you for enlarging my vocabulary...but then suddenly my Chrome dictionary underlined that in red :-D

Never mind , you made some good points.
I have a brain food for you.
Don't you think there was something really rotten in a marriage which ends suddenly with the woman tearing flesh (fees, anti children visits) of her man?
Do we really want those two people to be together only for the sake of children having both parents under one roof?

I don't say we should allow laws which can be misused as revenge or ego trip.
So the attorney fee sounds really bad, however it boils down to the fact that the one with primal custody can't be in debt. The alimony wouldn't go for the child then.....unless the accountability law I proposed.

EDIT> Good night everyone and thanks for inspiring debate. Danel has to take a shyt and go to sweet sleep.....no snoring wife aka fat friend turning to enemy soon beside me, therefore sweet.

All things being equal, unless it can be shown that either partner is a bad parent due to substance abuse/violent temper/physically abusive, there should be an emphasis made on granting equal custody, not primary custody. Arrangements can be worked out between the two if one takes a job far away or they work weird hours, but equal custody would go a long way towards eliminating the need for alimony/child custody payments. It would also go a long way towards eliminating one of the worst aspects of divorce for men: not only do you lose your partner, but you only get to "visit" your kids every other weekend instead of raising them and being a daily presence in their lives. Men have more to lose and more to risk entering a marriage than women do.

See I am all for feminism if its only goal is to give women the same opportunities to seek life, liberty and happiness as men and the same rights, responsibilities and accountability, but women should not be rewarded for divorce. If women knew that seeking a divorce meant equal custody and no alimony/child support, she would have to pay her own attorney's fees, and that infidelity/substance abuse/other really bad behavior could negatively impact an equitable settlement, then I think you would see the divorce rate drop and more women attempt to work on their marriages than just flee. Courts don't care about infidelity and in my cousin's case, his wife having substance abuse issues didn't prevent him from having to pay her attorney's fees even though she was a cheating, drug-addled wh*re. He got primary custody, but if the shoe had been on the other foot, she would not have had to pay his attorney fees and he'd have been lucky to get supervised visits with his kids.

I understand also that even if a woman is not being abused or cheated on, it can be deeply unsatisfying to be married to some dude that just sits on the couch and drinks beer and doesn't try to satisfy her emotional needs, but that would force women to qualify and screen men before marrying them the same way men have to qualify and screen women now. Both parties should have as much to gain and as much to lose entering a marriage. In western society, it is way riskier for the man.

 

[sodbuster]

In my case, we have joint custody of the 1 child remaining at home. SO for 50/50 time, I get to provide the car,gas and insurance for the car AND $750/month in child support. I have no doubt that she doesn't spend it all on him....plus she makes 75k/year...it's not like she's poor.

BUT, I'm making more and saving more[about 40k/year] than when we were married. Investing in 2 deals that could make me well off.The best revenge is living well.:rockon:

 

[sodbuster]

Just because it is the law NOW, doesn't mean we can't advocate change...someone obviously did to change the laws from earlier days. IF enough men call legislators and boycott marriage, it will happen. If we just accept things as they are....nothing will ever change and our sons will get screwed over too.

 

[DanelMadr]

All things being equal, unless it can be shown that either partner is a bad parent due to substance abuse/violent temper/physically abusive, there should be an emphasis made on granting equal custody, not primary custody.

Equal custody puts strain on the children some say and I believe it. Check out the link Danger posted a few pages back.

Arrangements can be worked out between the two if one takes a job far away or they work weird hours, but equal custody would go a long way towards eliminating the need for alimony/child custody payments. It would also go a long way towards eliminating one of the worst aspects of divorce for men: not only do you lose your partner, but you only get to "visit" your kids every other weekend instead of raising them and being a daily presence in their lives. Men have more to lose and more to risk entering a marriage than women do.

My original disappointment was that this thinking ' what men loose' is predominant in the state wide debate and nobody asks what children loose by for example equal custody, no alimony enforcement etc. It is ridiculous.

See I am all for feminism if its only goal is to give women the same opportunities to seek life, liberty and happiness as men and the same rights, responsibilities and accountability, but women should not be rewarded for divorce.

I am against feminism because it concentrates on minority. Human rights movement mentality would be so much better.

If women knew that seeking a divorce meant equal custody and no alimony/child support, she would have to pay her own attorney's fees, and that infidelity/substance abuse/other really bad behavior could negatively impact an equitable settlement, then I think you would see the divorce rate drop and more women attempt to work on their marriages than just flee.

Substance abuse etc. does prevent female custody. If not then it is serious lapse for the judge.
What you actually suggest here is that women or men will continue to abuse substances while being married....because they wouldn't risk a divorce.

Courts don't care about infidelity and in my cousin's case, his wife having substance abuse issues didn't prevent him from having to pay her attorney's fees even though she was a cheating, drug-addled wh*re. He got primary custody, but if the shoe had been on the other foot, she would not have had to pay his attorney fees and he'd have been lucky to get supervised visits with his kids.

I don't understand. He got custody because she was an addict and had to pay her fees? That is a little bit strange. Probably they made a deal?

I understand also that even if a woman is not being abused or cheated on, it can be deeply unsatisfying to be married to some dude that just sits on the couch and drinks beer and doesn't try to satisfy her emotional needs, but that would force women to qualify and screen men before marrying them the same way men have to qualify and screen women now. Both parties should have as much to gain and as much to lose entering a marriage. In western society, it is way riskier for the man.

Well, maybe. You don't exactly have guy's kids thinking 'If it does not work out I'll divorce him no biggie'. However can bring some improvement in the screening process. Most likely outcome, however, could be that they never marry the guy. And officially the child will be a bastard....like they do in Denmark.


My point is let's talk about what benefits the kids for a while.
Equal custody seems to put more strain on children.
Tougher to leave marriage laws won't help abused children very much.

I am for accountability of alimony, so women do not benefit from it. And I am for obligatory psychological testing of both parents.
I can't see anything more we can do to bring more justice for men and in some cases women and at the same time not damage the children.

 

[DanelMadr]

What do you think is the prevalence of abusive parents? What proof is required of the abuse today? Or do we just take the word of someone when accusing a parent of abuse?

You don't need a proof of abuse in order to get the hell out, that is the point.
And if you accuse someone of abuse it is no longer a divorce court...it is criminal. False testimony applies to false accusation and you can be punished for that.

How much would children benefit from a 1700's marriage setup versus the continuation of today's setup with the occassional abusive parent?

Which is the lesser evil when regarding children?

I believe one abused child is one too much. Especially if it would be because of a law made just to keep two idiots together.

 

[DanelMadr]

In my case, we have joint custody of the 1 child remaining at home. SO for 50/50 time, I get to provide the car,gas and insurance for the car AND $750/month in child support. I have no doubt that she doesn't spend it all on him....plus she makes 75k/year...it's not like she's poor.

BUT, I'm making more and saving more[about 40k/year] than when we were married. Investing in 2 deals that could make me well off.The best revenge is living well.:rockon:

Why your ex divorced you? I guess you haven't always kept tabs

 

[DanelMadr]

You honestly believe it is better to have millions of children without fathers than to have one single child go through abuse? Even if said abuse is not proven?

Yes. As I said one abused child is one too many.

What role model would it be anyway if somehow the parents were forced together? Seeing that mother has no love or even respect for the father. Frustration filling the air.

Or not.
And that is the point...
I cannot judge what is better in one particular example. Where is the line between being slightly discouraged from divorce or ruining the whole family.And neither can you make that decision on general level.

And neither should judge we...the state. It is between them two to decide, to take responsibility, to considerate the situation. And they should do so freely.
It is their business to decide with no artificial pressure.
And when they or one of them come to a conclusion they want a divorce (wrong or not) only then, we the state, should step in as we do, in order to protect the child and with it the one who is decided to take the care of it.

i don't think anyone would deny a divorce based on abuse, but the system we have now rewards divorce, particularly when women are not "haaaaapy".

I agree with a lot of your thoughts, particularly about .gov control, but what .gov has done is create incentive for women to leave their husbands.

I believe that the overall prosperity and people being selfish is the main reason not some laws. The supposed benefits of alimony...it is not exactly a paradise. They would get even more money staying married.

To put it more simply, if you want more of something, you subsidize it (alimony, guaranteed custody, child support, etc,....)

If you want less of something, you punish it. This is why it makes perfect sense to stop rewarding frivolous divorce and establish parenting rights to fathers.

The logic is sound. I'm simply not persuaded we are rewarding them. Making it easier, yes, I guess so. But we do it so the child is provided for. We make it easier for the custody owner because of the child.

The proble is then that the custody is most of the times given to a mother. I say, even if we make obligatory psychological testing, they would win in most cases, because they are better suited for it. I haven't seen anything to disprove that, unless in some cases where the mother went totally nuts. The father was always the worse option.

Positive father role model is important but it has to be positive and you don't need 7 days a week to have the positive effect. But you need nurturing 24/7.

My gf's sister is in exactly this predicament. She is unhappy in her marriage, but she has a loving, stable husband who is always working whether it is bringing home money or doing chores around the house.

You know what is keep her from divorcing him? The fact that she would not have the kids for TWO DAYS out of two weeks. That thought kills her. Now I know this is an anecdote, but when you collect enough of them, they are no longer anecdotes. Make no mistake, the United States is filled with examples like this. Women divoricing otherwise happy marriages just because they have nothing to lose when they do it.

And who suffers???? The children.

Yeah it is sad...no sarcasm or cynicism involved.

I know a lot of marriages who stay together only not to make their children suffer. Why? Because they are unselfish most likely. Not everything is rotten.

Where we don't agree with each other is most likely the benefit of having a father under roof no matter what consequences. It is a problem but not a disaster. First you accuse me of using children and then you do the same....'Ban the divorce to save the children.'

The kids need their mom, food, shelter, clothing...err XBOX and to see their pa from time to time. Not ideal but living in shytty environment is not much better option. I'd like to think of myself as irreplaceable role model, saving the whole generation but let's be honest here...
And frankly the pissed off fathers I see on demos demanding split care, don't look like positive role models to me. Yeah I know society is responsible for their mentality...

What I don't like about the debate is:
Trying to turn the table on women for a change no matter the costs.
Focusing on the wrongs of women....not seeing our fault in fallen marriages.

Come on, the whole site is about this - in order to "deserve" love and respect you have to be honest with yourself, identify your shortcomings, forgive, restore balance and clarity and act on it.

What we get instead is a battle of sexes. Maybe we haven't started it but we can end it by not fighting it, for there are only losers in this battle.

 

[sodbuster]

My ex was a control freak who wanted TOTAL control. When I'd do something that would make her mad, she'd go out and mow lawn or rake leaves...then go to bed without showering. Since I have asthma, I'd wake up about a step from the emergency room...take 3 days worth of medicine in 30 minutes to avoid it[ER]. Be the same as someone putting arsenic in your coffee. I told her if she did it again, I'd file. She then DEMANDED an apology or she would file.... I let her.You'd forgive what could be classified as assault or attempted murder?

SO your advice is to roll over and not fight? How does that work for you in the rest of your life? Just take whatever someone else decides you get? Doesn't sound like a mans approach to life. I'm trying to make life better for my sons,but your advice is to just accept being a second class citizen because they happen to be male.

I've had a woman say "to make up for the pain we suffer during childbirth,men should have to have a vasectomy without anesthetic". I'll let you go first,I'll probably fight that one too.

 

[DanelMadr]

My ex was a control freak who wanted TOTAL control. When I'd do something that would make her mad, she'd go out and mow lawn or rake leaves...then go to bed without showering. Since I have asthma, I'd wake up about a step from the emergency room...take 3 days worth of medicine in 30 minutes to avoid it[ER]. Be the same as someone putting arsenic in your coffee. I told her if she did it again, I'd file. She then DEMANDED an apology or she would file.... I let her.You'd forgive what could be classified as assault or attempted murder?

What a bytch. What did you do to make her that mad? I guess it wasn't just loud farts. How did you didn't give her the control? How it first started? If I may ask?

SO your advice is to roll over and not fight? How does that work for you in the rest of your life? Just take whatever someone else decides you get? Doesn't sound like a mans approach to life. I'm trying to make life better for my sons,but your advice is to just accept being a second class citizen because they happen to be male.

I tried to suggest reasonable improvements to the laws like accountability of alimony and obligatory psychological testing in deciding the custody.

I just don't see how you can fight and win with one hand on your balls and head full of despair. What I propose is to get clear head first and then fight, without the desperate need for renewed (self) respect as motivation.

I've had a woman say "to make up for the pain we suffer during childbirth,men should have to have a vasectomy without anesthetic". I'll let you go first,I'll probably fight that one too.

What a nice people you know
Spiritual note>
I actually feel sorry for her (just beside I don't give a f@ck). She must be very miserable person living miserable life. Seeing herself and continuously feeding this image of herself as the unfortunate one. This mentality has to come out from emotional frustration, making her very undesirable to be with and therefore creating even more strain. But ego loves this feeling of despair it is feeding on it.
It is sometimes called internal tormentor. Some girls just love to swim in the ocean of pain and despair.
Why don't they step out on the sandy sunny beach? They would see and had to admit that they swam for very long time in the ocean of shyt. People suffer because their ego protects them from to be seen as stupid.....and so they remain stupid and covered in shyt.

Surrender does not mean not to take action. It means accepting the situation on deep level...on the level when ones shortcomings can be seen clearly, without judgment, fear or self whipping.

 

[DanelMadr]

This is an easy shield to erect, because nobody can assault it. Of course one abused child is too many.

But one fatherless child is also too many. I highly disagree with the implication that one abused child is worth millions of fatherless children.

It is probably bordering demagogue statement However I wouldn't dare to make a deal x abused for y fatherless. Abused is so much worse.

I do not advocate "forced" living together. That is pure black and white thinking. I advocate taking away the reward for frivolous divroce, and for enabling the downside for it again.

I believe frivolous comes from the word 'free'? I'm not really sure. But when people are free they tend to do irresponsible things. Price for freedom.
I'd prefer peer or society pressure over law. Not in a sense of propaganda more like on individual level....'Marrying or divorcing someone won't make you happy. It will only hurt your children' kind of realization. And when more people realize that it will make the peer pressure.

We don't need to have the exact detail, but it does not take a genius to see that we have taken away all of the cost for divorce, IF filed by a woman. She has absolutely NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain. We are, by default, advocating divorce. Advocating fatherless children.

I get your point. We do try to make it the easiest possible for woman to divorce. I just don't think it is better than the opposite. And I'm not sure where the middle is. Maybe the now famous idea of accountable alimony ?

The State, and artificial pressure, are already in place. By subsidizing the divorce the State has all but ensured we have millions of fatherless children.

The state could do much more. But it is reversing. In my country we have now the split/equal care by default. Will it help? If it will, it won't help the children, if we agree on the caveats of split care.
And if we think of women who frivolously divorce their men, not thinking about their children...will these women even care if they have more custody or would they actually prefer more time for their selfish selfs?

There is no "THEY" deciding on a divorce. 70% of them are initiated by women with the majority of men being completely surprised by it.

Have you read the Backbreaker post in another thread? He spoke about necessity for putting stress tests on your woman before you commit...so she sheds her mask. He had no pity on men who married the 'dream' girl only to wake up to the nightmare. And I sorta agree with him.

No, they would not. Women have the benefit of their pay, a large sum of their ex's pay in the form of child support, a good sum in the form of alimony, and then the money from the new man they are dating. Plus full time with the kids.

My bad. I thought alimony = child support. I am against the alimony in that case.
If they worked before, they have the same or even less because they have to skip the work to take care of the sick child etc. If the amount of child support is correct, if the child is provided for the same way as before or the money spend is more, I can't really judge on general.
In cases I know, the men actually have more for themselves even after they send the check, not counting that time=money.

For a woman, it is a no-brainer to get divorced if she is even one tiny bit unsatisfied.

I believe the biggest lie we believe is that something external or lack of it will make us happy....shoes, watch, job, car, handbag, girlfriend, husband, kids, marriage. Once we realize it is internal thing, maybe there will be more reason in this world.

Given the alternative of a marrieage they aren't eager and always happy to be in, or to be single, have the kids, her income and a large portion of his income too, it is pretty clear that women have an incentive to divorce.

....and the lack of a partner they can't stand. I made a provocative statement 'show me a divorced man and I show you a *****' and I should add that it involves 'show me a divorced woman and I show you a stuck up bytch'.
What I want to say now, is that you can't just prevent the divorce on external level. You can but it doesn't make it right.

I have no problems with the mother getting custody if the mother is the better option. I have a huge problem with the default decision being made that the mother is best suited.

I mentioned obligatory psychological testing but I guess it is not realistic really for these test are only good for recognizing normality, not nuances. But I don't know of any better solution then this shytty one. Flipping a coin, maybe.

If the children are really so important, doesn't it make sense to make absolutely certain they go to the best parent and that an evaluation take place for that decision?

More rigorous psychological testing then?...more expensive and the non realism of that anyway. Unless one of the parents is really not in norm.

Nurturing is important for the first half of a life. A father role model is absolutely important for the second half of life. Nurturing is far less a requirement once children can handle themselves.

I agree. So maybe another hearing when the child reaches puberty or just certain age?


In my experience most parents do a reasonable deal concerning the custody. Judges prefer that and recommend that. Older children even have their say in the court or simply move to another parent. So, I guess it is covered. However if one or both parents are unreasonable...tough luck.

We are mixing in our debate two problems. One is curing the divorce fever and second is the custody etc. situations in court.

I think there are better -although probably not that fast- ways to prevent the fever than by tweaking the decisions made by courts.

I am for curing the fever of course and i am for tweaking the laws but not as a means or based on motivation to cure the fever.

A hurt pride of a man is absolutely no concern for me, nor "happiness" of a woman. My concern with national debate is that it reeks of both and results are base don that like default split care. No reasonable progress only more contra productive regulation so to speak.

 

[sodbuster]

It's simple, just let a few things slide because they aren't really that big a deal, then things get bigger. The old "give them an inch and they'll take a mile". SEEMS like what a REASONABLE man should do...give in on some of the little things.

Once, I went out to the beer gardens at the county fair [hell I wasn't sure I wanted the one I had,much less 2 women],she thought I was looking for strange. Another time, we went to the Minnesota Vikings training camp...boys were young fans. Looking to watch the practices and get some autographs. Didn't seem to fit her idea of a family vacation.

The woman who made the vasectomy comment... hell, she's what most on this board would call a "quality woman". She's attractive, good mother and wife,intelligent,normally has a level head on her shoulders,etc. BUT they are all a bit crazy.