New Study: Men on Marriage Strike Because They Fear Divorce
June 2nd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesIn my co-authored column Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men's Marriage Strike? (Philadelphia Inquirer, (7/5/02) six years ago I postulated that men were on a "Marriage Strike" because of the way they get manhandled in divorce. A new study supports that view. According to Reuters' Men prefer being solo over a bad marriage: study (6/2/08):
[Carl] Weisman, 49, conducted a survey of 1,533 heterosexual men to research a book aiming to give women an insight into why some smart, successful men opted to stay single -- and help lifelong bachelors understand why they are still the solo man at parties.
He concluded that most men were not afraid of marriage -- but they were afraid of a bad marriage.
"Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," Weisman told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"This is the first generation of people who have grown up with bad divorces. People assume there is something wrong if you don't marry but these are men who have made a different choice and not given in to social pressures"...
But while 72 percent of respondents said they were not afraid of marriage, about half of them said the situation that scared them most was marrying the wrong person...
Weisman also found that financial issues, both positive and negative, played a large part in men's fear of commitment...
"[T]hose who are financially sound were terrified what a bad divorce could do to them."
Another one the study's findings, and a sad one, is this:
"Those with little money said they would have nothing to offer a partner, with some suffering self-esteem issues and withdrawing from the dating pool," said Weisman.
One thing I found a little surprising is this:
Weisman said his research blew away any idea that single men were unhappy.
"A compelling issue was how many of them had found contentment in a never-married life," he said. "They had created lives full of careers, friends and ambitions. It was not like they walk around all day worried about not being married."
I'm of the general opinion that marriage and fatherhood is a good thing for men, and that unfortunately it has been poisoned to some degree by our anti-male family law system. Perhaps more of these bachelors are happy being single, as this research suggests.
One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids. This means either one of two things, neither of them good:
1) The men weren't that concerned over losing their kids.
2) The men didn't realize how common it is for fathers to lose their kids.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Most men don't think about losing their kids because they don't have them yet. Once they have kids, then the fear sets in. I've seen it myself, my friends who don't plan to get married because they'll lose all their money through a divorce. When I ask them about whether they fear losing their kids, they say 'what kids?'
Of course, I've learnt how dangerous it is for divorced dads from the internet. So people are always baffled when I say I want kids but don't want to get married (I love kids)
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I can't help but wonder if the decreasing rate of men getting married is simply the result of there not being as much social pressure to marry as there was in the 20th century. Of all of the men who married between the end of WWII and, say, 1990, how many of them wouldn't have married if they hadn't felt obligated to their family, or pressured for career reasons? It occurs to me that at various times in American history there have been periods where men were pressured to marry, and others where men were pressured not to marry. What would be the "natural" rate if there were no pressure either way? Would it be higher or lower than the current rate? Circumstantial evidence suggests that it would be higher, but I really don't know.
Glenn, in regard to your last paragraph, there are two other possible explanations:
3) The men don't plan to have kids, even in marriage.
4) They regard losing the kids in divorce as inevitable; therefore, they have resigned themselves to it.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
"and help lifelong bachelors understand why they are still the solo man at parties."
that almost sounds like those men are 'broken' and needs fixing.
marriage isn't for everyone. having children isn't for everyone. why can't others respect people who are different from them.
----------------------------------------
I know as a 28 year old male, that i would like to get married, but seeing how many of these things don't work out, i'm worried too. i've had very sweet ex gf who turned 'ballistic' on me. emailing me, calling me, texting me, etc. Finally she left me a message in VM that said "i just got back from the doctor and he told me something that concerns you", which completely freaked me out. Turned out she 'may' have hpv(tests were inconclusive, not negative).
I can only imagine what she would tell to a judge in a divorce. and a over a year later she is still trying to get in touch with me.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Also, did the survey actually ask men if they were worried about losing their kids?
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
""Those with little money said they would have nothing to offer a partner, with some suffering self-esteem issues and withdrawing from the dating pool," said Weisman."
PK adds: I don't like the way it's phrased as a "self-esteem issue" (as if it's some insecurity on the man's part.) The fact is that most women don't want to date men who don't bring a lot of money to the table (Literally in the case of dinner dates.)
Consider this advice seeker at Carolyn Hax whom she blows off (which is unusual for her since she's usually pretty reasonable) http://tinyurl.com/66ap2j
"I'm trying to get back into the dating scene a while after my wife passed away at 55 due to end-stage alcoholism, so I'm a bit wary. Given that the majority of setups end in failure, at a cost of a huge restaurant tab, I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to lay the following ground rule when arranging the first date: "
She pretty much tells him to deal with it. Women take it for granted that they can go out with a half dozen different men in a month with little extra expense but, for men, that can add up to easily $500 or more.
For men, things have changed little since over 100 years ago where we are still expected to be a breadwinner. Even politically liberal men complained to me that they feel that the bar has only been raised with little reward. Career women are more demanding of men financially and in addition are independent and ready to walk at a moment's notice. So what's the point?
In addition, men can wait to have children hence it makes sense to take their time. It's wierd to have children in my mid-40's, but not necessarily bad. I can be a more reliable father. There is no rush for young men to marry. Just the opposite: With there being so little to gain and so much to lose, it makes sense for them to watch their step.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I am a participant of the strike, and Callum is right. I found it funny that I posted a real profile on a dating site, and got nothing. I took it down for a month and re-posted with my salary showing, THEN I got quite a few respondants. Most single men worry about losing thier money because they can see in a very real fashion that money is what many of the gold-digging types are after. It's more real to us. I now know the kid loss because of Glenn and some others. My perspective is skewed, though, as the loss of children in divorce is a theoretical thing for me now, not real like some of the men on this site. My father gave up everything he had to keep me, my brother and his 1980 chevy citation (I think the citation was a chevy, but I'm not sure). My biomom kept everything else. Until coming here and to other sites, I had no idea family courts these days would have given everything to my biomom including me. I shudder to think of it.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Wellllll....... the only thing I got from my girlfriend was an unplanned pregnancy, and HPV and Herpes. So, I guess I'm no longer considered in demand by a woman, but I can say this: it wasn't worth it. I pay child support for a kid I'll probably never get to see, and I'm diseased for life. Sad, and If I knew then what I know now, I'd never have gotten involved with a woman. Any woman.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Smart men, those unmarried ones.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I'm not on a 'marriage strike' but I see very few benefits to being married.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Almost everyone in my circle of friends can think of one person they know well who got married, divorced, and is now a pauper living a broken life of regret.
Honestly the one I can think of had a picture-perfect life with the house, the car, the then-wonderful wife and the great job. When his wife left him due to feeling too lonely (He was out working all day when she chose to be a stay-home wife...with no kids...), she got the house, the car and just about everything else he had...literally.
Seeing that happen to a good friend is enough to scare the heck out of many men from even thinking about marriage because it seems like there is a whole industry of marriage and divorce that's simply meant to move the money out of the pockets of some sucker and into the pockets of the sharks.
And somehow, despite knowing and seeing all that, I still got married....
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Is marriage a good thing for men?
Well, Glenn, we must first demonstrate what men get out of marriage as a positive such that even if we took the negative of divorce away there would be something in marriage for men.
Um. I don't see anything, do you?
There is the "slight" bonus of your wife not being able to give your child up for adoption without your consent, but she can still have an abortion without or even against your consent.
I challenge you, Glenn, to name one advantage for men in marriage, that is CAUSED by marriage (none of this correlation crap). I'm not sure you have anything with which you can reply, and that's the sad truth about what marriage is.
Marriage is a system, under which the woman and her offspring are guaranteed support from the husband.
As for fatherhood, that could go either way as being an advantage or disadvantage for men. I don't really see it as better or worse, just a different benefit/responsibility trade.
And the single men? Of course they are happy. They're free and unowned by women. When you give up chasing women, your life becomes thousands of times happier. The vast majority of the dating culture is one of subjugation of men. When you leave that behind and realize that you do count as person not solely in your ability to please a member of the opposite sex your own self-value goes thru the roof.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Glenn, I'm sure, and you must be sure too that men do fear losing their kids.
The option must be the second one, or a third related one (that Callum touched on):
That that aspect has not occurred to them.
I can speak as a young man who has put a lot of thought into the issue of marriage and children. I really want children, but I do not really want marriage.
And the thing I fear most is that my children would be taken from me.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
As it happens, the numbers suggest that both sexes are avoiding marriage, or postponing the event until later in life, though reasons may differ somewhat. While I imagine that fear of a bad marriage is widely shared, evidence indicates that women are more likely to avoid/postpone marriage for career considerations.
I wonder if men who have remained unmarried into their 40's do not consider the potential loss of their children through divorce an issue because they assume that window is closed, or closing fast. Also, it is not a strech to think that just as some women are choosing voluntary childlessness, so too are some men.
What I'm happy to see is the debunking of the "unmarried man as predator" meme. I get so tired of the fundy declarations of Gilder Christensen, Mero, Carlson, etc.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Marriage or no marriage they can be taken from you.
It's simply just an aspect of the way things currently are.
And with that, let's go into why bachelorhood is a good answer for many men:
Women are only good for two things: sex and babies. I'm sure there will be plenty of shock with that one, so let me explain. Seeking friendship with a women has a higher cost than a friendship with a man (she is socially trained to seek a higher standard of treatment from the male friend than a man would require of a male friend). Due to that extra cost, the female in question must provide extra opportunity to be of the same value as a male friend. What are the opportunities that women offer and men can't? Sex and babies.
And no consider that a man can obtain sex easily without selling himself into the bonds of marriage and that children are considered property of the woman pretty much unless she is unfit. That means that the only real value of women, to men, is sex.
It's all because women priced themselves out of the market offering nothing in return. Marriage once guaranteed sex, it no longer does. It still does guarantee support of the wife. That means the husband to be is offering a guarantee enforced by law and the wife to be is not. What's in marriage for the husband again?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
PK said:
"For men, things have changed little since over 100 years ago where we are still expected to be a breadwinner. Even politically liberal men complained to me that they feel that the bar has only been raised with little reward. Career women are more demanding of men financially and in addition are independent and ready to walk at a moment's notice. So what's the point?"
Sad but true. I am not homosexual. I am also not a misogynist. But the more I learn about the process by which females choose mates the less I find myself being attracted to females. I refuse to be objectified by status, chivalry, success, and disposability. I also refuse to change who I am just to please a female.
Punk rock icons Dead Kennedy's may have said it best when it comes to such blind conformity:
"Why don't you take your social regulations and shove em' up your ass!"
MXY
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Marriage is a sucker deal for men. Just ask Paul McCartney or Charlie Sheen to name a couple of recent divorcees.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
And speaking of fatherhood, I just ran across this:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/parenting/happiness-is-133-not-having-children/2008/05/08/1210131219169.html
He said people's happiness goes into steep decline after they have children, and never recovers its old level until the children leave home. As a source of pleasure, playing with one's offspring rates just above doing housework but below talking with friends, eating, or watching TV, research has shown.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Survey research must be taken with a bit of a grain of salt, due to potential participant bias, gender bias, conformity, self-fulfilling prophecy, and impression management. I believe it was Britain's Angry Harry who hypothesized that males tend to downplay their feelings while females tend to exaggerate their sense of victimhood on measures such as the Beck Depression Inventory. It is not impossible that a male may downplay his sense of loss after having lost his children.
MXY
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Hardly surprising: I'm one of these men. I have formally decided that, unless some miracle occurs, I'm never getting married at all. There's only a little bit to gain from it, and everything to lose. Besides, for me, finding any woman who I'd want to marry is about as likely as air molecules turning into gold before my eyes (and I admit that this is in no small part due to me: I'm not an easy person to have any kind of close relationship with, be it friendship, dating, or marriage. I barely feel any closeness to either of my own parents, for God's sake).
But I DO want to have kids. For that, I've got adoption and surrogacy, which I'll save up enough money for and hopefully accomplish by the time I'm 30. I know you ideally support kids having both a mother and a father, Glenn, but honestly, at this point, I don't even really care how selfish it makes me. I WANT to love and raise my children, guaranteed, and until we get the law to shape up, I feel like I don't have any other choice.
I've mentioned this point before, but it's really completely sad. Who else but human beings are capable of making NATURAL REPRODUCTION, of all things, an undesirable, risky thing? Or leaving people so cynical and jaded that pursuing being part of a loving family can be so rare as to be so unworthy of pursuit? It's a sad testament to just how, for all the chatter of humanity's "advancement" and "progress," we're slowly killing off our emotional humanity and becoming machines. Lot of good that our modern social structure is doing for us, huh?
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Glenn,
You can't lose what you never had! These men are concerned with losing money because they have it. They don't have kids. Therefore, the idea of losing kids to them is hypothetical, thus the mention of money.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Callum says,
So people are always baffled when I say I want kids but don't want to get married (I love kids)
I totally agree. There is a very small chance your children will leave you or divorce you so to speak, but if they would decide to run away they aren't entitled to at least half of everthing you have worked for in your life.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The response to this is: duh. Simple economics tells that increase the cost(abandonment, money, loss of children; aka the bad divorce) of a product (marriage) and the product is consumed less (a marriage strike.)
I will post a perhaps a third reason why loss of kids isn’t mentioned: the respondents are using cash as a proxy for all forms of loss. Having to fight the ex at every turn becomes very costly, paying child support is costly, facilitating visits is costly, etc.
A fourth reason might be that non-father males can not grasp how important kids will be. I’ve always heard from my friends (in a slightly condescending tone) that I won’t know how important kids re until I have one of my own. It would be easy for a non-father male to underestimate the impact of the loss of access to his offspring.
Perhaps a fifth reason its not mentioned is that the author did not want to introduce the issue that women always get custody, unless the woman is highly defective. While this is true it might be considered a third rail issue in Australia. The author might not want the impact of his results to be obscured over the ensuing debate of saying, “Guys are afraid that their ex’s will legally steal their kids and turn them against them.”
If there were a way to somewhat the accurately the cost of divorce per guy, or per perspective groom, we could model the demand and supply of marriage for guys, and the changes in equilibrium of the marriage rate. It could be named something really snarky like: The Price Elasticity of Wives. While there would most likely not be a Nobel involved, perhaps the public debate on family law, ease of divorce, and family values might have some of the light of truth shed on it. (I guarantee a substantial drop in the divorce rate, probably by a third, if women’s advantage in family court was erased.)
Later,
B
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
The ones getting married now have no idea of how much risk they are at. They are naive and ignorant.
I try to educate young guys on marraige today and most of them have a blank look like they don't believe me or don't believe this can happen to them.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
David said:
"The ones getting married now have no idea of how much risk they are at. They are naive and ignorant."
Regardless of how infatuated or "in love" men may feel to be, the base-rate statistics about marriage can be useful. I believe that the research suggests the following:
1).About half of all marriages fail.
2) About 2/3 of divorces are initiated by females.
MXY
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
When I read this my first thoght was "gee, I've been syaing this for how long?"
Lol...
I'm a trend setter!
G_R
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Glenn have you thought of this scenario? I'd probably classify myself in this one.
In general it's viewed I think in the sense that:
1) You have no money and you can't see your kids
2) You have atleast some money and you still can't see your kids
May as well choose the option that I can have some remenants of a lifestyle.
Can some of it be related to the fact that you don't want your ex to take your money? Sure, but you also have to think that many men have defeatist attitudes when it comes to divorce and kids. All for a very good reason.
I still remember the time I woke up at 3am with SWAT all around my house because of a neighbour who tried to kill himself by trying to get his natural gas lines to burst and blow his (or I should say ex's) house up. Eventually they found him hung in his closet. First time I learned about "unfairness" to men in the court room until later in life when I found out my father went through it with my older sister and her mother.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Prior to having children, I don't know how I would answer the questions about losing children. You don't really know what you've had until you've lost it.
It wasn't until I lost the day to day contact with mine that I realized how painful it is and how hostile the courts are to my plight.
I would think a more appropriate follow-up study would be to query men who have lost children through divorce and find if they would dare have any more children.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
How about this argument .. Men have changed.
Let us have a look at what men can do as well as women …. read restaurant menus , go to the dry cleaners, order pizza over the phone, hire house cleaning services, use their credit card, lye around the pool , watch TV, pay for garden services, hang out in bars, go shopping, empty the trash can, throw parties, blow money on crap, get speeding tickets, stay out to the wee hours of the morning, take the kids to daycare, put the kids to bed, come and go when I pleased … please feel free to continue..
So if I was married what would I be doing working, working, working, working, working for a house that was too big, SUV that drank too much gas, McDonald that get fed to the kids, Starbucks that I never got to drink, a pool that I never got to use, parties for someone else’s friends, cable TV for shows that I don’t watch, dry cleaning that is not mine, daycare because she needs her time, baby sitting because she needs a night out, paying for a cleaner to clean a house I never see or use, pay for garden services to clean the dog poop of the dog that I have to walk, drive a car that has its constantly needing repairs, constant harassment about buying gifts, getting up after working 16 hours to take care of the kids whilst she sleeps, eat left over’s of food I don’t like ….. please feel free to add to this!
All that men need is their own place and if they have children 50/50 physical custody.
If someone can give me a good reason to be married to the modern day woman I would like to know..
Oh I forgot to mention if I get divorced I will lose everything and on top of that I’ll be paying for it for years … hmmm alternatives anyone ?
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
"Well, Glenn, we must first demonstrate what men get out of marriage as a positive such that even if we took the negative of divorce away there would be something in marriage for men."
It used to be kids. A man couldn't have kids on his own. A man got children and a woman got money. Now women can get money themselves and men can look after kids themselves and even adopt them. Of course whether they are actually allowed to raise their own kids...
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I'm guessing because they're smart, and they want to stay successful men, they're staying away from marriage. Bad deal for men.
I used to think that the 10 year additional life span for being married tended to make up for the grief and sacrifice, but not anymore.
Why is it that women are praised for being concerned about their careers and their freedom from family burdens, but men are deemed irresponsible for the same activity?
Rise of the freemale: The women who'd rather be single than share their time and money
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1023532/Rise-freemale-The-women-whod-single-share-time-money.html
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Correlation, not causation.
Many who die early are unlikely candidates for marriage. That's what drives the difference. There is very little, if anything, in marriage that would lead to a longer lifespan.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids. This means either one of two things, neither of them good:
1) The men weren't that concerned over losing kids
2) The men didn't realize how common it is for fathers to lose their kids.
Personally I think that single men aren't worried about losing their kids in a divorce because they haven't really thought about having children. Until I had my son; which was the only good thing that came out of being a victim of paternity fraud, I didn't think that I wanted to have children. But once he was a part of my life, I came to understand what a wonderful and fulfilling experience having a son could be.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
As William Wallace would say,
"FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEDDOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM"
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
limey07. i reread your post 3 times in a futile attempt to find a flaw. married 3 times. divorced 3 times. when i realized it was me , i stopped holding myself accountable for all the worlds problems. thats something women WANT men to do. it fits in nicely with their idea that they are privileged and NOT responsible for anything. my advice is to protect your assests, avoid situations that can compromise your honesty and reputation and be ever wary of men who don't get it. they are more trouble than women in most cases. not antidotally, liberal men have, in the past and continue to, cause more harm to men than is almost possible to comprehend. they won't agree of course and will never ever hold themselves accountable for any reason at any time. sound familiar??
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Chris D,
Thanks man... I needed a good laugh today!!! (Even my beloved bride got a nice laugh out of that).
G_R
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Donnie .. liberal men .. their slogan should be .. misery enjoys company ...
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Annie: It would be interesting to dig into the numbers. Obviously, if there are a lot of one sex getting married and few of the other, than some people are engaging in multiple marriages. (Hopefully not all at the same time!) As for the older men fathering children thing, yes, I think too much is made of it... true, an elderly man can impregnate a woman, but practical concerns will usually caution against it. (Do you really want to be retired while your children are still in high school?)
Demon, I'm willing to bet that the discrepency in average lifespan between single and married men is caused by the fact that single men are more likely to engage in the most dangerous occupations (fireman, solider, offshore oil-rig roughneck, etc.). I think I've seen some data that says that single and married men in white-collar occupations have nearly the same life expectency -- I'll try to find a reference.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
That would be a possibility but I consider it unlikely. Having been in some of those occupations, I know that the married men outnumber the singles by a good margin. I happen to think there are some traits that lead to unlikeliness to get married that also lead to a short lifespan (hard time criminal, heavy drug use, health defects, etc.).
Wouldn't surprise me at all.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
To quote some feminist rhetoric about professor-student relationships, which I think is more applicable here:
"Where there is an imbalance of power there can be no consent".
Not only does the divorce industry keep men from marrying, I believe it taints existing marriages to some extent. For example, if the husband strongly disagrees with his wife on something, all she has to do is hint at a divorce or a false allegation - argument over!
So how to get married without such a power imbalance? (The following is all somewhat tongue-in-cheek)
1. If a man wants to find out whether his wife really loves him, and he can trust her, he should wait until after the honeymoon then announce that he's quitting his job to "discover his creative side" with writing or poetry. Go out with friends for a few hours, and see if she's still in the house when you return!
2. (A bit more realistic, perhaps). Only date women who are financially better off than you. In this I agree with feminists that there should be more women CEOs, etc. Trouble is, even the richest women expect to "marry up". So feminists need to work on changing rich women's expectations of men - see THAT happening anytime soon?
Finally, if you want a really misogynist take on marriage with a cost/benefit analysis thrown in, take a look at www.nomarriage.com. For instance, the cost of marriage + divorce is greater than hiring a cleaning service and a reasonably priced prostitute every couple of weeks. Talk about "outsourcing"!
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I'd like to see some follow-on study on post-marriage single men. How many men who have been married or have had children would sign up for a second tour of duty? I'm always surprised at divorced men with grown children who get married again. A true triumph of hope over experience. Most men my age I know aren't even interested in "committing" to a "relationship". Quite happy with their freedoms and friendships.
My marriage sometimes feels like I've run across an 8-lane freeway without getting run over (yet). I couldn't imagine who I'd be without my children, and they're old enough now that even if things did blow up, it would be OK. A few more years and they're on their own, anyway. They have been and are good friends and great companions. I'd rather do stuff with them than with anyone else or on my own. If you wait until later in life to have children- be sure and keep yourself in shape!
Women can be like motorcycles- fun, but dangerous. You can reduce the hazards of each to some extent by how you approach them, but there will always be components beyond your control. Even the most cautious riders sometimes get T-boned. I'm looking forward to getting another motorcycle, but doubt I'll ever "commit" to another woman. Really can't see any upside at this point in my life. You younger guys- be careful out there.
tweesdad said "Only date women who are financially better off than you." I heard this paraphrased years ago as: "Never ---- anyone who has less to lose than you do." It makes sense both literally and metaphorically, although he was talking about extramaritial affairs at the time.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
"One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids"
Their reason may simply be that money is something they currently have - it is an existing asset that they are rightfully worried about losing; whereas they don't yet have kids, and aren't looking that far down the road. Also some of them probably already decided that if they did get married, they wouldn't want kids anyway. The main point is that they aren't thinking about losing something they don't yet have.
Glenn, your must realize your speculation (the two reasons you gave) is coming from someone who's married with kids :)
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Demonspawn:
“Women are only good for two things: sex and babies.”
Demon:
Men are only good for 3 things: taking out the garbage, opening pickle jars, and making a good paycheck.
I hope that doesn’t offend you.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Notice how the writer makes it sound like the man's issue:
"Those with little money said they would have nothing to offer a partner, with some suffering self-esteem issues and withdrawing from the dating pool,"
That is not a man's issue, it is a reality issue - a woman simply will not marry down - and if you're poor, chances are you're "down".
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
For those of you, like Alex and maybe Callum, you want to choose single fatherhood because you are so scared of women. So how does that make you any different from Single Mothers by Choice (or whatever your name for them is)?
Here’s an idea for you guys, draw up a prenup that says in case of divorce, kids will be split 50-50. Then when you actually do have children, make sure that you do half the childcare. Then if the marriage ends, you have two things that will help you tremendously: your agreement and discussion before your children were born, and the respect of your wife (or ex-wife) who sees that even if she can’t stand you, you are a good father and will be far less likely to try for full custody.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
jeana makes little sense. "good" fathers don't try for full custody? may i infer you hold single mothers in contempt? how does one "split" a child? i don't mean an unborn child. i guess we all know how that is done. if you are willing to split the child, are you willing to split the cost?
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Count me among those happily single by choice. I find myself mirrored in the findings- not a disdain for marriage, nor do I begrudge those that make that choice, but a genuine concern of what could happen to me if it turned out to be a bad marriage, and I worry for those friends who take the plunge. As also mentioned the amount of horror stories within the family and amongst friends makes the idea of marriage a completely ludicrousand dangerous risk. My last thought as it relates to focussing on career- at least in my environment- myself and the men I work with know we have to work harder and longer to achieve the same advancement compared to our female counterparts. For those driven to achieve and accomplish, but wish to find a partner, there is little time to seriously date and commit to a relationship that can grow into something meaningful and special. Then of course there is the dating circuit itself which in New York City (and hence maybe not an accurate barometer) can cynically be likened to legalized prostitution- your chances of performing a root canal on a hungry grizzly are more likely than finding a date willing to pick up their share of the tab. So it begs from the get go- what is the benefit and fulfilling worth of pursuing a relationship in general.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
FYI, divorced men remarry sooner and in greater numbers than do women...with second marriages also having high failure rates.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Donnie, I was saying that I think the wife would be less likely to try for herself getting full custody if she can see that the guy is an engaged and active parent. I was thinking of my sister who, even tho’ her husband cheated on her and she hated him for awhile, she always said that even though he was a jerk (she used other words), he was still a good father. And there was no question of joint custody with no child support for either.
And I think you know that when I said to split a child you know I meant split custody.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Jeana - personally, I'm not offended, because that's how society portrays men. We're just paychecks and labor.
You left out scapegoat - it's not your fault, it's because some man is oppressing you somehow.
But while we're discussing the dating/mating/relationship game theory at it's fundamentals, nowadays, yes, when you have to make a hard cost/benefit analysis, that's what it's become, hence the study's results showing men are opting out of marriage because of the loss of earnings. Selfish bastards. It's ok, we'll make them pay for everyone else's bastard children through entitlement programs.
I wouldn't be surprised if the state of Californication leads the way in 'opt outs'.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to be single for the balance of my life. There's way too much that a vindictive partner can take from me. The least of which is whatever wealth I may have accumulated. My freedom and the right to care for my children are also at stake.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Offended Dad,
You don't need anymore children. So what's stopping you from getting married? Get a vasectomy and you will have no worries.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
"Get a vasectomy and you will have no worries."
except for the fact that he would be fiscally responsible if his wife gets pregnant.
nope no worries.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Why is it that women are praised for being concerned about their careers and their freedom from family burdens, but men are deemed irresponsible for the same activity?
Actually, such is not the case. Google "demographic winter," and go on to "voluntary childlessness." The same voices criticizing men also have been loud in their indictment of "selfish women."
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Glenn,
Your last paragraph said:
"One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids. This means either one of two things, neither of them good:
1) The men weren't that concerned over losing their kids.
2) The men didn't realize how common it is for fathers to lose their kids."
However, there may be a third option (also not good) which is this - for men, it is such a foregone conclusion that they are going to lose the children in a divorce that they concentrate on what they can win/keep.
Regards,
George
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I have a vasectomy - got it two weeks ago.
I'm NEVER getting in a situation where I can't go to my own home again. I owned my house before I was married this last time, and I was forced out of it for a year, because my ex claimed that I was a violent sexual deviant.
I'm not subsidizing anyone to sit on their butt, so I'm certainly not letting anyone establish this place as 'their' residence, because that allows them a right of entry. Since the court has already demonstrated that they're not interested in granting me a protective order when I'm assaulted, and more than willing to lock me up at the drop of a hat with zero proof, I doubt I'll extend anyone that level of trust ever again.
Please try and picture being assaulted, then arrested, and charged with a crime, then forced out of your own home, forced to pay for that home that your perpetrator now gets to stay in for free, three sets of legal bills, and then forced to pay child support AND spousal support for a year long legal battle, AND then getting stuck with all the bills your ex ran up during the year and a half long divorce proceeding.
Really. I've had enough. When the judge in your case says "too bad, don't sleep with crazy people", and proceeds to reward your ex for her bad behavior, you know the deck's stacked against you.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
For that matter, it is in the best interest for attorneys of wealthy litigants to create as much conflict and drag the process out as much as possible. So, at this point, it's 3 people with a vested interest in grief, and only one with a interest in getting out as quickly as possible, which results in a less than desireable settlement.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Now that people are actually starting to ask the right questions, there will be increasingly smaller opportunities to whitewash the whole industry, blaming men yet again for this phenomena. Even with this study, there are a couple of anti-male posters here that are STILL trying to spin this as either a woman's issue, or at the very least, something MEN have to get over (because we're all whiners dontcha know?).
It's the plain, simple truth. There are a lot of men out there that are either jaded as hell, or broke as hell, because of their previous marriage. Lots of times the real answer is both.
Couple this with some entitled woman who got her house from the ex, her car from the ex, her job from affirmative action, and her attitude from a lifetime of being told that the voluminous help she has recieved from various sources STILL only makes her life marginally closer to as easy as men's. It's a dirty LIE, and some women just refuse to accept it. Men have been dealt a terrible hand in nearly EVERY aspect of society...(those who would argue this, try being a poor man in the dating scene...for added benefit, try being short, skinny, AND poor)
Women are ridiculous for the most part in their expectations of men (again, because their easy life has been sold to them as "harder than men's", so they lack a certain perspective. These are generalizations, but I haven't seen a whole lot of deviation from this particular "norm" in my life, I suspect most here could say the same.
There's really 2 options for women.
1) Admit there's HUGE problems, and that men have been deliberately disadvantaged to the point there is little IF ANY value in getting into any kind of long term relationship with women (Again, an intended consequence of feminism, going right back to the 60's). Once admitted, DO something about it, or watch the men chase the 20 somethings...at least they're soft and firm and young....and not interested in trapping men into fatherhood NEAR as much as a 30-something woman.
2) Continue to deny, obfusticate, and refuse to admit any wrongdoing, thereby virtually ensuring the end of permanent male-female relationships. This is all fine and good for right now, if you're a woman. But once men gain access to reliable and HIDDEN birth control methods of their own, marriage will be as close to toast as it's going to get...likely rare to the point of notability (ie. it's weird to have married friends at all). Marriage, it has been noted, benefits women, and really ONLY women, as an institution. If women want to continue to blame men, and deny the problems, and refuse to correct anything....well, then they deserve every ounce of misery that comes from that. Yes, even the really nice women that would "never do that sort of thing", since as at least one post has illustrated.....that Sword of Damocles hanging over the husband's head is the PRIMARY source of power most wives have....and EVERY last one of them knows it....don't kid yourself.
Either way, until I have guaranteed protection and equal rights both in the letter and the PRACTICE of the legal system, well....marriage is out for me. Too bad too, because I would dearly love the opportunity to actually have a family to replace the one my ex took from me.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Most women would not consider joint custody. Why pass on the child support check and the opportunity to cause your ex grief? Most women that I know are either holding a grudge for some perceived wrong, or laughing at all the hoops the dufus will jump through to see his kids, and count himself lucky.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Happily Single for life.
I was for marriage at times in my life, but never got hooked. I have realized that there is no benefit to being married.
I have several (most) male cousins and four brothers. Only one of us married, the divorce is in progress. He's being lied about in court. She is flagrantly lying in court about how long he lived in the household, among other things. And....
She'll still probably get custody.
It DOESN'T take a rocket scientist...
It's...
FatherTime
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I'm with Offended Dad on that one. Hell, I have a close female friend that is divorced, has a daughter with the father. She's got a great relationship with the Dad too, they even go out sometimes together (he's remarried, they go out double-dating). Then a few months ago, she gets involved with a military guy, and wants to move to Ontario (4000 km away). All of a sudden, now that it interferes with her desires, she sees NO problem with moving her daughter 4000 km away from her father....even called the father "selfish" for not wanting the Mom to be happy.
Yeah, I believe all the women who say they'd never do that sort of thing.....after they demonstrate that with actions. As we all know...talk is cheap.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
jeana: "Here’s an idea for you guys, draw up a prenup that says in case of divorce, kids will be split 50-50. Then when you actually do have children, make sure that you do half the childcare. Then if the marriage ends, you have two things that will help you tremendously: your agreement and discussion before your children were born, and the respect of your wife (or ex-wife) who sees that even if she can’t stand you, you are a good father and will be far less likely to try for full custody."
Actually, no, that's what I'd LIKE to do, more than anything...except that for most people, even proposing a pre-nuptual agreement is a sure way to put a damper on the romance of a marriage. It's a one-two punch for most, because the person who hears it thinks that it means that A.) the proposer doesn't believe that the marriage can last forever. Being realistic has no place in the pre-marriage lovey-dovey "we're going to be together forever" stage. And B.) it implies that you need a security check against the person you're going to marry, ideally meaning that you don't fully trust the person who you're going to marry, when marriage ideally means 100% trust and communication, or so they tell us. It takes a lot of maturity and clear-headedness to accept pre-nups as a concept in itself, and most people, if the status of Western Civilization as a whole is any indicator, are clearly not that mature.
And no, I don't claim to be any different from Single Mothers By Choice. Believe me on one thing, though: I WANT my children to have both a mother and a father so bad. But until the law actually makes marriage worth it (perhaps to the point where prenups aren't even NEEDED anymore, because divorces are actually fair? Is that a novel concept), and I meet someone really, really, REALLY special who manages to break my cynicism about romance, then I'm going to have to go with a life plan that's not going to be the emotional equivalent of tightrope-walking over a shark tank with one leg tied behind me.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
"I'm of the general opinion that marriage and fatherhood is a good thing for men, and that unfortunately it has been poisoned to some degree by our anti-male family law system".
I agree with many of the previous posters that marriage does not hold many positives in it. But I'm not sure that it is completely women's fault nor mostly their fault, rather it is probably the game of dodge ball that the system puts a man through should a divorce occur. And, since the government has a monopoly of legal force and is usually dead-set against the man, this usually leads to dire consequences. "It's the system man". I can see only two possible solutions to the problem:
1) Change the system to be less anti-male through the regular channels that democracy allows (i.e. lobbying, voting in the right people, communicating with your Congressman/woman, etc.) This takes years to accomplish.
2) Take away the government's power over private affairs (i.e. marriage).
Being a libertarian the second options sounds oh-so-appealing. But I'm not quite sure how that would work out in the end. Still, methinks that "it's the system stupid" and that everything the government touches it seems to screw up somehow. Until that changes, the rules of punishment and reward will govern human behavior and, since humans are risk averse, marriage will still be seen as a raw deal.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Jenna says: Here’s an idea for you guys, draw up a prenup that says in case of divorce, kids will be split 50-50. Then when you actually do have children, make sure that you do half the childcare. Then if the marriage ends, you have two things that will help you tremendously: your agreement and discussion before your children were born, and the respect of your wife (or ex-wife) who sees that even if she can’t stand you, you are a good father and will be far less likely to try for full custody.
Eagle30: Jenna, you can create a prenup list the size of the river nile and it still wouldn't hold weight in divorce court as the stereotype still exists: Women are judged as the primary caregivers and are always awarded custody no matter how much of a case the man presents in court. That's what they've been telling you.
Maybe you should try putting your energies towards helping men fight this sexist (yes, SEXIST) law instead of diminishing the natural fears of single men in this tense climate. You are a feminist, right? Isn't equality between sexes what you usually advocate? Or are you one of those "feminists" who are blind to, or willingly refuse to see, what men go through?
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Fortis: "I agree with many of the previous posters that marriage does not hold many positives in it. But I'm not sure that it is completely women's fault nor mostly their fault, rather it is probably the game of dodge ball that the system puts a man through should a divorce occur. And, since the government has a monopoly of legal force and is usually dead-set against the man, this usually leads to dire consequences. "It's the system man". I can see only two possible solutions to the problem:
1) Change the system to be less anti-male through the regular channels that democracy allows (i.e. lobbying, voting in the right people, communicating with your Congressman/woman, etc.) This takes years to accomplish.
2) Take away the government's power over private affairs (i.e. marriage).
Being a libertarian the second options sounds oh-so-appealing. But I'm not quite sure how that would work out in the end. Still, methinks that "it's the system stupid" and that everything the government touches it seems to screw up somehow. Until that changes, the rules of punishment and reward will govern human behavior and, since humans are risk averse, marriage will still be seen as a raw deal."
I'm Alex, and I approve this message! I pretty much agree with what you posted 100%.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Yes, men are absolutely on a marriage strike, and this reality is more severe in the U.S. than Australia, and even more severe among men with high earnings, high assets, or just high hopes for accomplishment.
But it is not just a marriage strike.
Many wise men are completely avoiding U.S. women -- because these men know that a skilled sperm-trapper can take them down, and will is there is cash in it for her.
And most of all, wise men know that they absolutely cannot tell which women are going to turn out to be the most dangerous ones.
Therefore, all good, honest, and non-predatory women are suffering with the male marriage and even dating boycott, while the scammiest women continue to trap unenlightened men, and loot them with the ever-available assistance of U.S. family courts.
A sick, sick situation, created by state legislatures and state judiciaries to feed their greedy pig lawyer friends.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Jeanna, stick a sock in it. You have no clue what you are talking about. In divorce it is presumptive by the courts that the women will receive primary custody (and will not be penalized for PAS, abuse of the children, drug/alcohol abuse, etc.), IF the woman is ordered to pay child support she will default at a rate approximately 2x that of men with no fear of penalty. The woman will receive most of the marital assets. She will be held to a much lower standard of accountability, responsibility and liability than a man is. These are the facts.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
From Bill Maher’s standup routine:
“I always hear women say, ‘you know married men live longer’. Uhh…yes…and an indoor cat...also…lives longer. It’s a fur-ball with a broken spirit that can only look out on a world it will never enjoy…but it does technically live longer.”
“I’m like the last of my guy friends to have never gotten married and..um…their wives…they don’t want them playing with me. I’m like the escaped slave. I bring news of freedom. It’s not a good thing for them to have me around. Keep the husband in the dark, they’re happier that way.
He also says something about the fact that all his married friends used to be mustangs, roaming free doing what they wanted. He says that now they are not mustangs but more like the horse in front of the carriage in central park, going around with blinders on, swatting flies, and crapping in a bucket.
Funny stuff.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
The posts above are chock full of references to angry, vindictive, unethical, controlling women who display their true natures once the divorce papers are filed.
I'd like to propose that in addition to the obvious risk analysis that men apply to marriage (all risk and no benefits), there is also what might be called an "aesthetic" dimension quietly lurking in the Marriage Strike phenomenon.
It is simply this - Most American women have lost any semblance of femininity, and hence, they are not especially desirable as life partners.
The modern female is more aggressive than many men, competitive in all the wrong ways, focused on her self interests to the detriment of having empathy for others, and narcissistic beyond reason.
The professional career gals are like simulated men in power pantsuits, pantomiming whatever version of the feminist "liberation" repertoire they have adopted as their identity.
Why would an intelligent man feel desire for such a misanthropic vile creature?
So if the American Marriage Strike is still primarily about reducing financial risk and legal jeopardy, it is also indicative of men's repudiation of the unfeminine women that have killed men's desire for the opposite gender.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Roy: “Most American women have lost any semblance of femininity, and hence, they are not especially desirable as life partners.”
We really have lost any semblance of femininity? And so are not desirable at all? Can you explain that?
Demon said that we were good for sex and babies. So at least there's 2 reasons for our existence.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Factory,
One of your 2 options for us women include admitting that men are disadvantaged and do something about it or risk seeing men chase 20-somethings. 30-somethings, after all, just want to trap men into fatherhood.
A female that wants to get married and have a baby is seen as someone who wants to “trap” you into fatherhood? You know that we aren’t fertile forever, and you men are fertile much longer than we are. Why is it so selfish to want to have a baby? To TRICK a man into fathering a baby is one thing, but to look for a relationship with the hope that it will turn into something permanent is not bad. It's what's supposed to happen.
The sad thing about “confirmed bachelors” is that they think they don’t want kids or a wife and want to act irresponsible like they’re in college, and when they finally realize that they would actually like to settle down, they aren’t mature enough to look for a woman their age, and so they look for someone in their 20s (who will probably not even consider them unless they are very successful). But hey, they are “soft and firm and young”
And then they blame all women because they think females only want them for their paycheck. Which the young ones probably do. And then they go to glennsacks.com and complain about how bad women are.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
"Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," Weisman told Reuters in a telephone interview.
"It's better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all" Now an obsolete expression.
-------------------
"One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids. This means either one of two things, neither of them good:
1) The men weren't that concerned over losing their kids.
2) The men didn't realize how common it is for fathers to lose their kids.
-------------------
Glenn - 1) They may not have considered this loss because they don't actually have kids. They have money presently.
2) Many people consider marriage or avoid marriage that don't want children in either case.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Alex Says: June 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
"For that, I've got adoption and surrogacy, which I'll save up enough money for and hopefully accomplish by the time I'm 30."
------------------
Adoption - Good luck, you are a single male. (Two parents are best so long as at least one is female. You are likely disqualified in their eyes but I'd like to be surprised and learn otherwise.)
Surrogacy - You said you wanted to keep your child in your life. Warning - you may lose the child before you have it. An unmarried man with child - prepare to pay child support to the surrogate.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Jeana said:
"We really have lost any semblance of femininity? And so are not desirable at all?"
I don't speak for everyone, but I don't mind traditionally-masculine traits in women. I have no reservations whatsoever for dating females who are taller, wealthier, older, or more dominant than myself. Of course, I find that most females seem to have plenty of reservations for dating males who are shorter, less successful, or younger than themselves. Females seem to be every bit as "insecure" as men when it comes to this kind of thing. I do wonder if males tend to be more accepting of mascunlity in women than women are of accepting femininity in men. It is perhaps more common for a male to marry-up than it is for a female to marry-down. I don't know. If anyone has any research to this effect, feel free to post.
Gender-feminist acceptance of chivaly and the patriachal victim model perhaps has more in common with hyper-femininity than masculinity in my opinion. As Wendy McElroy put it: "Real women don't need big brother."
MXY
MXY
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Lane,
You men are in a very similar situation with gay people. Only their situation, of course, is much, much worse.
You actually can adopt being single, but getting a healthy infant might be a problem. Your best bet is to adopt an older kid.
The surrogate option will most likely not cause you to pay child support. A recent case was finally decided in favor of the biological father whose surrogate mother (with donated egg) actually initially won custody and child support, which is beyond comprehension. But 2 higher courts had brains and reversed everything and said she had to pay back the $$.
But considering surrogacy in your mid-20s is kind of rash.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Jeana - I tried for a relationship nearly into my thirties. While I was enlisted, then struggling through school, no one wanted anything to do with me. I ended up marrying a close friend, 5 years older than I, with a 12 yr old son. She left when he was 18. I thought that marrying my friend of 5 years was an ideal arrangement. Nope.
Next one was 11 years younger, with an 18 month old son. She's nuts, psychotic, cruel, petty, vindictive, every ugly thing you can imagine. 8 years of hell later, and I can honestly say that I've tried to approach a relationship with no reservations, only to have it bite me.
Now I'm in my 40's, and feminine women want nothing to do with me, as I'm not making 6 figures, I'm not very charismatic. The women that will talk to me, come to know me, are usually married, but assure me that I'm a nice guy, but I get the suspicion that I'm in reserve for when they choose to settle - and they constantly complain about the successful pretty-boys that are playing the field and won't commit, or wont treat them with respect, are demanding and controlling, etc. Oh well, even in the late 30's, women would still rather frustrate themselves with the bad boys than spend time with someone who accepts them as they are.
Oh well. It's a good thing I like my own company, and that of my kids. I'm sure it won't last, but they think I'm a pretty good guy.
I mentioned before that I recently got a vasectomy. If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. The base surgery was $1100, insurance covered all but two office visits and a darvocet prescription, about $90. The valium covered the apprehension about the surgery, the initial injection of the local felt like he had yanked out a hair, and the next few days were just a little sore, nowhere near the discomfort I was imagining. That did last a few days longer than I had anticipated, but had abated by the end of the week.
What prompted me to get it was an earlier discussion on this blog of what birth control options were covered by insurance, and what wasn't. I had expected to pay $400 or $500, and was pretty shocked to find out it was essentially the cost of an office visit. The 'type' I had was the incision-free, but don't let the name fool you - it's a small hole that heals faster, rather than an incision.
What I was surprised to find out was the cost of storing sperm for later possible use. The collection and annual storage would have been almost $1000 for the first year, and a few hundred a year for storage.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:34 pm
jeana Says: June 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
"Your best bet is to adopt an older kid.
The surrogate option will most likely not cause you to pay child support."
A "best bet" and a "most likely", despite your examples, I see my point is at least not lost to you.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Men like to pretend. They tell themsleves and each other that the reason they do not marry, is because they have carefully thought through it, and decided it is not a good idea from a practical standpoint.
But in reality, all decisions are made at gut level. When it comes down to the brass tacks, the reason a particular man doesn't propose to a particular woman is because in all likelihood, he can see that she's obnoxious; as are the majority of women these days.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Alex Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
"And no, I don't claim to be any different from Single Mothers By Choice."
Really? So you're taking hundreds or even thousands of dollars a month to finance your chosen lifestyle from an unsuspecting, and powerless woman? You're using the legal system to extort money from the mother of your child to help pay for a kid that YOU want, and who cares what she wants?
Wow....how'd you manage to do that?
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
jeana said,
"Men are only good for 3 things: taking out the garbage, opening pickle jars, and making a good paycheck"
The last of those is a reason not to get married. ( Demonspawn gave you reasons to get married.)
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
jeana said,
"Here’s an idea for you guys, draw up a prenup that says in case of divorce, kids will be split 50-50. Then when you actually do have children, make sure that you do half the childcare."
Sure - if the woman earns half the money.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
LOL Norman L.
That was a good one.
I'd like to eat my pickles and take out my garbage while still in possession of my money, thank you very much :)
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
jeana said,
"Here’s an idea for you guys, draw up a prenup that says in case of divorce, kids will be split 50-50. Then when you actually do have children, make sure that you do half the childcare."
Modern woman's idea of childhood -----------------------------> KFC and XBox...lol
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Chris,
If a man gets married, his pickles, jars, paychecks and everything else he owns goes down the garbage.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:52 pm
LOL Norman L,
If they split up she says, "You can half 1/2 the picles but I want the jar...lol
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
No Chris,
the man ends up living in the jar.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Im not getting married or having kids until shared custody is the norm rather than the exception, and until you take out of the marriage what you bring in, no more, no less. The more men who take this stance the greater the chances that the bastards who control all this and who don’t care about anything except what women want, will think "Oh no, our beloved females can’t find husbands, so ironically, to keep the girls happy we must make marriage fairer to men."
And if that never happens, well, who needs a wife anyway? I've been doing my own cooking and cleaning for the last twenty years and i haven’t died from malnutrition or disease yet. And if I get clucky in my forties or fifties I’ll adopt by myself. And what makes me different to single mothers by choice, jeana? The fact that the studies show that children are far better off with a single dad than with a single mom. In fact, given that women commit most of the child abuse, they may even be better off than with a dad and a mom- they’ll certainly be safer.
“Jenna says: Here’s an idea for you guys, draw up a prenup that says in case of divorce, kids will be split 50-50.”
I believe most American states have laws against dismembering one’s children, Ms Solomon.
“Then when you actually do have children, make sure that you do half the childcare.”
Seems rather unfair given that most men do more work outside the home that they should do as much of the child care as the woman does.
“Then if the marriage ends, you have two things that will help you tremendously: your agreement and discussion before your children were born, and the respect of your wife (or ex-wife) who sees that even if she can’t stand you, you are a good father and will be far less likely to try for full custody.”
Very pretty vision of divorce you have- plenty of great dads still get accused of being otherwise regardless of what the wife knows to be the truth.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 am
I'm gonna share some personal stuff with you all. I'm gonna tell about just how jaded I am.
If anyone here has ever seen the movie HEAT, Deniro's character talks about the life of a criminal pulling off big-time heists.
He says that when he was in prison, a fellow inmate taught him, "Never get involved with anything that you can't walk out on in 30 seconds flat. That's the life."
The idea was that you were under constant threat and the police could pounce at any second so you have to protect yourself.
I actually somewhat follow that advice. I am married with no kids and want to keep it that way. It's so sad, really. But, even when I try to play devil's advocate with myself, I still think I am doing what is smartest and best. That's how bad I think things have gotten.
Now, if I ever start getting wealthy, I honestly would have to reevaluate even my marriage. It's horrible but it's true. My wife loves me, I love her...yada-yada-yada. But, there are larger forces. Society itself encourages her to squeeze me dry. She is as loyal as any woman, but, I don't think, in a pinch and given the current atmosphere, I trust that is enough.
Anyway, I try to look out for #1 so I don't get put in #2.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 am
Jeana:
I'm getting really tired of you mischaracterizing what I say, then insulting me for "saying" that. The simple unvarnished truth is that women are getting less and less desireable with each passing day. They as a rule prove themselves to be fickle, selfish, uncaring, and opportunistic on a daily basis.....not simply within the personal realm I experience, but also on the world stage. Example after example of bad behaviour and dangerous consequences for men if they get caught up with the wrong woman are DAILY shown here (plucked from the mainstream media most of the time), and yet you have the unmitigated gall to belittle our concerns. Fine, that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to take you seriously.
You have no, I repeat NO compassion for men at all. You are the PERFECT example of a woman who says she "would never do that"...I'm sure you profess to love men all the time too...at least the ones in your life. It's patently obvious to me and several other posters here that you are FAR more interested in trying to convince us that we're blowing smoke, and whiners, than you are in correcting the glaring social injustices....GLARING injustices.... You're not a stupid woman (frankly no one is stupid enough to be here as long as you have and still deny there's overwhelming need for massive change immediately), which means you are the enemy. By that I mean, you are the type of person who is actively trying to undermine men, keep them subjugated and apologetic.
So, I will address you as such.
I believe you have lied to your loved ones. I believe (from a previous discussion) that you also have a possible illegitimate child. I think you despise men, that you are a man-hater. Call me misogynist...whatever. Your kind ALWAYS says that. Boring.
Let me lay it out for you in a nutshell. I had a family. My ex cheated, moved her boyfriend in WEEKS after I was booted out, and my kids were told to call him "Daddy". I have seen every kind of selfish, narcissistic behaviour, continuously, both from women I've dated as well as those I simply know (believe it or not, I actually have nonsexual relationships with several women). I'm no angel myself, but it's really true...no matter how "perfect" you are, women will still "shop" for a better man, they will look for ANYTHING to find fault in there men. Keep in mind, this is not simply women I've dated. I've watched friends go from "He's perfect, I love him so much" to "If the guy picks his teeth at the table one more time I'm gonna KILL him" in DAYS. I've got numerous female friends that are "in love" with a different man every friggin month! And I can honestly say MOST of the women I know compare the man they're with to that "impossible list" they post on their dating site profiles (figuratively speaking), and they SERIOUSLY WILL dump a guy if she finds a guy closer to completing the list.
This may have happened throughout history...but WOMEN changed the rules....this is just the other shoe dropping, that's all. Since all the rules of the game favour women, men are beginning to behave just like someone playing a game like that would....they're opting not to play at all.
I ask you, why would I, as a mid-30's man, want to be with a mid-30's woman? So I can benefit from the house her ex paid for? So I can raise the kids she had with another man? So I can wonder if she'll do to ME what she has ALREADY PROVEN she's happy to do to another man? Am I that "different"? Hardly.
What most women seem to have a huge problem wrapping their heads around (including you) is that men (gasp) have minds of their own. And when we have to take those kinds of risks, we sure as hell won't risk it on an old lady if there's a nubile available...and that's no different from a lot of older women (ever hear the phrase "cougar" before?). When women made themselves as unassailable as possible, heaped derision and blame on men, stacked the "deck" against men in as many ways as possible, and all the while told men that we deserve it....what exactly do you expect to happen?
In fact, let's put it exactly like that. Given your knowledge of what's actually going on in the world, how exactly do you suppose men should react? How are we "supposed" to feel in your world? Honest answers are welcome. Throw the whole shootin' match out the window for a second and just tell me how men should feel.
I'll start the ball rolling. I think women should feel ashamed and horrified at what's been done for(and by) them.
Your turn.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 am
The probability of divorce times the cost of divorce must be subtracted from your expected income after getting married.
E[income after marriage] = .... -Prob[Divorce]*$(cost-of-divorce)
There may be other terms, but these are often of second order.
I myself have avoided marriage, on account of the extraordinary expense and energy required to initiate and sustain a relationship. In my case, there isn't enough of a surplus--it's all I can do to get myself going, day in and day out.
Men are under less pressure to get married--not including disincentives. Despite women's lib, men are expected to take the initiative in relationships. All that a man has to do is not take the initiative: and the marriage strike continues.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 am
Factory said,
"I'm getting really tired of you mischaracterizing what I say, then insulting me for "saying" that. "
Factory, join the club.
Jeanna is the Hilary Clinton of these blogs.
"Honor?.......Nah"
"Truth.......Overrated"
Ethics......Don't think so"
There is no real discussion with her.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 am
Factory,
I don’t think I mischaracterized anything you said. I didn’t address all of what you said, but rather took one bit of it and talked about it. I would be here forever if I addressed everything I took exception to.
And I don’t think I belittle your concerns at all. You guys turn everything into a “women are evil and are out to get us poor little men”. No matter what the subject. I’m sorry you men have had some bad experiences with women. I am. But I am not going to give into your desire for victimhood. I don’t do it for females and I won’t for males. You men have far more choices and options than you think. You want to think like a martyr and be consoled by others who have also had bad experiences. Ok, so this is group therapy for you. But understand that I do not belittle your main concerns. You guys do, however, sometimes go off the deep end. And I do have a different experience and perspective than all the rest of you.
I’m the enemy??? The “type of person who is actively trying to undermine men, keep them subjugated and apologetic.” You are clueless. You have no idea about anything about me. I can actually say that I’ve never in my life insulted, demeaned, degraded, or made fun of men. (I wonder if your female MRA supporters can say this.) I’ve never even been rude to men. That has gotten me into trouble because some of you need rudeness to wake you up. Why would I want to keep men subjugated, especially since I don’t even think that they are? Expecting you to be apologetic? No, but it would be nice if sometimes you guys could show an ounce of compassion for someone female.
I have “a possible illegitimate child”—no, Factory, I am much, much smarter than to get pregnant or to get an STD.
I feel sorry for you and for the other guys here. But I will not cave into your belief system that all women are evil and only out to hurt you. I do believe that there are changes that need to be made. But I don’t have to agree with everything or even most things that you people say. I am only here to try to understand your side.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 am
You men are the tired, boring ones who always say the same things and refuse to understand that there is a possible point of view other than your own.
I'll leave you to your own misery, in which you love to wallow.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 am
Jeana, in responding to Factory said:
"I’m sorry you men have had some bad experiences with women. I am. But I am not going to give into your desire for victimhood. I don’t do it for females and I won’t for males."
That's not true Jeana. In the other blog about the UC Irvine girl that claimed sexaul assault. You were supportive of the girl being labeled a "victim" prior to anyone hearing the man's side of the story or even investigating.
Jeana, you very much "give in" to women's desire for victimhood.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 am
Sadly Chris D, I know that, and still feel compelled to try. I'm chalking it up to some sort of repressed childhood memories or something.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 am
Jeana said,
"I'll leave you to your own misery, in which you love to wallow."
Hey thanks Jeana. In reality, you leaving is relieving us of alot of misery. Thanks for the thoughtful help.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 am
Factory,
That is because you are a man. We feel honor-bound to be helpful and look outside of our own interests.
Women have no such problems.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 am
Who conducted this? As a single parent that has been fighting for the RIGHT to be a father I resent the implication that Dad's are more worried about money that their children. Where did these interviewees come from? Certainly not from the type of people that raised me.... For over 8 years I have been fighting for my children to have a mom and a dad even though they we are separated through divorce.
I too am not ready to run to the alter again because of the financial rape I went through but I do love my children and will NEVER EVER give them up. They did not ask to be here, myself and their mother brought them here. Raising a child is not cute it is a serious responsibility. Any parent that walks away from their responsibility, not just a financial responsibility either. Parents are responsible for nurturing their children when they are very young and teach them to become responsible citizens as they grow up. Right from wrong. good from bad. The difference between sympathy and compassion. Dads, good dads do that and more. STOP painting a picture of dads that is not truly representative of real dads. Look into a greater variety of single dads and single never married men and do not combined the two as they are not the same. A little intelligence goes a long way.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 am
Richard Murdock,
No one said these guys cared about money more than kids. Glenn just wondered if that is a POSSIBLE implication of the findings.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 am
"One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids. "
Did the answer to the question offer that answer? It depends how the question was posed. Was it an open-ended question?
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 am
Again with the mischaracterization. Jeezus woman. You've not read any of my posts ever on this site? I'll spell it out:
It's not that "all women are evil and out to get us widdle men", and you f**king well know it. It's that the laws, education system, hell nearly the entire bloody social and legal infrastucture of western civilization is set up primarily to benefit women, DEFINITELY not men. And men have to depend on the goodwill of women to maintain any semblance of a life after divorce, or an extraordinary earning power (coincidence? I doubt it).
The problem I have is not that women ARE out to "get" men, it's that not only CAN women "get" men, they have an arsenal of legal/criminal law/social options laid out for them, funded by MY taxes. I don't resent or fear women, but I definitely resent and fear what the law allows (at their behest) women to do. It's the risk of encountering another freak-show in disguise, and the total, utter lack of protection if I do, that keeps me away from them all. I'm not afraid of guns either, but I don't put the business end of a loaded gun against my forehead.....does that make me "fearful" and in need of "group therapy" as your oh-so-patronizing post says....? For what it's worth, I've seen otherwise FANTASTIC women give in to the "easy money", and then rationalize it to themselves. I try not to judge, but seriously, I feel terrible for any guy that dates them....that sort of thing gets easier and easier to do....
You do a good job of sounding perfectly reasonable when wanted, but most of the time your hatred of men shines like a beacon in the fog. This is again, a PERFECT example of what men face....how exactly do you tell if she's going to suck you dry (and not in the good way)? You can't. Here's a revolver.....only half of the chambers have bullets in them, and out of those one is a dud.....would YOU play that game?
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 am
"One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids"
One reason for the findings may be the way in which those losses are commonly perceived. Whereas it is
well known that assets will be divided in a divorce, it is unfathomable to most people that a parent would be
separated from his or her children in any extreme way. I think most people who have never been to family
court believe that although the children will likely stay with mom most of the time, they will spend ample time
with dad, too. Most of the men interviewed probably believe that no judge would deny a willing father time with
his children, and yet this is what routinely happens. This is at the root of the fallacy that the men in divorces
are the abandoners and deadbeats when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Until courts begin to
act more equitable on the matter of parenting time, the situation will not improve.
FMD
Arlington, MA
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 am
Yul Bryner once said "Whatever you do don't smoke."
Whatever you do, don't marry.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:02 am
I may be repeating most of what other men have experienced. One woman said it best," Marriage is highly overrated". Why subject young men to lifelong servitude withone woman? Given the current family laws and dysfunctional women, monopoly power women have over our children, I would advice no man to ever legally marry or have children with any woman. men get a vasectemy. Women see men as an annuity. I see this on dating sites. When I post as a wealthy single man, I get numerous responses. I I post myself as low income, I get no responses. Men lawyers counsel women to get all they can from their divorced man. I have seen divorce male lawyers screw other men in divorces. We have these biased divorce laws that have been enacted by male legislatures, enforced by male judges. We have male judges practice sex discrimiantion against men in divorce courts. Mens ' only defense now days is either not to get legally married and not to have children, if they want to protect their financial life. Divorces is all about money. Most women bring no money into a marriage. But they want it all when they file for a divorce. Most divorces are filed by women. I ask why should we give raising of our kids to dysfunctional women who fail to take care of their main man?? Why should any man pay alimony to a woman after a divorce when she no longer provides the man any service?? Its like continuing to pay for a car that you no longer own or drive.
I advise, no marriage until the current family laws are changed. They will only change the laws if we demand the legislatures to change them. In the mean time there is no benefit to any man to marry. A man can enjoy all the things a marriage offers without being married. I married twice and regretted both times.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:15 am
"Most men don't think about losing their kids because they don't have them yet. Once they have kids, then the fear sets in."
First poster is dead on. The single ones shouldnt even be asked this question in the first place. As the addage goes, you cant miss what you've never had.
Try this for a scenario. We fear losing our money because of kids. I lost everything fighting over custody with a wife which was guilty of polyandry at the time and she still has custody! So yeah, the worst of both worlds.
Personally, I think its none of the governments business to get into our personal lives, dictating who we can be with, and creating laws they dont intend to enforce, and not properly exacting justice where its due on the laws they do intend to enforce.
If only you knew what I knew about our goverment. Its no suprise to me men are saving themselves the heartache. Women to for that matter.
We'd do our country a big favor to abolish marital law, and establish a preventative and equal custodial law.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:31 am
Sadly the subject of marriage and it's various results are well described here as elsewhere, especially for males. There is no equity in the institution, and especially for those traditional marriages where the product is expected to be healthy children. I lay the decline of this bulwark of political society at the feet of the legal system. We must however obtain a concensus as to why the legal system purposely has coopted the female as basically wards of the state, openly devolving equality in citizenship into some form of pimping, worse it has reduced the legal status of women to imbeciles in all legal circles.
Surely it is within the abstract thinking of the common man to realize that there has to be something else going on. I grant that attorneys and there ilk are basically predatory by virtue of their status and immunity, but why and who coopted the legal system to task what is effectively a pogram against marriage and men. The more sinister obfuscation is what appears to be an agenda by both the federal governement and subsequently the state by the use of IV-D compensatory programs. The use of taxpayer funds by our higher placed legal brethren is perhaps a misnomer, since these are rallied through senate committees and secret think tanks with the best PR taxpayer dollars can buy. We are talking a cost that even conservatively must be astronomical , We are also talking here of the immense pursuasive power of lucre, maligned media, strategically placed federally financed political groups and individuals to support this theoretical agenda. Everyone would appear to have a price to find solace in their soul, a disparity and quality we find quite endemic in our culture.
The federal largesse extends specifically to supporting female agenda's that normally would not fly in a true democracy. Should we extrapolate a larger political agenda ? Financially we see that the removal of males and what they naturally covet, free's up what remains of the private citizens wealth and property in favor of commerce and state. This is the standard result of divorce. Women by virtue of an emboldened material relativism seem to have no compunction in squandering and dividing familial assets. What were once assets that were in theory for the children, the future are no longer viable. The accompanying industries developed to support whatever methodology is used to create what can be loosely termed a parendectomy. Is in and of itself a credit to those fathers who attempt to maintain those bonds with their offspring against all odds. Even in my case despite a clear convincing provable case that a child is better off with their biological father than daycare on weekends irrespective of arguments, the state chose to minimize time with offspring, a constructive use of the power of the law to achieve maximum federal welfare, and so it is for every father. Almost ritualistic, if not sadistic, that is the legal systems prize, betrayal of males and equality, while routing all children of divorce for TANF funds at the state level. So again without understanding all the pieces of what appears tobe a very complex federal program, what is the end game. As far as I can tell we all have something to fear from a hidden agenda that causes it's own citizens so much strife, and in the context of the conversation here. Why would any male with common sense subscribe to an institution that is fraught with so many unknowns, not withstanding the common arguments.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 am
Seriously. Get rid of marital law!
Our marital laws say you cant get married to more then one woman. Well, what if your religion practices it? I hold that this is against our rights as citizens on many levels. Its against "separation of church and state".
Our marital laws say you cant get married to the same sex. Again, if you believe you should be able to and its not against your ethos, not taking advantage of anything else that is too young or unable to conciously concent... Whats wrong with it?
Our marital laws say the insurance you pay for can only go to kids and your spouse. You pay for it, shouldnt it go to whomever you see fit?
Our marital laws are not preventative in nature. The only classes that are required to be taken in marraige are the classes required at separation/divorse.
Our marital laws say nothing about children and parental responsibilities which I believe should be established at birth and separation rights as well. This is only to point out that we can abolish MARITAL law and simply reform CUSTODIAL laws, since they're independant of each other. Then we'll only need to reform custodial laws to make more sense.
Our marital laws have been used to gain assets of people that sought the marraige as merely a means to obtain them. Everyone knows it happens. Nobody fixes it. I think every individual and their assets should stay theirs unless gifted. Period.
I should start a non profit. This current itteration of marraige is a joke and completely offends my sense of how sacred it should be. It offends me that others cant pursue it according to their own sense and concience.
Now that I know. Now that I've SEEN. I see this must happen. Abolish marital law, stop this discrimination!
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 am
Just wanted to point out to you about what I feel should be a POINT 3
quote
1) The men weren't that concerned over losing their kids.
2) The men didn't realize how common it is for fathers to lose their kids.
end quote
3) Men generally dont have an attachment to the concept or any deep feelings towards the thought of their own children until the day they find they and their wives/girlfriends are going to have a baby.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:52 am
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR; AND MEN SHOULD BE AFRAID - VERY, VERY AFRAID!
Be careful what you wish for! With the advent of the STRIKE (let's call it an awakening); women have now created the monster that they will have to deal with!
Men should be afraid - very, very afraid!
THIS IS THE SCENARIO THAT PLAYS OUT ON THE FAMILY LAW MOTION CALENDAR; EVERY DAY IN EVERY VENUE IN THIS COUNTRY (and this is the best case scenario; the so called amicable divorce):
PLAYERS: 26-year old couple with 2 children.
CIRCUMSTANCE: Initial hearing before family law commissioner seeking a temporary order (Initial phase of divorce proceeding. The first court appearance in a divorce filing).
FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS: The man works at a home based business. He makes approximately $7,000 per month out of the office in the home.
TEMPORARY ORDER: The man is "out of the house"; allowed to visit his children once per week and every other weekend. The man is ordered to pay the soon to be ex-wife $6,000 per month in temporary maintenance (alimony in some states) and child support.
RESULTS: The man is forced to live on $1,000 per month and live out of his car. From his $1,000 he must pay his attorney and the costs of the parenting evaluation that will soon follow. If he fails to pay his attorney, the attorney will withdraw from the case. The soon to be ex-wife will not have to pay her attorney for the fact that she will more than likely end up with the house and the children (therefore, the attorney is not worried about being compensated and the husband will likely have to pay for their services at final Decree anyway).
PARENTING EVALUATION: When the parenting skill of each are evaluated; the following will determine the outcome. First, when the mother is evaluated the children will be in their own home, their own room with their own toys. When the father is evaluated it will be at Baskin Robins because he will be living out of the car. No toys, no room, no home. No mystery as to who will be considered the better parent and award primary custody.
Let the games begin. It goes down hill from there for the father; assuming that he even survives to mediation or the 3% of the cases that make it to trial. If you think the initial hearing and temporary order were unfair; just wait until the final Decree is entered.
Say goodbye to your kids early on; for you will not have that opportunity later.
Say goodbye to your life's work (career).
RECOMMENDATION: Be afraid; very, very afraid.
NB: This is not a hypothetical situation. It is drawn from actual circumstances that I observed on the motion calendar in Seattle, WA (King County). It plays out every day in the family law courts across this nation.
NB2: Think it can't happen to you? You are severely mistaken!
NB3: This is the “best case scenario”; if your soon to be ex-wife’s attorney is worth his salt, there will be false allegations of domestic violence or child abuse. That is the strategy of choice, and your chances of digging your self out of that “hole” are slim to done. No proof will ever be required mind you; merely the allegations are enough to disadvantage you in the proceedings that you have no chance of ever getting a fair shake;
NB4: With the incredible odds that you will experience a divorce; what man in his right mind would every consider marriage?;
NB5: If you chose to ignore this warning; make darn sure that you do not enter into a marriage without an iron-clad (no such thing) pre-nuptial agreement; and
NB6: STRIKE! STRIKE! STRIKE! (STRIKE before it is too late; women libbers have high jacked the courts. The National Organization of Women (NOW) have forever changed the landscape of what little is left of the American family).
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 am
Marriage?
Don't do it fellas. Take it from a TX man who is sharing 48/52 % custody, paying full child support (25% of my net income) for two beautiful daughters, living in the old part of town on less than $2000 per month and considers himself the luckiest man in the world because he can make his own custody schedule each month. A MAJOR exception to the rule; especially in TX.
There is no reason the laws should be in the condition they are now.
Don't forget about "common law" marriage. If you live under the same roof for 6 months, the state will consider you married even without an official wedding or license.
All of that said without any bashing of the females. I still like them. They still like me. We're just not going to get married or live under the same roof.
Q: What food causes a woman's sexual drive to decrease rapidly?
A: Wedding Cake
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:04 am
Yes STRIKE – and in the process seek emancipation from 40 years of feminist conditioning
When single I pursued emancipation with a passion and workshopped my own freedom – never looked back!
My first big leap forward was to consider … “What is so abhorrent about offending women?!”
There are many similar illusions that are a big ‘con’. No need to submit to their stranglehold of subjugation!
A few techniques will reveal their slim hold on your psyche :-)
Challenge yourself with these few amazingly simple steps:
- Identify the absurd compulsion to please women.
Refuse to please women! – They’ll be much happier if you don’t pander to their whims!
- Speak up about Men’s rights.
Jettison any restraint base on the need to please. You don’t need anything from them, and more importantly, if you can’t speak openly … they have nothing of value to offer you.
- End sexploitation. Deny women sex!
I found this really enjoyable in a town where women outnumbered men 3 to 1. You’ll find that you have a lot more self control than they have.
- Enjoy trans-national internet dating, preferably Asian. Refuse to date local feminist indoctrinated girls.
Simply replace them!
- Go dancing and avoid the women who try to use dance as a mating ritual – just enjoy the music!
- Never chase.
Given that there are thousands more single women than single men, it is an illusion to think that you have to chase them. If you like to chase, expect to be sexploited.
- Identify and expel any compulsion to look at women.
When girls strut their stuff, cross to the other side of the street and avert your eyes.
Your gaze feeds them the power to enslave you.
Taste the freedom!!
These exercises, and more, can be very empowering and can become addictive.
Don’t stop until you are a free man.
Unfortunately this will make you more attractive.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:11 am
I thought I better add:
... and Yes! I did all this and experience eureka moments of dancing down ths street shouting ... I'M FREE ! I'M FREE!!
Please, Please ... end your slavery! Come out from under the yoke! REBEL!!
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 am
I have been divorced for 5 years now and am glad. After the usual false restraining orderS, criminal charges, custody issues, Domestic Relations, and $80,000.00 in direct legal fees, duh, I'm STAYING single! Men and I mean all men are fare game at the hands of the wife. The courts, police, and social services are against men and fathers. Kids are not being parented by the mom or the dad, they are in the hands of a broken family court system driven by the dollar. Women today know the system and know how to play the victim and that's a real bad combo for fathers and men in general. I have been dating a lady for also 2 years and from the git-go I let her know I was not ever getting marriaged to her or anyone. I believe today men are wising up and realize just and likely will happen if they are stupid enough to get marriaged. Once was enough for me.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 am
demonspawn:
And no consider that a man can obtain sex easily without selling himself into the bonds of marriage
you can't be serious.
hit the gym, get some style, get some balls, and get some game, and sex will begin to come easy.
masculistxy:
It is perhaps more common for a male to marry-up than it is for a female to marry-down.
um...
perhaps i'm a moron, but unless polygamy has been legitimized right under my nose, there is 1 male marrying up for every 1 female marrying down. that would make the two equally common, now, wouldn't it?
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 am
To Johny 5;
Actually, its only illegal on the books. I can tell you from personal and unbelievably painful experience that in enforcement, its pretty much legal.
Thats right, I've personally seen that the states are not interested in enforcing bigamy. My wife went off and got married to some dude in Vegas and they wouldnt prosecute. Guilty as hell! Didnt matter.
They only slap on bigamy charges on men with like insane numbers of wives and under age wives.
I basically learned that anyone in America can have what happened to me, happen to them. I learned they cant do anything about it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 am
The George who posted on June 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
wasn't me.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:12 am
There really doesn't seem to be any reason beyond health insurance why people should be married.
In NC is is considered a sign of domestic violence if you ask your wife where she is going. I look at it as a form of love. I ask my teen age kids. To demand to know where she is going or to prevent here from going is wrong. What if her car breaks down. What time should you start worrying if she is late. What if you have plans and would like to get in sync with one another. It doesn't matter why you ask. She is your wife and you should be able to ask her anything. You shouldn't be able to force her to answer, so what. There is no law preventing a married person from having sex with some else out side the marriage. Sure in NC there is a loss of affection law suit you can file but for the spouse there is no penalty. If your life is ripped apart and you kids are taken away and your income is severely reduced because someone else wants to entice your spouse to cheat you should be able to sue for damages as if you were hit by a bus. Not only monetary but for mental anguish. Besides you have to get divorced to even sue. I performed poorly at work and had such terrible issues getting over my wife cheating. I was so much in love with her. I will likely never get caught up or regain the trust and respect of my employer. I will have trust issues with future relationships which the new lady doesn't deserve.
Its craziness like this and a whole host of horror stories being passed between men that is scaring us away from marriage. I would get married again but she would be an absolute angel for me to make that decision and it would be because I have health insurance and she wouldn't.
Religion is a factor but in most cases we have a lot more we need to do to be right in the eyes of God. Marriage is pretty far down the list.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 am
vincent,
I would get married again but she would be an absolute angel for me to make that decision and it would be because I have health insurance and she wouldn't.
so, despite your previous experiences, you'd risk tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, untold thousands in support payments, a whole new set of DV allegations, and so much more - to save a few hundred bucks on insurance premiums.
nice economic thinking there, man. talk about the triumph of hope over reason! there's a reason they say men are romantics pretending to be practical, and women are pragmatists pretending to be romantic.
clue-by-four: single people can buy their own health insurance. if you're that chivalrous, you could even pay her premiums herself.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 am
i meant 'yourself'.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:38 am
If I got divorced you can guarantee I wouldn't marry again.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Question: If I married an Asian woman, can I still be considered on strike? Because I will never consider a relationship with an American woman again...
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Men's money is real to them...it is in hand...they can appreciate the "realness" of it whereas children in marriage are a "maybe it will happen" thing...Speaking from personal experience when I married the person I did I was thinking "I can always get divorced if it doesn't work out"...What I hadn't thought about was the excruciating pain of losing my daughter, of course, because she hadn't been born yet...
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:30 am
Regarding the oft-made claim that men who are married live longer, I would like to point out the absolute crock which is this non statistic.
This false fact is based on taking the average age at death among married vs. not-married men, and here is the MASSIVE problem with that dirty-statistics approach:
MEN WHO ARE SEVERELY ILL, CHRONICALLY ILL, DISABLED, MENTALLY RETARDED, OR WHO SUFFER LIFE-ENCUMBERING INJURIES are much more likely to be never-married, OR deserted by the wife to whom they were married, WHICH MEANS that these men wind up in the "not married" column when they die.
Curious that the oldest man in the world died not long ago, and according to the BBC, and I quote:
"Born, according to family documents, on 15 March 1891, Mr Nestor, a former farm labourer, put his long life down to the fact that he never married.
"He didn't find himself a mate because he was a short man and never had money," Oksana [a relative] believes.
He also led a healthy life, she says.
He loved to get outside and would run barefoot through the grass. Vodka he drank in moderation, and his favourite food was simple country fare with his greatest luxury a slice of sausage in a bread roll."
Don't believe it? Check the BBC news website.
AP
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:55 am
P.S. I forgot to add to my above list of variables which are correlated to non-marriage and early death above (MEN WHO ARE SEVERELY ILL, CHRONICALLY ILL, DISABLED, MENTALLY RETARDED, OR WHO SUFFER LIFE-ENCUMBERING INJURIES), the following:
Men who are impoverished.
You see as cousin "Oksana" points out, a reason why a man might never get a wife is if he has "no money".
It is EXTREMELY well established statistically that poverty is correlated with lower life expectancy in the U.S.
So sorry those who lie with poorly applied statistical methods: there is no basis for claiming that marriage CAUSES men to live longer. It is simply that women won't marry men who don't have the things correlated to living longer -- good health and money.
Any possible benefit of being married which accrued to those men who already passed away (while married or not) has been more than taken away by the 50% probability that any married man is going to get years taken off of his life by being dragged painfully through family court and all of its life-shortening consequences.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 am
I would add a third reason men don't report losing their kids as a concern during a divorce:
3) The men don't understand what having kids is like
When I was single, my priorities were 1) finishing my education, 2) starting my career
When I got married, my priorities were 1) my wife, 2) developing my career
When I had kids, my priorities were 1) my family 2) my career
When I was divorced, my priorities were 1) my children
I don't think many single men understand how their priorities will change once they have kids. They have greater difficulty realizing that their kids will someday be their most important priority.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 am
I've seen this coming for years. In fact when it was first noted that marriage was on the decline the NOW people came up with damage control by saying it was women who finally got smart and broke their chains. However, I knew it was men, boys that grew up in the throes of divorce and were determined not to let what happened to dad happen to them.
I think men are totally justified in being scared of loosing their money, the divorce/custody system doesn't just take what's fair but takes everything - mainly because most men never get to trial but find themselves footing all the legal costs in a multi-year war of Attrition; even if they do get trial at the very least they're hit with ridiculously high child support. I for one, don't appreciate having worked, studied, and struggled all my life just to have my ex-wife decide she wants a change and take everything away just when all that hard work ans sacrifice was starting to pay off.
It also saddens me that men aren't afraid to loose their children, but I'm sure that's because they're unaware that the system can take their children away. I'm sure their perception is that the dads that don't get their children are those bad dads the media keeps talking about and that (being good dads) they would fight for their children. I know this because that's the perception I had before my divorce. I never would have thought in a million years that this could happen in the USA, until I saw it for myself.
Even though I remarried, I for one agree with the strike. Once upon a time Marriage was a sacred vow spoken before one's God, and the family was kept together at all costs through church and community. These days marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper used to put the Government and lawyers in control of your family and generate income for multi-billion dollar divorce industry.
The bottom line is that getting married today gives women everything to gain, and men everything to loose. This is why most women are pushing for marriage and most men are not. I can't tell you how many of the single women in my office keep complaining that they're constantly having their hearts broken because they can't find a man that will marry. If they really want to change this situation, then they should be writing to their elected officials to make marriage/divorce and equitable instead of banging their heads against the wall trying to understand why men won't marry them.
My second marriage was both the best and worst thing I ever did. The good was that I got to marry the most loving, caring, and decent human being I ever met. Someone that is totally giving of both her love and everything she has (not just to me but to everyone) and would never use the advantages of the divorce system against me. It was also good because my main reason for re-marrying (instead of just living together) was to give my son a stable family life; which he has had for the past four years with a stepmother that loves him as her own, a stepbrother with whom he forged a lifelong relationship, and two loving step sisters. Because of this I can now send my son off to college, and on the road to a life of his own this Fall, a lot more well balanced than he was four years ago. However, the bad is that the marriage financially devastated me just as I was starting to recover financially from my divorce. Again, if my son wasn't a factor (or if this marriage ever ends) I would never have gotten married again
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 am
for my brother he misses his girls. He also misses being financially stable. His wife planned for the divorce for probably a couple of years (at least).
He is sad when his girls aren't there and when he is not busy it is worse. When he is busy he is okay, except his finances are a total mess.
After seeing what he is going through and knowing my own marriage has been total hell (and I a woman) feel like I would leave, but I could not afford to be home with them which is what I love, makes me think a marriage strike is a pretty smart thing.
My son already doesn't want to be married ever b/c he sees his uncle and he sees my messed up marriage where his dad can't put his family before his perverted desires. So, I understand the strike. Men don't want to lose their money and kids to someone who may decide just is not happy and needs to feel sexy.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
Or option 3.
These men couldn't possibly realize what it's like to lose your kids because they don't have any.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 am
Glenn, I think your SECOND assumption is the correct one...
Remember that the ONLY thing we hear about is how much money the ex-wives steal from their ex-husbands...hardly ever, if EVER, do we hear how the ex-wives steal the children from their ex-husbands.
Remember, when we hear about deadbeat dads, etc...normally women complain that the men disappear
and are not there for their children...that's what they want people to know...when the fact is that many alienate
kids from their fathers, but would never outright say that on the media...
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 am
MichaelClaymore said:
“Im not getting married or having kids until shared custody is the norm rather than the exception, and until you take out of the marriage what you bring in, no more, no less.”
Well-said Michael. Unlike Tracy Miller’s son, my son does want to get married. I am trying to convince him NOT to, unless things change (to be fair I also tell my daughter the same thing). Unfortunately, he has an unwarranted belief in his ability to choose a woman who won’t embrace the anti-male legal machine should they split. Additionally, he, like most young people, suffers from the same mis-placed confidence that the law will deal with him “fairly” – despite my telling him that the “law” shouldn’t be dealing with his personal relationships at all.
I think it is a shame that men cannot gain the same access to the education system that feminists obviously have – not for the same nefarious reasons but simply to warn young men of the dangers our society is so happy to set for them.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
You will never be able to pin Jeana down on anything,I tried.
She is an idealist,not a realist. Therefore she always thinks up an ideal answer of how things should be versus a
realist which is how the way things really are.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:33 am
With respect to why single men fear losing their money but not their children in a divorce, it's quite possible that men who do not have children do not have a sense of how strong the parent-child bond is, and what it means to have this bond broken. If you have spent many years developing your career and improving your financial situation, the possibility of losing this in a few short years due to a wrong choice will likely seem very real. The possiblity of losing a relationship with children that do not yet exist is probably not nearly as apparent. This hypothosis could be proven or disproven if there were a study of what married men with children fear when considering divorce.
It's possible unmarried men without children also do not realize that they will most likely lose their children if they're divorced. (i.e. it's possible there's more than one reason for the result) There's a tendency to believe there must be something wrong with a parent who does not get custody, and to believe this would never happen to you because you're "different", not like all those "bad" parents one reads about in the media constantly.
Parents who's children are injured or killed due to accidents are often attacked for being "bad" parents:
>The verbal abuse may be a defensive tool aimed at insulating parents so they can believe nothing similar could happen to their children, an expert said. "It may be serving as a partial escape mechanism," said Eric VanFleet, a professor from Grand Valley State University's College of Health Professions.Although the details vary, every state's law indicates that custody decisions are to be made according to the "best interests of the child." That rule of thumb sounds laudable, but it is so vague that the outcome of every case is unpredictable.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
I waited till I was 39 to get married, because I did not want to have a statistical marriage that would end up in divorce and I waited another 7 yrs to have a kid because I did not want him ,as it turned out to be a boy, to have to suffer through a custody battle. But you can never tell what the future will bring!!! I LOVE my son more than anything ever in my life. Had I known that my union would have ended with all of the turmoil and bitterness that it has I would have cut my manhood off rather than have my son go through what it happening now!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The state of Va. is so anti male that its pathetic!!!! My wife left me for another woman then freaked out and got ultra religious joined this church called new hope,I call it no hope. And as it turns out the the head of the circuit court, judge Hupp, is the brother-in-law of the co-pastor and founder of this church. Well you can guess what the outcome has been!!!! The custody order gave us joint custody all right , but with the added change to that law that said that only she can say how and when his hair is to be cut. As a result He told me walking through the mall one day that his mother said he needed to get a hair cut and he asked if he could go in and get his hair cut . I said sure if thats what your mother said. Well she had me served with a show cause and I was convicted of contempt of court , all custody was given to her and completely taken from me and I was sentenced to jail!!!!!!! I guess that joint custody means that I go to the joint and she gets custody!!! I have appealed that 5 times and currently have the case before the state supreme court and they rejected it last week. I just filed a petition for rehearing and don't expect more from the commonwealth, they are common to you and want your wealth! This is the last step in the state courts. Then its on to federal courts. Hopefully they wont be as closed to the effect that this is having on my son. So far the courts in Va. don't care about how this effects him. I am so BROKE as a result of all of this I can hardly pay attention much less a lawyer and all of this has been done pro-se, which they look down on also. Its horror stories like this that make it to where men don't want the encumbrances of marriage, and would prefer to pay for prostitute as a viable means of relief. My advice to those who do marry is to have a vasectomy!!!! you'll probably be happier!!!!
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
My prior post was apparently truncated due to the links I provided. Briefly, the first quote was from an article about parents who's children had been killed or injured, and the second was from an article in the Oct. 2005 issue of Scientific American Mind entitled "Custody Disputed". It seems to me men who have not been involved in a custody dispute probably do not realize that they themselves will most likely lose simply because of their gender.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
Despite women's lib, men are expected to take the initiative in relationships. All that a man has to do is not take the initiative: and the marriage strike continues.
The current high price of gasoline is here to stay. This has led to rapid and permanent changes in spending habits. Automobile and truck factories are being closed. But, the perception of the economic effectiveness that a provider needs to bring to the table hasn't been affected by the rising cost of energy. If anything, the expectations have gone up.
It takes work and energy to raise a family: more work and energy than I'm capable of. And the cost of getting out of a relationship takes even more energy. We should see a steep increase in the marriage strike, correlated with the rising cost of energy.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Unless you have children I believe for the most part, neither men nor women fully understand the beauty and joy of children, therefore your observation is at best unfair when you comment that men are preferring money over children. I am encouraged that men are not marrying and it is my prayer that Congress receives and understands these numbers as we are at or below zero population growth in the United States now and are dependent on immigration for our growth. Keeping in mind that immigration made this country great and this energy can continue to so do. Lopsided and unfair laws create societal dissension in myriad ways and this is but one manifestation of the faulty Welfare Reform Act from Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. This generation witnessing firsthand the gross inequity of “Family Law Court” (what a misnomer) has opted out of all the catastrophes that marriage can bring. I recommend to one and all that you not marry until the law is changed where both parties have equal footing. There are many arguments as to what an equal footing may be and I would welcome a large public discussion without women present until a male consensus is reached.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 am
Joshua says: "It takes work and energy to raise a family: more work and energy than I'm capable of. And the cost of getting out of a relationship takes even more energy. We should see a steep increase in the marriage strike, correlated with the rising cost of energy."
Joshua, check out this URL: http://tinyurl.com/66ap2
It goes into detail how energy prices are changing people's living habits. It's ironic that feminism, and much of modern liberalism, is so dependent upon red-stater suburbia. Two parent working families need two cars and a big home to hold all the stuff they collect. They need lots of energy to use all the extra services to support the liberated woman empowered lifestyle.
Many homes are now reverting to SAH mother families and that requires men to be able to trust them. I know young successful men who run the other way when career women approach them wanting to quit their job and settle down. My feelings are mixed on this. On the one hand, these women maybe want to reject feminism, yes? They maybe see the error of their ways and want to relax. On the other hand, many regard feminism as "empowerment" and grrl power and doing as they please and quitting their job when it suits them and getting alimony if they divorce. So to hell with them.
Joshua: "Despite women's lib, men are expected to take the initiative in relationships. All that a man has to do is not take the initiative: and the marriage strike continues."
PK responds: Truly traditional women actually are more open about relationships. That's what they live for. They won't hit on guys at bars, but they will talk to men under other circumstances and ask them about their views on marriage. The passive-aggressive women in our culture were the precursers to materialistic women's lib, but they are hardly traditional. Traditional women didn't sit around waiting for their eggs to rot.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
Men aren't worried about losing their kids because - even given the mommy-friendly laws and courts - they will still get to see their kids at least somewhat. On the other hand, kids or not, that woman is going to crush your financial well-being during the divorce, and if you have kids, you run the risk of getting assigned an impugned income and support payments that leave you unable to pay for your own house/apartment, food, medicine, and car.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Celia says: "Well-said Michael. Unlike Tracy Miller’s son, my son does want to get married. I am trying to convince him NOT to, unless things change (to be fair I also tell my daughter the same thing). Unfortunately, he has an unwarranted belief in his ability to choose a woman who won’t embrace the anti-male legal machine should they split. Additionally, he, like most young people, suffers from the same mis-placed confidence that the law will deal with him “fairly” – despite my telling him that the “law” shouldn’t be dealing with his personal relationships at all."
PK offers advice: Celia, here's some advice. I'm going to get specific (and even down and dirty) and you are certainly free to take or leave it, but I hope that it will be amusing at least. Ok, here goes:
I really respect you caring about your son and wanting what's best for him. If he hasn't gotten nookie yet (and he's interested, you'll know if you find the magazines in his room) and even if he has, I suggest taking him to Europe and, with protection, getting him a prostitute (or a couple.) Yes, there are physical risks but the EMOTIONAL risks of not are obvious from reading this forum. He needs to see that getting sex is no big deal. I've done it and I view marriage as just having a wonderful woman around to share my day with. Isn't that better than the poor soul having to meet some biological urge he doesn't fully understand?
Listen, you can get travel packages and have a lot of fun to boot. Serbia and Croatia are fantastic but the Brits have found out (dammit, they get into everything!) Poland is also quite nice but I'm prejudiced. Even Germany and Amsterdam are touristy but quite useful. Just don't go to the main cities, they're a bit icky. Stay away from Sweden (that will make it worse!)
Next, don't have him marry American. Have him learn a foreign language (or two.) Russian is invaluable since it's spoken by 250 million Eastern Europeans. Spanish senioritas can be nice too and knowing Spanish is invaluable for some careers in the states. He doesn't even have to travel. After learning these languages, he can participate in these communities right in your local area! He can even be honest about his intentions. Traditional women value men who are honest and committed (it's rather the point for them, it's the liberated women that like fake bad boys.)
Finally, you have to decide between what's best for your son and what's best for women's equality. A truly traditional women rejects women's equality and a man who can deal with women over a lifetime needs to address women's special needs just as his own. He can't live under pretty illusions (that's a luxury only YOU can have, not us.) He should know the woman's family inside and out and vice-versa.
Anyways, I hope you found that amusing if not necessarily useful. Cheers.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
Celia says: "unless things change (to be fair I also tell my daughter the same thing"
PK asks: Quick question. Why do you tell your daughter the same thing? Why should she worry about men taking away her children and demanding child-support?
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
PK: your tinyurl http://tinyurl.com/66ap2 led to a "document not found" page on Yahoo. On the other hand, Yahoo is reporting that Clinton will concede (meaning that the bad link ultimately lead somewhere).
I don't see how you can blame the energy consumption habits of "two parent working families" on the liberated woman empowered lifestyle. Presumably both parents are living it. People get married and have kids because, as astonishing as that seems, they want to. As I understand it, the risks are distributed differently for men and women, and this is what is driving the marriage strike. Men and driving it, not women.
In my case, the need for vast, uninterrupted expanses of time for intense cerebration precludes the inevitable fractionated attention that would result from supporting a family and commuting to a place of abysmal enslavement. Not to mention the risk of losing ones family without losing the responsibility to support it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
From my observation, the family court system is unreformable. The only way to "reform" it is to replace it with something else. Given the current circumstances, I wonder if we aren't about to see the second radical transformation in the concept of marriage. Recall that back in the day, marriage was mostly a family matter: families arranged for their offspring to marry into other families for business advantage, trade relationships, gaining power, stabilizing governments and businesses, etc. The protaganists in the marriage had little or no choice about the matter; they were expected to follow through as a duty to their families.
Then we came up with the concept of marriage based on romantic love and mutual attraction. Two people could get married if they were attracted to each other. This was a huge revolution in how men and women related to each other, and to their families. This was hugely in conflict with the previous concept, and a lot of our legends and fables about marriage came out of this conflict. But eventually it overcame the old beliefs, especially in America where the concept of egalitarianism was taking hold at about the same time. If a boy or a girl (yes, girls did it too) wanted to marry "across the tracks", there was no legal way to stop them.
But now that's falling apart. There's a bunch of reasons why, and I think most of them have already been pretty well laid out in this thread. Short answer, the system punishes responsible men, and it rewards irresponsible spouses (men and women both). So romantic marriage is now too much of a risk for most men, and it is becoming too much of a risk for high-achieving women. The system that currently arbitrates marriage disputes, the family court system, is unreformable. Plus you have pressure to legalize gay marriage, which I think will become the law across the U.S. eventually.
I'm thinking that the new paradigm for marriage will be more of a business-like agreement, executed and enforced with private marriage contracts. Two people desiring to get married will execute some kind of marriage agreement that will be sort of like a pre-nup except that it will cover all aspects of the sexual, legal, financial, and custody arrangements. In fact, I can see the possibility of "term marriage", where two people agree to marry for a fixed duration of time, with possible options. The state will be involved only so much as it is involved in any contractual relationship, which is to say none unless one party brings a breach-of-contract motion before the court. In that case, it will be treated like any other tort. No family court needed.
This will of course change the way that people have to think about relationships, and it will probably kill some romantic notions. For example, a marriage contract may specify that the two parties maintain separate bank accounts, and which party pays what bills. If there is a change in their career or financial situation and different arrangements are needed, then even assuming that they agree on what changes are required, they will still have to execute a contract modification to make it legal. The possibility of marriage for fraudulent purposes exists -- a person who makes a lot of money but also is heavily in debt may marry someone else who agrees to assume all of the debt; the person carrying the debt declares bankruptcy and gets all the debt discharged while being supported "under the table" by the other spouse. So there will be complications. Nonetheless, I think this is what will have to happen if the institution of marriage is to survive.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Actually, made me very happy Jeana.
I noticed you did not rebut any of my reasoning, which means that you must see it as sounds.
And I also noticed you offered no support for your contention, which means I can rebut it easily: There are many more things men are good for but as most women require a higher emotional and/or financial cost compared to a friendship with a man, you need to offer more in return to be "worth it".
You, apparently, are simply not worth it.
I typed "no" instead of "now".
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
the chinese proverb says that ''what is soft always win what is hard'' eg in the river water which is soft over time will corrode rock which is stronger. american men have put themselvies in a mess and now want to sell it to the rest of the world.the rest of the world especially non europeans dont buy these ideas that you have,they beleive in fair treatment of women but not the nonsense we see in america.men need to push for pure equality,50/50 in responsibility of disolution of marraige.i understand why those men worry about their money and not children ,they already know that the woman will take the children.that idea is bad because 20years latter you might see your child in police custody due to improper home training by your ex-wife.this is the reason americas foreign police based on womens rights is viewed with suspicion and no body wants that.even democratic japan knows this very well they have virtually no divorce because of the way they fashion their laws,america is yet to realise that humanbeigns are animals that the law is needed to controll them and not accerlarate that animalistic tendencies.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Who knows, maybe men are just tired of putting up with the crap they get from naggy harpy's all the time, who don't allow men to be men, anymore, so they become unhappy in the marriage, the wife wonders what happened to the man she married -because she's nagged him into a depression and doesn't realize she's the cause of the change- and then men decide it's time to pop chaff and evade while they still have their sanity.
Men have a place, and women have a place, and women are trying to horn in on the man's place, and it's making men miserable. Personal experience, take it for what you like.
An independent woman is not a bad person. A woman who speaks her mind is not a bad person. A woman who does everything in her power to change the man she loves IS a bad person. Unfortunately, my mom, my sister, and all but one woman I have ever become familiar with in my life -whether as a friend or a lover- are hell bent on changing "their" man, and it's wrong.
Men are violent creatures, we were designed that way by God, and we were also given a measure of self-control to limit or redirect that violence. Most men in today's culture do not redirect their violence against the things they should -the treadmill, the punching bag, the tree in the back yard, the 8-pointer 200 yards away-, rather relying on fights on television or the wife and kids for their release, and 9 times out of 10 they do it the wrong way.
Now, if women in this nation would allow men to be men, to stop emasculating us at every turn, and they go do whatever it is they do, things WILL improve in this nation and around the world. Until then, women are completely in control of the testicle farm and 1st world men are completely screwed.
Sorry if that's not politically correct for some of the children out there, but it's the truth.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Modern women are still finding husbands - but nowadays they are "marrying DOWN"!
In other words they tend to marry men who are less-intelligent, physically less attractive and financially poorer - in that order.
Before the 1980's (when I was blissfully aware of the reason why), women "married up" i.e. they were able to find richer, more handsome and intelligent men willing to marry them.
That's the natural order of things. Female mammals, with a tiny fraction of the reproductive capability of the male, will choose their partners and they will choose the strongest. In human beings 'strong' can mean mentally, financially or physically - or a combination of all three.
Take a look at the movie 'About Schmidt' starring Jack Nicholson. It backs up what I have been observing again and again for the last 20 years.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
The Weiseman report is quite good and for men who have gone through the American divorce system probably resonates a lot clearer than those that have not. The report is probably a reflection of the emotional state of the sexes in the USA that would apply to both men and women in many ways, I believe. I have reviewed many of the other comments about this article which has been widely posted on other news sites. One of the issues that the article does not address is an issue that I have found unbelievable which is the number of divorced men who can not find a good American woman to marry, but they keep looking. I did, and I thought all of the problem was me. Not that I did not want to get married: I did. I was surprised, too, after dating way too many women in Dallas and not finding someone who was a good fit for me. I was a lot more careful since the divorce cost me a fortune. What I ultimately did was go outside of the country and found a wonderful woman in the Philipines, and we married in December 2007. I met more American men in the Philippines than I meet in Dallas. I think the moral of this story for me, which the Friedman report does not indicate, is that many American men want to get married again, but not to American women. Sometimes the issue is not looking for the right thing, but just looking in the wrong place.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Joshua says: "I don't see how you can blame the energy consumption habits of "two parent working families" on the liberated woman empowered lifestyle. Presumably both parents are living it. People get married and have kids because, as astonishing as that seems, they want to. As I understand it, the risks are distributed differently for men and women, and this is what is driving the marriage strike. Men and driving it, not women."
PK responds: For men, working is not an option but a requirement. As Jeana put it, it's one of the things that men are "only" good for, but it's a biggie. During the 1980's, Ronald Reagan preached "supply side economics". What this means is that living next to a factory producing millions of widgets with only a dozen people to buy them to is better than living next to millions of people who need a dozen widgets.
Therefore, if the man _has_ to work and if a energy requirements means someone has to stay home, then it's more likely to impact her than him. That's why I cited the URL from cnn where the wife says:
"Bethany Dietz of Baltimore, Maryland, is the stay-at-home Mom of two daughters, ages 1 and 3. Dietz says her husband works 20 miles from home, so his gas tank gets first priority. "If I stay home all week with the kids," Dietz says, "so be it -- it saves us on gas.""
Feminism and women's equality requires a massive support system in the form of government, energy, and social expense to support it. If it wasn't for feminism, we'd all have flying cars and moon tourism about now...
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Jeana
I'm wondering if women learned to use the same muscles they now use to slam doors with to open jars, would that list be narrowed down to 2 things.
I happen to be one that has no plans on marriage ever again. I would love to have one or two more kids, as well as a wife, but I am scared what will happen. There is no way to protect against it either. You can't make a prenup about custody.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Let's try again. The URL:
http://tinyurl.com/3eqva4
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Annie wrote:
I do find it curious that I hear much much more about men avoiding marriage than women avoiding marriage (Annie is correct that both sexes demur from marriage in roughly equal proportions). Perhaps it is a social double-standard at work here? That men who avoid marriage are child-men, while women who avoid marriage are smart, sassy career women?
Jeana wrote:
Have fun getting a judge to honor that 50-50 arrangement. "Best interests of the children" remember?
I disagree. Yes it is bad, because hope won't keep people together, and we have roughly 800K divorces per year because a "hope of something permanent" didn't pan out. I'd call that a "bad" thing.
Now a "determination to make it permanent" is a good thing, however, and that attribute is a key piece in looking for a compatible wife, #3 in a list of litmus-test traits (#2 is that she is to submit to the leadership of the husband, and #1 is that she convincingly professes a faith in a God that holds her accountable for her actions).
QuantumArtist wrote:
When I first read this, I thought it said "get rid of martial law!". Fruedian slip on my part, I think. :)
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Actually, I had to laugh at that list which Jeana raised.
Women can take out the garbage but they just don't want to.
Sometimes women simply can't open the pickle jar. Hell, I have a hard time with some of them.
Women can earn a good paycheck, but they'd rather let the man do the work.
Hrm.... and that's supposed to make men want to get married? So we can give women the privilege of living off of our paycheck? For their sex? So marriage IS legalized prostitution in Jeana's eyes? (only, of course, the wife doesn't have to live up to her end of the bargain).
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Paul (12:13pm)
"Most men in today's culture do not redirect their violence against the things they should -the treadmill, the punching bag, the tree in the back yard, the 8-pointer 200 yards away-, rather relying on fights on television or the wife and kids for their release, and 9 times out of 10 they do it the wrong way."
Are you kidding me?
"Most men" take out their feelings of anger and insecurity by watching violent TV or hitting their kids or partners?!
All I can say is that
a) if you're drawing that conclusion from statistics then please show us the evidence (good luck on that because your statement is BS) or
b) if you come to that conclusion because you and your immediate male friends and/or relatives behave like this then PLEASE get some help (for yourself or them).
I don't know ANY men that have vented their anger on their kids or partner. If one of my friends or family members did, then I'd be intervening pretty damned quickly and they'd be unlikely to remain an acquaintance for long.
I did have the misfortune to live with a woman that liked to vent her anger using violence - needless to say she was long ago consigned to 'ex' status.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
It's better for the rest of us females to have those males out of the marriage pool who can't see any intrinsic value to being married to a female. So you are doing us all a big favor. Thank you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Prenup solution: security deposits
Jeana and Celia have suggested pre-nups for men concerned about divorce. Let's summarize why men have difficulties with them:
1) Marriage is about romance. You don't throw a dinner party and then set up cameras to make sure your guests don't sneak the silverware in their purses and rifle through the bathroom cabinets.
2) pre-nups can be overturned by activist judges and don't apply to child-custody and support which has been increased to the point that it replaces alimony.
Here's the solution (and one I think Jeana and Celia will find intriguing). If, as we say, women get more out of marriage than men then we can put it to the test: Get a pre-nup that includes a security deposit. Just as a landlord puts more on the line (his property) than the renter (who just lives there), a man could ask for the woman to agree to transfer a large sum of money as a deposit for him to use to pay child-support including access to her retirement funds.
In addition, the man could keep a large segment of funds in a seperate bank account that would include money from her. Feminism argues that women's careers are more than hobby jobs and now here's a chance to put it to the test: Would she be willing to risk HER fortune for the man she claims to love?
For career women who claim that they want to become SAH housewives and that they are to be trusted by breadwinning men, this is an ideal opportunity for them to overcome resistance from so many men I know who are worried about such women getting second thoughts. Comments?
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Paul~ "Men are violent creatures, we were designed that way by God".
That is an exceptionally devisive and uninformed statement to make, historically men have suffered for the machinations of the cultures in which they live. In and by nature I feel we are protectors, guards, mediator and social stabilizers, violence is not inherent in males unless as roled to enforce the aforementioned. Dysfunctional behaviour or so trained to display 'ism's' are a product of the culture in which that behaviour is nurtured or neglected. As with any human, with the exception of females who historically fell with their cultural choices of men and the quality of the society in which they live.
True feminism is the theoretical androgenous myth, of which historically we should look to sparta and it's results, as is similar with many female dominant cultures, they do not work. Your relativity I am afraid does not reflect mainstream current reality, quite the opposite would be true. The question we have to ask is who leads females in their choices today, I know those decisions are not born of a true natural female I would further suggest that the sexuality of the current crop of female leaders be questioned, after all if their libido's are male orientated do we not have a fundamental problem on who they actually represent. Patriarchy in disguise so to speak. Further these females are far more violent than any I know of, and the herdlike behaviour of females following the newer doctrines are also just as violent, especially to the most helpless among us and that includes males. Yes, even now we helplessly flail around wondering what hit us. Especially since we still protect (chauvanism) even when the facts of our own cultures direction fly's in the face of common sense. I therefore suggest your statement is a canard.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
At website or article look under the right menu titled POPULAR and the menu item GEORGIA KILLED MY DADDY.
Three things missing.
(1) JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY will put the real criminals in jail.... remove Judicial Immunity from the criminals, the law breakers and the child bastard makers that call themselves Judges, Policemen/women and Government employees in the court system and their house of dummy's the DHR that enforces the criminals activities and that takes part in their crimes knowing full well that they are crimes. GA Senator Nancy Schaefer is trying to do this for us.
(2) DON'T GET MARRIED under any circumstances nor proclaim having anyone as a girl friend (just have a friend). The criminals have covered their asses. You can't win until their is no Judicial Immunity for them to hide under and No Federal VAWA money to finance their criminal activities, their bogus accusations and encourage them to keep abusing Fathers and Dads. The Courts and its Judges and employees are your biased and prejudiced enemy.
(3) CALL and WRITE your Congressman, your Senators and Reps and ask them to establish Judicial accountability to put these judicial criminals in jail retroactive 25-30 years. Call them on the phone, make personal meetings, invite the thousands of Fathers and Dads to go with you or join you in re-establishing integrity and cleaning house of the Judicial criminals that have creeped in and vomited on us.
Yours Truly - Jeff Ferris
(Need a witness, an interview or an in-site story... I am available for free unless you live at the North a Pole)
Home 404-254-1058 email: blueskymail62-first@yahoo.com
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Johnny 5 said:
"perhaps i'm a moron, but unless polygamy has been legitimized right under my nose, there is 1 male marrying up for every 1 female marrying down. that would make the two equally common, now, wouldn't it?"
Don't worry you are not a moron. I just worded my original post poorly. I meant to say that I believe in general a woman is probably less willing to marry down than a man would be in marrying up. I am referring to disparity in men's and women's mate selection criteria.
Take care,
MXY
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Brothers;
I'm forty years old next week, and a devout Christian. But, since I know many of you are not, I'll try and frame my comments in a way so as not to offend anyone.
I married my high school sweetheart when I was 21. She was beautiful, truly beautiful, and a wonderful Christian girl. She supported me as I advanced in the ministry, and helped me as I studied and pursued my education. It was as perfect a marriage as you could imagine.
Yet, the ill-winds of discontent were blowing, and I was too naive to see what was happening. After nine years of marriage and three great children, I came across a love note from her girlfriend. Yes, her girlfriend. Much to my horror, my beautiful beloved had been having a physical relationship with another woman for the previous five years. I confronted her, and after the expected denial of any sinful actions, she broke down and admitted the affair. It started when she was just twenty-four. We tried counseling, and she promised to reform. She did, only to resume her adulterous activities with a man. This went on for close to a year, when she broke off that affair to resume yet another relationship with another woman. I suppose I'll never know how many men and women she has slept with. I don't really want to know. She now considers herself a lesbian. She's still one of the most attractive women I've ever seen.
Now, to the hard facts:
1) She has custody of our three children. They are being raised by "two mommies". They are not being raised as Christian children. I rarely see them, as she has convinced them I'm homophobic. Total Parental Alienation Syndrome in full display. One of my beautiful daughters, at 15, has decided she is now gay.
2) I pay her $2900 a month in child support and spousal support. She is working hard to have the spousal support declared permanent. I don't know if she can pull it off, but my attorney says it is quite probable.
3) She has sole ownership of the home my parents purchased for us as a wedding gift.
4) She has damaged my reputation with countless friends.
5) She managed to turn most of my congregation against me, in spite of her "alternate lifestyle".
6) At almost forty, I am living with my parents again. It's not a financial problem for them, as they are fairly well off, yet any inheritance I stand to benefit from is in jeopardy.
7) The level of harassment from her, her "partner" and my now brainwashed children is never-ending.
About the divorce:
This was the most brutal experience I've had in my life. My wife lied about me and made some of the most shocking accusations you can imagine. In the interest of good manners, I'll refrain from mentioning any of the details. The judge was a mannish-looking woman, and gave my wife everything she wanted. Every objection from my attorney was shot down. We failed in every way. I was ruined financially. She took my children, my home and most of what I earn. She ruined my reputation, and was given total physical custody of my children. I wasn't allowed to see them for six months after the divorce, and now have standard visitation. On paper. The children never want to see me, which is just as well. After the accusations leveled against me in court by my wife, I don't feel safe around my three girls anymore.
Now that the ink has dried on the divorce decree, I struggle with hatred. For this corrupt society. For feminism. Even for women. This is wrong, at least hating women is wrong. Yet, the pain I feel every day for her betrayal eats at me like a cancer. I don't think the misery will ever end. My life has been ruined. The lives of my sweet daughters are being destroyed, and I am powerless to stop it.
I'm a Christian. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe it was instituted by Almighty God. Yet, I would also tell young men to never, ever get married. It's a difficult balancing act in my mind to on one hand defend marriage as being ordained by God, and on the other hand feeling the need to tell men they would be crazy to ever enter into any type of legal or permanent relationship with a woman today. But, there it is. That's the nuts and bolts of the issue. I found out the hard way that by doing everything right, by loving my wife dearly, by treating her like a queen, by being a good provider- it all meant nothing. Nothing at all. I wasted my youth on a woman that effectively destroyed my life. I was given a taste of what hell must be like. It's been maddening and horrifying.
If you want to get married, I can only say "Go with God". You're going to need him.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
PK,
I see men have made suggestions on reforming the definition and structure of marriage, marital law, etc., but I don’t think it needs to be that dramatic. And judges can overturn anything they like. But to have things in writing can never be a bad thing. It may not help you, but it just may.
And I wasn’t suggesting slapping your financee in the face with a legal document and saying, “Sign or else, sister.” There could and should be a conversation about the future. Most churches make you go to marriage classes. Why not incorporate an agreement that besides loving and honoring in sickness and in health, you could also say upfront that you are committed to a lifetime with your spouse, but just in case things change, you want her to know that you will always want to have a positive relationship with her and you want to be actively involved with any future kid(s).
Don’t tell me that the courts won’t listen; if you and she can agree, the courts don’t matter. If there is an understanding between you two, that will help you a lot down the road. The problem is that no one talks about these things before or during marriage; only afterward, when anger, hurt, jealousy, animosity are at its highest.
It’s like planning your funeral before it happens so that your loved ones won’t be taken advantage of and stuck with a $30,000 casket because of their heightened emotional state. Do it BEFORE that point.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Elusive Wapiti wrote:
"When I first read this, I thought it said "get rid of martial law!". Fruedian slip on my part, I think. :)"
OMG dont get me started on China! LOL
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
And I notice you have, as of yet, failed to mention ANY value in being married to a woman.
So where is this value hiding?
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Jeana 1:53 wrote:
Jeana, with all due respect, I don't think that argument holds water. I agree with PolishKnight@1:10. The courts feel free to deny elements of prenups that the judge thinks is prejudicial to the "best interests of the children". In other words, the mother and father cannot pre-emptively trade away the children's "right" to a parent's support.
As far as us guys doing you women a favor by self-selecting ourselves out of the dating pool, I suppose you are right. The fellows that remain in the pool of potential prey will be ignorant to the ways of the entitled princess and therefore vulnerable to being exploited. Your sisters are able to cashier them at will.
Pastor Chris,
That's a terrible story. I'm sorry to see it confirmed anecdotally what Barna found: that so-called Christian sisters have almost just as high a divorce rate as the general population.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
To pastor Chris;
I was raised Mormon. I know what its like comming from a devout christian background. We were brainwashed as kids that marraige was the only way to be in a relationship with women and the god directed institution by which to raise children.
Well now that I've gone through a divorse, I understand your conflict. I'll be damned if I get married again, having seen how our government has turned it into an vehicle of prejiduce and injustice. This puts me at odds with my religion because I'll be damned if I stay sullivate for the rest of my life too!
Part of me says that the conflict lies in the states itteration of marraige as it exists now, and the ideal upheld by Mormonism. They're NOT the same. Actually, this wouldnt be the first time for Mormonism. As the Jesus said "render unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars. Render unto god, that which is gods." Ceasar in our case has turned to exploiting that which is gods.
Ceasar needs to get the hell out! Leave unions to the people, according to their religion, sexual preference and dictates of their own concience. There shouldnt be any governing of relationships between perfectly capable and consentual adults to pursue their relationships as they see fit!
That is why I say the only fair resolution is the abolishment of marital law.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Brothers;
I can afford to be open here in a way I can't be with people I know personally. I'm a Christian; yes. Do I have doubts at times? Yes. I have found my religion to be utterly hostile to single men, and men in general. The single men in my former congregation were treated with suspicion, and sometimes hostility. The women ran my church, their husbands- and yours truly. It was a thoroughly castrating experience in retrospect. Nothing, repeat nothing could be preached from the pulpit that didn't meet with the approval of the reigning sisterhood. I didn't dare preach on wives obeying their husbands, and God forbid that I ever discussed Paul's advice to stay single. Hell would certainly have boiled over if I had mentioned the choicer verses in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes concerning women. So, I preached the religiously correct message, to my everlasting shame.
Once I was divorced, I was shunned by many in the ministry, and even much of my congregation. Hence, the "former: by my name. I was quickly found to be "unworthy" to continue pastoring in my church. This, in spite of my wife's infidelity. Somehow, it seemed to be my fault. I can truly feel for what the Apostle Paul was saying when he told men they were better off being single in First Corinthians. Oddly enough, my mentor and confidant is my Jewish attorney, the only one outside of my immediate family to try and help me in any way. A very strange turn of events.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
QA - re: your Caesar argument. I am in total agreement.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
jeana Says: It's better for the rest of us females to have those males out of the marriage pool who can't see any intrinsic value to being married to a female. So you are doing us all a big favor. Thank you.
My reply. You're Welcome! I have a question; What is the intrinsic value of being married to a female? Many of us here are having a hard time with that question.
Having so many men out of the marriage pool will not be a problem for women like you. I am sure that women like you can find a nice man to marry in the FLDS church in Texas. Since each man in that church usually has many wives, I'm sure that they appreciate the intrinsic value of being married to a female (or the intrinsic value of being married to many females).
If you were a man, would you want to be married to a "stay at home" wife? As a woman, would you want to be married to a "stay at home" husband?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I also am having trouble with that.
Is it a "If you have to ask you'll never know" sort of thing? Clue us in you may do women a great favor. Perhaps if I knew that value I could stop being this guy:
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I must say I am touched by Pastor Chris' comments. I am not a child for sure at 55, but for the life of me I simply can not understand what happens to seemingly "mature" women when money comes into the picture in a marriage and divorce. Money is a huge issue for sure during marriage, and one of the major obstacles often, and I would agree about a prenuptial agreement for sure, and I have one with my new Filipino wife and she never flinched about it much to my dismay. Very long story short, my divorce lasted almost 18 months and the total expense including my paying for the mortgage while I was in an apartment was right at $200,000. My wife disregarded a $100,000 offer at the beginning because she and her attorney were convinced they would get much more. Final result is that my wife netted about $18,000 minus other legal expenses. She was devastated to say the least. My most brilliant financial move was that you can accumulate debt during a divorce in Texas, and I put much of the expense on credit cards and immediately filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy after buying another house which saved me and my son from being on the street. I would agree that the divorce process is very unfair often for men and as others say is one of the key reasons men avoid marriage. One of the most decisive experiences for me with women and money was when my best friend's wife had a sexual relationship with his 82 year old invalid father in a VA hospital so that she could get him to sign over his will to her, and not her husband, my friend. She got over $500,000, and my friend never prostested the legal issues with this and instead was able to not have to pay child support for his three sons. A married woman having sex with her husband's father to get money from a will is beyond rational thought or explanation. Honestly, I was totally shocked that he did not kill her. Money and American women. Maybe there should be a course on this in primary, secondary, and higher ed courses in the USA?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Don't sweat it. Jeana it just trying to shame you into behaving how she wants you to behave. Not "buying the cow" is "irresponsible" and then looking for the best cow is "immature".
The real shame is, from personal experience, it's easier to find a "good" relationship with a rather young (18ish) female rather than with her 23+ year old cohorts. They're less likely to be filled with anti-male hate. The generational gap makes a successful long-term relationship a bit more difficult, but these are women whom you will actually enjoy being around and who will give good company.
It's like men who have experienced foreign women: Once you've opened your eyes, it's difficult to go back. You realize there are better alternatives out there.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Bring back the dowry!
Jeana writes: I see men have made suggestions on reforming the definition and structure of marriage, marital law, etc., but I don’t think it needs to be that dramatic. And judges can overturn anything they like. But to have things in writing can never be a bad thing. It may not help you, but it just may.
PK asks: Jeana, I find it rather strange that on the one hand, you don't think dramatic changes to family law are necessary even as you acknowledge that pre-nups don't guarantee anything. It sounds like you're ignoring the seriousness of the issue simply because it doesn't affect women.
Let's put this into perspective: Remember the discussion we had about some perverts being able to use mirrors to look up women's skirts? You acted like Ghengas Kahn was in town. Yet, this is men's friggin' livelihoods here. That's pretty serious, don't you think?
Jeana continues: And I wasn’t suggesting slapping your financee in the face with a legal document and saying, “Sign or else, sister.”
PK responds: No, but there's only so much lipstick you can slap on the pig. I suggested that if men were going to have to resort to such ugly measures to get basic protection then why not go further? Get a security deposit and insist on her transferring some of HER wealth to a third party to offset advantages in family court. We can view it as a modern dowry which is appropriate since men today, just as in the past, are supporting women and accepting risk.
Jeana continues: There could and should be a conversation about the future. Most churches make you go to marriage classes. Why not incorporate an agreement that besides loving and honoring in sickness and in health, you could also say upfront that you are committed to a lifetime with your spouse, but just in case things change, you want her to know that you will always want to have a positive relationship with her and you want to be actively involved with any future kid(s).
PK responds: I think marriage classes are great and they help to head off problems that couples sometimes discover and resolve on their own. But in answer to your point, men are being expected to take both most of the risks and the burdens and that needs to be addressed.
I know a lot of women who could benefit from this. They complained that men, including myself, wouldn't commit due to these concerns and fears. There's no way I'd go to Vegas with a 35 yo biological clock ticker career woman. If, on the other hand, she was willing to put her excess money into a seperate account controlled by a business trustee who would protect my interests, I'd go for it. If she didn't run off, I would have made it into the children's college fund.
Jeana writes: Don’t tell me that the courts won’t listen;
PK responds: OK, I won't. So there!
Jeana continues: If you and she can agree, the courts don’t matter. If there is an understanding between you two, that will help you a lot down the road. The problem is that no one talks about these things before or during marriage; only afterward, when anger, hurt, jealousy, animosity are at its highest.
PK responds: I see what you're saying, but that's a pretty big "if". Yes, if she agrees and doesn't change her mind later, super duper. But I disagree with you: Plenty of men do talk about such things and the women reneg later.
It's worth pointing out at this time that this burden for men represents a huge emotional one in addition to financial. In addition to us men doing the asking out, paying for the first date, living up to the breadwinner role, now you also expect us to draw up the unpleasant contingency of what will happen if a divorce occurs too. Thanks bunches.
Jeana continues: It’s like planning your funeral before it happens so that your loved ones won’t be taken advantage of and stuck with a $30,000 casket because of their heightened emotional state. Do it BEFORE that point.
PK responds: Er, no. Just the opposite: Your analogy shows precisely why pre-nups are so unpopular. Funerals are for a natural, uncontrollable event that EVERYONE eventually faces someday while the very act of marriage is a statement of commitment. A prenup acknowledges a lack of trust which is the opposite of the marriage contract. (I always get a kick out of third married people who should realize that lifetime commitments no longer apply for them.)
Let's work with it: Did you make funeral plans for your son's birth concurrent with your hospital arrangements? After he was born, why didn't you take advantage of the great rates for pre-planned funerals? It would make a great 1st birthday gift, wouldn't it?
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
"The sad thing about “confirmed bachelors” is that they think they don’t want kids or a wife and want to act irresponsible"
This is a complete stereotype. If this was directed at women...
Besides, it couldnt be that they're "confirmed bachelors" because they're scared, and rightly so! This is a website dedicated to WHY they should be scared. If you dont get in touch with that, you really shouldnt be posting here.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Oh dear PK:
A marriage contract is EXACTLY THE SAME THING. If the woman trusted you, there would be no need for a marriage contract which gives her legal rights to your property. A pre-nup is simply a re-negotiation of the marriage contract to slightly more favorable terms.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Thank you for your much needed support for men in our culture. In this column about men avoiding marriage you noted your disappointment that men seemed concerned about losing their money in divorces but not their kids and suggested that men either weren't concerned over losing their kids or that men don't realize how common it is for fathers to lose their kids. I have a third possible reason: it may be that until they have a child of their own many men don't understand how much they will love and delight in their children. That is how it was for me - until my first child appeared on this earth I considered children a bit of a bother, but how that did change!
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Jeana says: A female that wants to get married and have a baby is seen as someone who wants to “trap” you into fatherhood? You know that we aren’t fertile forever, and you men are fertile much longer than we are. Why is it so selfish to want to have a baby? To TRICK a man into fathering a baby is one thing, but to look for a relationship with the hope that it will turn into something permanent is not bad. It's what's supposed to happen.
PK responds: You know, Jeana, for once I agree with you. These women are simply being honest and realistic and us men want that so, I understand your puzzlement. In answer to your question, the irony is that feminism and the sexual revolution says that relationships are supposed to start out with dating or sex and then cohabitation and then children as you mention below about the bachelors. But yes, in addition to the cultural factor there is also the burden that parenting represents for men that it doesn't for women. Being a breadwinner for a two parent family is something most women refuse to do for men (>99%) so it's not surprising that men require time to accept the role too, yes?
Jeana continues: The sad thing about “confirmed bachelors” is that they think they don’t want kids or a wife and want to act irresponsible like they’re in college, and when they finally realize that they would actually like to settle down, they aren’t mature enough to look for a woman their age, and so they look for someone in their 20s (who will probably not even consider them unless they are very successful). But hey, they are “soft and firm and young”
PK responds: I don't think it's just men but also women who are sold this bill of "have fun in your 20's and then find a perfect mate and settle down" BS. But think about it, Jeana, shouldn't MEN also have gotten something out of the sexual revolution and feminism? This was it!
About going after younger women: You're wrong. It's often easier to date younger women since women prefer to date older men and want men who appear smart and intelligent and time helps with those (for some of us.) Every dog gets his day. Woof woof!
Jeana continues: And then they blame all women because they think females only want them for their paycheck.
PK responds: Where did they ever get that idea? Oh, wait, when the first time you met them you stuck them with the dinner check so they could demonstrate their role as breadwinner...
Jeana continues: Which the young ones probably do. And then they go to glennsacks.com and complain about how bad women are.
PK responds: I hear similar thinking from even liberal men nowadays without any prompting from me. Times are a changing and in a post feminist world, Jeana, there aren't many excuses women can make today for going for the alpha males even as they earn a decent paycheck.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Demonspawn says:
Oh dear PK:
A prenup acknowledges a lack of trust which is the opposite of the marriage contract.
A marriage contract is EXACTLY THE SAME THING. If the woman trusted you, there would be no need for a marriage contract which gives her legal rights to your property. A pre-nup is simply a re-negotiation of the marriage contract to slightly more favorable terms.
PK responds: I see your point. Marriage contracts though are a statement though of what people will do to stay committed while prenups are statements of what people do when break their commitment. They are fundamentally opposite in intent.
It's like the difference between a doctor putting up his diplomas to show you what a good surgeon he is versus a lawyer putting up his credentials to show how good he is at busting incompetant doctors.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I have also found that 'rather young ladies' (21ish) are more pleasant company than their supposedly 'older and wiser' sisters. Less bitter, and fewer hangups. They think that homebrewing is neat instead of leaping to the conclusion I'm alcoholic for instance.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Marriage contracts are 90% about what happens when the marriage splits, same as pre-nups. If there was little/no chance of the marriage splitting, there would be no need for marriage. Everything other than the tax breaks and military benefits can be obtained with other pieces of legal paperwork.
Or that you're cheap. Young women are more about having fun with you and enjoying your company than evaluating your potential as a provider.
I think the best thing about them is the sense of "being owed" just isn't there in the same percentage (of women) or amount (per woman).
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
JPK says: "I see your point. Marriage contracts though are a statement though of what people will do to stay committed while prenups are statements of what people do when break their commitment. They are fundamentally opposite in intent."
Demonspawn replies: "Marriage contracts are 90% about what happens when the marriage splits, same as pre-nups. If there was little/no chance of the marriage splitting, there would be no need for marriage. Everything other than the tax breaks and military benefits can be obtained with other pieces of legal paperwork."
PK responds: DS, I said I see your point do you see mine? Marriage is made by people who are promising to commit, for life, while pre-nups are a plan for divorce.
Look at Jeana's example of planning for a funeral. Nobody plans to die, right away, but it's expected that death WILL happen. It's a certainty. On the other hand, few people who sign prenups expect a divorce otherwise why bother marrying? Yes? So it requires a totally different set of thinking to put into writing what will happen if the couple breaks after they promise not to. You dig?
Regarding the legal benefits of marriage, you're right and this is why many people are now just shacking up. Don't discount tax benefits though. They're a big savings especially for traditional families and that's why gays are targeting them. It's ironic that now they're getting caught in the divorce courts as well. Tee hee.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
PK:
“Did you make funeral plans for your son's birth concurrent with your hospital arrangements? After he was born, why didn't you take advantage of the great rates for pre-planned funerals? It would make a great 1st birthday gift, wouldn't it?”
You missed the point entirely. As usual. I still think that the more you talk about before, the easier it will be later. The more you plan initially, instead of jumping in head first, all starry-eyed, the better you will be protected later.
And why should I give any guy a pot of money to marry me? Dowry’s are out, don’t you know? But if you think you should save money yourself in case something happens down the road, then do it. It never hurts to protect yourself. That’s why I think women should have separate savings accounts. I don’t like joint accounts, at least not for all the money. You and she should have your own. Then you can be on equal footing.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
And I was not serious that a man is only good for a paycheck and opening jars. I only said that because Demonspawn said women were only good for sex and for having babies. He, though, was serious. Why not question him?
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I know Jeana, you find me and men like me thoroughly detestable. But the simple truth is, I don't have to care at all. I really don't. YOU might be in a happy marriage, but how many times has someone mentioned friends' (female) frustration at not being able to find a man to marry? Do you think I'm the ONLY man who's reached this conclusion? I mean, I'm a pretty smart guy, but not THAT smart.
Here's the simple truth. Women in their 30's either have kids with another (or several other) men, or they want them. Most women in their 30's are also looking for marriage, but primarily for financial reasons (they're sick of working, and just want to stay home and raise kids). There is no acceptance of men as anything other than a means to an end in the VAST MAJORITY of cases. This is why everyone is moaning about men's relative lack of "responsibility" (read "income")....nothing to do with being a MAN, it's all about being a PAYCHECK.
Yeah, it's really THAT attractive.
Women in their late teens (too young for me) to early 20's (now we're talking) do NOT want marriage. They like guys with lots of money...sure, but that sort of mercenary behaviour is so common among women as to be nearly invisible. The most important thing is, they don't care all that much about anything other than having fun. If you're fun, you're in (literally). The only "hoops" you have to jump through for younger women are the traditional ones (namely, "can you turn me on?"). It's the older women, or the feminist women, that are impossible to please. So, I don't even try. Why would I when I can hook up with teenagers?
I know, the disgust is plain in your postings. Tough, that's life. They at least have something to offer, with a LOT less risk. You can try and shame me all you want, I could care less. In fact, some day, when I'm dating your daughter, we can all sit down and laugh about how men are all immature, basement dwelling, nintendo-boys.
It might be a tough pill to swallow, but women really ARE "pricing themselves out of the market". They're offering less and less (by way of loyalty, value, or damn near anything else), all while demanding more and more power to destroy men if they "step out of line" and leave a bad marriage (or worse yet...become BORING).
Asinine responses only prove you're pulling a Nero, fiddling while Rome burns.
Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I did not ask the men if they were worried about losing their kids, but I can tell you that the men I spoke to and the ones in the survey were generally happy parents and quite involved in their children's lives.
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
MRA's: "We have no recourse in law, our civil liberties are being overrun daily by the government on women's behalf, the state of marital law and relations between the sexes is so dismal as to make me afraid to expose myself to the risks. Therefore, I will deny myself a fundamental biological need (reproduction), in order to satisfy another (self-preservation).
Jeana: "Oh stop whining, go through the motions of protecting yourself under the aforementioned poisonous legal/social atmosphere, and hope for the best. Anything less, and you're not a Real Man (tm)! The laws and social practices are definitely biased against men, but you deserve it. Sure I can see it all, I just don't think it's important enough to care, or if it is, that men deserve their comeuppance."
MRA's: "Your attitude betrays you as one who works toward thwarting our goals, and equality between the sexes. You obviously hate men and relish the pain you see displayed here daily. I would love to welcome you to the fight, but you prefer instead to stab your sons, cousins, fathers, and brothers in the back, rather than admit you might be wrong about something."
Jeana: "Why does everyone pick on me here? I'm just trying to have a frank discussion! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I drill it into my sons ... do NOT get married, period. But do they listen? The older one lives with a Norwegian woman who has already begun to dictate his life. All I'm left to think is that whatever she's giving him must be damn good as my son seems to be paralysed in a pathetic state of complacency, at the ripe old age of 20.
My youngest is for the moment far more interested in pursuing sports& trying to get into college than girls ... (thank god), but continues to have a naive outlook on love and life ... as befitting of his age I guess. He has expressed that he'd like to get married considering that his father and I seem to be doing just fine after 23 yrs (on june 10th).
What he fails to realise is how drastic the times have changed. The romanticization of marriage has been reduced to nothing but dollars and cents, where far too many women seem to believe their men's sole duty in life is to service their narissistic complexes to make up, apparently, for "past transgressions", and a system that enables their gross misconduct.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
PK writes: "Did you make funeral plans for your son's birth concurrent with your hospital arrangements? After he was born, why didn't you take advantage of the great rates for pre-planned funerals? It would make a great 1st birthday gift, wouldn't it?”
Jeana responds: You missed the point entirely. As usual. I still think that the more you talk about before, the easier it will be later. The more you plan initially, instead of jumping in head first, all starry-eyed, the better you will be protected later.
PK responds: Jeana, you didn't answer my question. I'll take the non-response as a no. I didn't miss the point but rather showed that if divorce was expected and as natural as death, the couple wouldn't marry to begin with.
You didn't plan for the death of your son for the same reasons most men don't want a pre-nup: because it casts a negative cloud upon an occasion filled with optimism in addition to acknowleding a lack of trust and commitment during a time when commitment is being affirmed.
Jeana asks: And why should I give any guy a pot of money to marry me? Dowry’s are out, don’t you know?
PK responds: I went into great detail explaining why. For many career women, for example, not necessarily you, their desire to have marry and have children ASAP scares away men. This is a way for them to reassure men that they are trustworthy.
I walked away from some career women for precisely this reason. If I had suggested this I'm sure they would have gone for it. Or maybe they wouldn't indicating they really were out to get my money and sperm in which case, good riddance.
About traditionalism, you have no problems with it when getting free meals off of men, yes? Hmmm, what a wonderful way to remind "old fashioned" women what traditionalism REALLY means...
Jeana says: But if you think you should save money yourself in case something happens down the road, then do it. It never hurts to protect yourself. That’s why I think women should have separate savings accounts. I don’t like joint accounts, at least not for all the money. You and she should have your own. Then you can be on equal footing.
PK responds: Er, no. As you are well aware, men are not on an equal footing since the family courts favor women in both custody and asset distribution. View my suggestion as, say, an "affirmative action". It's "equality". From each according to HER ability, to each according to HIS need. You say that you like to "share", yes? Here's your chance!
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Pastor Chris: That was a very touching letter you wrote, and I think I understand some of the things you're feeling now. One thing we have to watch out for around here sometimes is that we don't fall into the trap of thinking of women as perfect robots, capable of executing the most complex or devious plan flawlessly every time. That's a different form of putting women on a pedestal, and it's a trap that I fell into for a while after my first wife left me.
We talk about the sanctity of the individual a lot around here. At heart I think nearly everyone here is a libertarian, or classical liberal if you prefer; for the most part we all just want to be able to live our lives in peace and not have the state messing with us continuously. That's because the old saying really is true; no two people are alike, and no two people ever want exactly the same things in life, so generalization is difficult. However, none of us lives in isolation; we are all members of a society, and in societies you belong to various groups, really whether you want to or not.
So where am I going with this? In my time on this Earth, I've learned this much: group behavior is not the same as individual behavior. Yes, individuals are complex and vary a lot. However, with groups, this much is true: Skinner rules. Behaviorism is the order of the day with groups. Within a group, if you reward a certain behavior, you will get more of that behavior. Guaranteed. So now, let's look at what's happening in America with that group that we call "women". There's a huge industry out there, made up of a lot of wealthy people and with the force of the state behind it, that prods and encourages women to behave irresponsibly. And when they do, they are rewarded. If a woman in a perfectly good marriage decides to go for the brass ring of divorce, she'll get all kinds of help and encouragement, some of it paid for by our taxes. Add to it that the probability of an unfavorable outcome is very low, and what you've got is one enormous honking ball of temptation. And it's not an ordinary temptation either; it's a "The Lottery" type of temptation -- just push this button and you'll be rich beyond your wildest dreams; it will kill someone, but don't worry; it won't be anyone you know. Most men won't fall for it because we have long-standing moral educational processes that instill values into us such that we know what the real consequences may be. But today's women, by and large, don't get that kind of moral instruction; feminism has subverted it.
So not surprisingly, in the face of enormous temptation, and no countervailing moral grounding, a fair number of women prove to be weak. Not all, certainly. We've got plenty of counter-examples around the blogosphere and a few who often comment here, such as Amy Alkon and Davina. But for the group, behaviorism rules. Would men in the same situation, facing a huge temptation and lacking any moral base to counter it, behave the same way? Probably; we get some indication from criminal psychology about that. But men still get that moral grounding, while feminism has broken it for women. Rachel Lucas hit on this a few weeks ago; she admires the "man code" and she wants to know why there isn't a "woman code" to guide her. Well, that's a good question -- why isn't there?
Now I realize this probably dosn't help you much, as far as resolving your situtation with your ex. I know it can't, and I'm truly sorry about that, but I'm just a relapsed-Methodist lay commenter on a blog, which is pretty lame when you think about it. But, if you'll humor me for a moment: I see a mission for a man of your training and skills. Mission: The social situation that is destroying us has two root causes: the perverted moral "instruction" that our young girls receive, and the social rewards for women who behave irresponsibly. (Note that successful and responsible women are increasingly actually losing at the divorce game; they get cast by the system into the "man" role, and then they get shafted same as most men do.) Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to attack the former. I don't know if you are still interested in ministering or not, but have you thought about launching an independent church? I can tell you that where I live, all of the growth and action is in the independent churches; the powers-that-be in the mainline demoninations have all drank the Kool-Aid and their day is about done. Let's not blame women for falling for temptation; let's fix it so that most of them have the moral standing to resist it. (And the few that don't, aren't rewarded for it.)
This post will self-destruct in five seconds... Hang in there!
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I can't believe that this opportunity was passed up (or perhaps I missed the response?). As such, I'll take it on.
While I'm sure that you intended this to be taken as sarcasm, I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that you intended it to be taken at face-value. So, let's look at what it is that you actually said, as it relates to this conversation.
It has already been suggested that, legal and financial ramifications of marriage aside, American men are opting out of marriage because the pool of desirable women is too small, where desirable women are defined as women who are kind, supportive, not narcissistic, not greedy, and so on. I'm sure that there are many more adjectives that could be used to describe a desirable woman (Latin American is a trait that I find desirable), but I think we all get the point. For the sake of this argument, we're going to have to assume that the general characteristics of American women, as stated previously during this discussion, those being simply the opposite of the characteristics that I listed, are accurate. American women are mean, unsupportive, narcissistic, greedy, and so on.
Now, when describing a friend, relative, or coworker to another person who asks what kind of person he or she is, one would probably describe their personality traits, right? If you were asked about a friend's, relative's, or coworker's personality you wouldn't answer the person who asked of his or her personality by describing his or her physical appearance, would you? Of course not. Naturally, the meaning that such a question carries with it would be applicable to yourself as well. You are not your body. You are your personality (it could also be argued that you are what you do for a living, but that's another discussion for another time). So, you are a combination of any number of descriptors used to describe your personality rather than your physical appearance. I'm going to assume that we are all in agreement thus far.
Having established that, let's move on to your comment. You seem confused about Roy's suggestion that American women have lost any sense of feminism and are no longer desirable. Rather than go into a long drawn-out discussion about what makes a woman feminine and why American women are undesirable, I have found a better way to alleviate your confusion. Log on to Netflix (or go to your local Blockbuster if you haven't caught on, yet) and rent Spanglish. This movie was brilliant. The main characters in the movie (or at least those relevant to this discussion), played by Adam Sandler (the vaginized American husband), Téa Leoni (the cold, uncaring, narcissistic, selfish American housewife), and Paz Vega (the warm, friendly, very feminine, and very attractive Mexican nanny), represent the people that we are talking about in this discussion. What is interesting in this movie is that the character traits that represent each segment of society, the average American male, the average American female, and the unspoiled foreign woman, have been magnified to such a degree that the characters are the stereotypical American male, American female, and unspoiled foreign woman. The directer wasted no time by trying to craft actual human beings with both negatives and positives but went straight for the jugular: Adam Sandler's character is completely brow-beaten, though very loving, husband; Téa Leoni's character is a terrible wife, though she is highly motivated and very disciplined, to a fault even, as a person; Paz Vega's character is a very loving, understanding, and beautiful (can anyone actually find anything wrong with her character?) Mexican nanny. When you watch this movie you will see the only the best and worst of each group. When Roy talks about American women being undesirable, he is talking about the kind of women who relate to Téa Leoni's character more so than to Paz Vega's character; women who care more about getting ahead in life than about how they treat those around them.
The latter part of your comment is what is really indicative of what kind of person you are (again, assuming that we take your comment at face value rather than as sarcasm). Even if it doesn't apply to you, I think it applies to American women as a whole. How long ago was it that women were crying about men only looking at them as sex-objects rather than as human beings with individual personalities that were worth getting to know? How often did we have to hear that we shouldn't look at women as nothing more than flesh and bone beings with three holes to stick objects into? And now you would defend that kind of thinking (I assume that you don't believe that, but just bear with me for a bit). How ironic is the situation that we are all now in? Women were once complaining that men looked at them only as sex-objects or slaves and that they wanted to be looked at as individuals worth knowing and now that men are looking at women as more than sex-objects they are deciding that women, or rather their personalities, aren't worth knowing and that they should simply be used as the sex-objects that they are.
The question here is why American women don't care. It should be obvious to any woman why men aren't interested: they're simply beastly. What's less obvious to many women, in my opinion, is that they are developing the wrong attributes. Men obviously don't care as much about how successful women are. If men did care they would be signing up in droves. After all, women today are far more successful than they've ever been (far more successful than many men in fact. So why don't women understand what it is that men want? Well, I think the answer is simply: women have been getting bad advice from other women. I don't think men have changed much over the years except to become vaginized. They are still interested in many of the same things that they used to be: sports, beer, cars (all part of socializing with other men), doing what they love (though most, I think, do what they have to do in order to make ends meet), and raising a family. Women have been telling other women to become creatures that men don't want because they think that men have changed with them. I think it's that simple. I think that women think that men want highly competitive, driven, materialistic women.
Now, if this doesn't apply to you, it surely does to many American women. If one looked at American women as a product of WomanCo and men as the purchasing agents of ManCo, it would be easy to see that the product is not worth the price. WomanCo has done a terrific job in terms of marketing. How else could men have been fooled into buying what they have to sell? In terms of customer support, however, WomanCo has failed miserably. The products that ManCo is buying are woefully deficient in terms of quality and useful shelf life and WomanCo offers no customer service. In fact, WomanCo has gone to the government and demanded that ManCo pay for the repair and maintenance of WomanCo's products after ManCo discards them. It should be no wonder to anybody that ManCo has stopped buying WomanCo's products.
Of course, the interesting question now is what will happen in the future to WomanCo's products? Their prime product, American women, has a limited shelf life of about 15 years or so. What then? Will the additional supply cause WomanCo to reduce the purchasing price? Will it cause WomanCo to drop its demands that ManCo pay for repair and maintenance? Will production of WomanCo's product become so unprofitable that the manufacturing base fails and foreign manufacturers fill the gap (they already make great products that sell for much less, so I can't understand why ManCo keeps buying WomanCo's product)? Who knows.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Reading this article compels me to say to all the unmarried (by choice) me.... BRAVO!!!! Choice well made. And, before the advocates of marriage jump collaboratively to arms let me state this: I am divorced, was married to "the devil" for 20 years and after having spent the last 15 years building a great business and company the family law system allowed her to take 60% because she was "the victim" or so she stated. What a tremendous waste of time.... I should have done it alone without marriage but as always hindsight is always 20-20. The what I now call the "Anti-Family Law System, allowed my ex to have the kids (2) and I get to visit..... "no longer a father but now labeled as a visitor..... and heaven forbid I am a day late on the child support and spousal support checks.... The courts decided that in maintaining a lifestyle for the ex she can not only buy a house, new car and feed everyone including her new boyfriend?!?!?!
Advice to all unmarried men....... You do not have to get married or have a domestic partnership, You do not have to feel obligated because a woman tells you that you should marry her, You should not cave in to peer pressure from the masses of trapped men, You do not have to make choices (life and business) that could prove detrimental to you, You are at a disadvantage once attached to a woman and there is no such thing as "Fair"..... If you want fair you probably will have to drive to the Pomona Fair.
Boys, build your careers, build your financial freedom and do not expose it to any women. Prenuptual, Prenuptual, Prenuptual!!!
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Much gratitude to "relapsed-Methodist lay commenter" for kind words. The following is not intended to be an attack on him or his church. As a Christian, I have become deeply disappointed in the failure of the church to confront unbiblical aspects of feminism. I think the church is very fearful of offending feminist dogma and thus profoundly compromised by feminism.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Davina says: "I drill it into my sons ... do NOT get married, period. But do they listen? The older one lives with a Norwegian woman who has already begun to dictate his life. All I'm left to think is that whatever she's giving him must be damn good as my son seems to be paralysed in a pathetic state of complacency, at the ripe old age of 20.
PK responds: Er, Davina, love ya but... what are you doing drilling things into your sons? Don't you think that this is precisely why he puts up with a different mother figure controlling him? Really. I feel bad after having read this.
Suggestion: Tell you son that what matters to you most is that he's happy and he expresses himself. Let him wail on you a bit. Then maybe he'll get his balls back from his wife. Let me know if you want me to give him Cossack lessons in household relations. Kiedy mensczysny luby kobieta, potszybujia silny mowi!
Davina continues: My youngest is for the moment far more interested in pursuing sports& trying to get into college than girls ... (thank god), but continues to have a naive outlook on love and life ... as befitting of his age I guess. He has expressed that he'd like to get married considering that his father and I seem to be doing just fine after 23 yrs (on june 10th).
PK responds: Have your husband taken him out to the brothel yet?
Davina says: What he fails to realise is how drastic the times have changed. The romanticization of marriage has been reduced to nothing but dollars and cents, where far too many women seem to believe their men's sole duty in life is to service their narissistic complexes to make up, apparently, for "past transgressions", and a system that enables their gross misconduct.
PK responds: Now I want to marry you Davina! (Don't tell my wife!) (hug) Maybe... you should send them to a woman's studies class sort of like "Scared Straight?" Let them see man-hating feminists to help shock them out of their complacency?
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Also, freeze some sperm, then get a Vasectomy as soon as possible.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Justin, interesting analysis.
In response to this:
"Well, I think the answer is simply: women have been getting bad advice from other women."
Indeed. Sex & the City comes promptly to mind.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I find it very intriguing that you males think that “feminist” “career women” want you to support them and “girls” in their early 20s or even teens do not. This seems very counter-intuitive to me. Most “career women” I know who worked before marriage worked after. I can’t believe that a girl in her 20s is not thinking of the future. So once they get a little more mature and grow up and want a family, do you dump them? Just curious.
I have no problem with you males choosing to be single. Plenty of women do it because they don’t want the hassle of another man. But just don’t use the females who think they might have a chance for a future with you when you know you only want sex from her (one of our only 2 uses). Be honest and let her know in no uncertain terms that you NEVER want to get married and NEVER want to have children. Even when men do this, I know that females secretly hope they will change their minds. So it is not an indictment of all males who think they want to stay single since some are actually very honest about their intentions.
But I’ve seen and read about so many women who put years into a relationship and then the guy left and found someone younger. And then they were up near the end of their fertility (which I am aware you don’t care about, but we do) and so become the “desperate” kind of female who wants a baby that so turns you off.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Factory:
“I know Jeana, you find me and men like me thoroughly detestable. But the simple truth is, I don't have to care at all. I really don't… I know, the disgust is plain in your postings. Tough, that's life.”
You are very bitter, Factory. It’s unclear to me why you think I think you or any man here is detestable. If I thought that, I would say things that were very mean and insulting or just not come here. I think you want to believe that I hate you. But I don’t. And my “disgust”, if you can call it that, is not over any man’s bad situation, but it is rather frustration over the fact that you and the others are so bitter toward women that you never, ever want to be married to one. You all assume that marriage will be awful and will lead to a divorce and you will lose everything.
It doesn’t have to be that way. I don’t have any experience with divorce or courts or the law. You guys are correct. But I refuse to believe that you are helpless victims. Maybe my suggestions are unrealistic. But it’s better than just throwing in the towel and giving up.
“In fact, some day, when I'm dating your daughter…”
I only have a son. But if I did have a daughter, she’d be a feminist and have a career and be financially independent, and so would disgust you.
I’m sorry I can’t help you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
FYI,
Feminism believes in empowered women. The type of women you males (and female MRA sympathizers) believe are out there preying on men are not feminists. A feminist believes in taking care of herself. A feminist doesn’t rely on a male for finances. She can do it alone. She doesn’t need a man, although she of course would like a man for many reasons. Men are not viewed as paychecks to us. The ones who view men as paychecks are not feminists.
If I get divorced from my husband (which I wouldn’t, mainly because it would be way more hassle than it is worth and he would be hanging around me anyway), I could leave knowing that I could support myself and my son. And he could support himself and our son. Neither would need financial support from the other. We could each make it on our own and share our son. I would never even think about trying to get our son fulltime unless my husband was an abuser. Feminists actually do understand what equality is more than you think we do.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I see Jeana, so if the guy leaves because he's found someone else, he's leaving her "near the end of her fertility", but if she leaves, it's because she wasn't fulfilled in the relationship?
I look at it this way in the dating world. If she's childless in her late 30's, there's usually a damn good reason. If she's single too, there's DEFINITELY a damn good reason (either hers or the men she's known). I don't CARE if she wants kids, if I don't want them too. If that's her bag...and I'm not up for it....she's welcome to leave....just don't take any of my stuff. NO, I don't owe her a THING for her "wasted years". That's a major one women are going to have to ram through their skulls. Men owe you NOTHING for your "time". Get over it.
I am honest, by the way, with all women. I tell them, "I'll never get married again under the same laws and protections I have now. If you want to get married to me, I suggest you call a few friends and get them working to change things too." Precious few have (but there HAVE been a few that have).
It's not women, Jeana, much as you'd like to blame us for hating women. It's the way women are allowed to do terrible things at will, and the fact that a LARGE portion of women (among whose numbers you rank), feel JUSTIFIED in using these systems to destroy men. And you know it.
I see value in people like you though. A perfect illustration of the duplicitious, underhanded, sweet mannered (when wanted) woman using men's natural love for women to cause them pain and suffering. YOU, Jeana, are exactly the type of woman every man alive should run screaming away from. That is your value.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
jeana writes: I find it very intriguing that you males think that “feminist” “career women” want you to support them and “girls” in their early 20s or even teens do not. This seems very counter-intuitive to me. Most “career women” I know who worked before marriage worked after. I can’t believe that a girl in her 20s is not thinking of the future. So once they get a little more mature and grow up and want a family, do you dump them? Just curious.
PK responds: It's ironic, Jeana, that you espouse an ideology of women having a good time "Girls just want to have fun" and can't seem to get it that young women might be more carefree than older women thinking about having kids and starting a family.
When you go grocery shopping, do you get the older milk in front of the fridge or the newer stuff in the back? Come on! Admit it!!!!! Sure, the newer milk can go bad too but why not get it if it's the same price? (I think they should prorate milk prices by age like they do meat so we can avoid the "milk maids" who spend 10 minutes going through all the milk for the newest jug.)
Jeana continues: I have no problem with you males choosing to be single. Plenty of women do it because they don’t want the hassle of another man.
PK responds: Hahahaha! Yeah, men are such a "hassle": Paying the bills, earning a living, providing free protection. Yet, many of these women with these attitudes wanted to become single mothers by choice. As if babies are maintenance free...
Jeana writes: But just don’t use the females who think they might have a chance for a future with you when you know you only want sex from her (one of our only 2 uses). Be honest and let her know in no uncertain terms that you NEVER want to get married and NEVER want to have children. Even when men do this, I know that females secretly hope they will change their minds. So it is not an indictment of all males who think they want to stay single since some are actually very honest about their intentions.
PK responds: ER, Jeana, did these women get a pre-relationship agreement? You know, like a prenup for marriage? If they didn't, then they shouldn't expect honesty from men, right? Caveat emptor and all that...
Jeana writes: But I’ve seen and read about so many women who put years into a relationship and then the guy left and found someone younger. And then they were up near the end of their fertility (which I am aware you don’t care about, but we do) and so become the “desperate” kind of female who wants a baby that so turns you off.
PK responds: Actually, I wasn't turned off by their sense of urgency but rather a concern that they weren't trustworthy. Were you turned off when horny men who obviously wanted sex ASAP came up to you to ask you for a date? That's where a dowry comes in handy. I would say abuot $50K or so in a locked, interest trust fund should be sufficient...
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Davina says: “The romanticization of marriage has been reduced to nothing but dollars and cents, where far too many women seem to believe their men's sole duty in life is to service their narcissistic complexes to make up, apparently, for "past transgressions", and a system that enables their gross misconduct.”
It’s sad you think this way, Davina. What kind of women do you know? You need a new group of friends.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
To Carl Weisman, who wrote;
"I did not ask the men if they were worried about losing their kids, but I can tell you that the men I spoke to and the ones in the survey were generally happy parents and quite involved in their children's lives."
Ask them next time if they realize it can happen and then ask them how they feel about marraige. I can tell you now that the POSSIBILITY for me has become a REALITY. Try asking me about marraige, you'll get a completely different answer.
Abolish marital law! Enact prevenative custodial laws. Stop the destruction of our homes. Stop the discrimination and pettiness.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Well, the evidence proves just the opposite. Studies have shown that things like having children, taking time off of work for personal reasons, taking period days, and other things that men don't do or don't do nearly as often have a significant negative impact on a woman's earning potential. I know that's off topic, but there you go.
Well, I agree with you when you say everyone should be honest with everyone else. However, and that's a big however, as long as women lie about not wanting money (they cloak their desire for money by saying they want men with goals and men who can provide some security), about using BC (if it weren't for the fact that I've had a vasectomy, any one of the women who tried telling me that they're allergic to latex or that BC messes with their body would have been successful), and about how they look (that's not your hair, those aren't your nails, your boobs aren't that big, your butt isn't that tight, you aren't that tall, and your skin isn't that fair) I think men who lie about their true desires have every right to do so. It doesn't make it right for either side to do so, but why should men take the lead?
*As a side not to this, I don't tell women that I've had a vasectomy because I go into a "relationship" under the assumption that it's merely a relationship. I don't assume that people plan to have children outside of the confines of a marriage and thus don't feel as though I have any obligation to modify my behavior accordingly. Of course, my relationships rarely last more than a year or so, so I can't be sure if I've ever caused a woman to have this kind of dilemma or not. Even if I had, I don't feel guilty as both people ought to be involved in the creation of a child, both in terms of the actual procedure and the planning of it. As such, any woman who actually tried to have my child deserved the frustration that she probably felt.
You're right, some of us don't care. I certainly don't. A woman's desire to have a child is irrelevant to me because I have no intentions of having a child. If a woman wants to have a child and she's in a relationship she should discuss it with her partner so that she knows how he feels about it. Once she does that she should proceed accordingly. Of course, every now and then she'll run into a guy who lies about how he feels about having kids, but I don't think that's the norm. Also, she should probably realize that many guys probably do want kids. They probably just don't want kids with her. Using trickery to force a man into fatherhood (something that desperate women do) is just as wrong, in my opinion, as forcing women to do things that they don't want to do.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Sure, feminists understand what equality is. They just don't believe in it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The problem is that the radical feminists of the NOW and AAUW variety have co-opted the name and turned into something that it isn't (much like how the current crop of Republicans and Democrats co-opted the names of once-respectable names or how people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton took over the civil rights movement and destroyed its respectability). If you don't believe in the radical feminist propaganda then you're just an innocent victim of their hate-filled message, just like millions of other feminists probably are. Many of us have trouble sifting through the different varieties of feminists to find the true feminists who believe in personal responsibility (probably because there are so few of them).
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Factory,
“I look at it this way in the dating world. If she's childless in her late 30's, there's usually a damn good reason. If she's single too, there's DEFINITELY a damn good reason”
So, this goes for men too who aren’t married and don’t have kids but want them. There’s something wrong with them?
“It's not women, Jeana, much as you'd like to blame us for hating women. It's the way women are allowed to do terrible things at will, and the fact that a LARGE portion of women (among whose numbers you rank), feel JUSTIFIED in using these systems to destroy men. And you know it.”
No. No one is justified in destroying anyone else. And women don’t go around plotting to destroy men. And you know it.
“A perfect illustration of the duplicitous, underhanded, sweet mannered (when wanted) woman using men's natural love for women to cause them pain and suffering. YOU, Jeana, are exactly the type of woman every man alive should run screaming away from. That is your value.”
Factory, Factory, Factory. I am actually the type of woman every man would want. At least I think so. But you don’t actually know me, so I take no offense from your post. All the nasty things you attribute to women, I don’t do. So I’m a little clueless as to why anyone would run screaming from me.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Ah, but Justin, to women like Jeana, trapping men in fatherhood is a time-honoured tradition for women. It's just "the way of things", nevermind that every other aspect of parenthood has changed radically, this is one area where "tradition" should win out. Much like in the case of paternity testing.
In other words, the status quo when it benefits women, revolution when it does not.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Jeana writes: "Feminism believes in empowered women. The type of women you males (and female MRA sympathizers) believe are out there preying on men are not feminists."
PK responds: Empowered or power hungry? There's a significant difference between the two, Jeana. the former is about someone having the power to protect and take care of themselves AND those in their lives. The latter is someone who wants to get as much goodies as possible and winds up becoming a liability to those around them. They're mentally ill and seek power as a tool to fill a hole in their psyche.
The neediest women I met, Jeana, were successful. They made a lot of money but they needed money to buy those expensive prada bags and designer shoes, bigger homes in the suburbs, and to do it all again. When feminists do things for men rather than look for what they can get from them, we'll take your claims seriously.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
PK responds: Er, Davina, love ya but... what are you doing drilling things into your sons? Don't you think that this is precisely why he puts up with a different mother figure controlling him? Really. I feel bad after having read this.
I concede. Perhaps "drill" was a poor choice of word. It's more like a discussion really ... of the pitfalls of marriage, particularly for men, in our society today (by the way they are not married--god forbid, he's just too young! ... yet.) What I find frustrating is that my son is usually a very outspoken, opinionated kind of guy--I mean he is 20, and gladly believes he knows everything. I miss that side of him when this girl is around. And for his sake I try to tell him there's plenty of years yet .... before he needs to subject himself to castration by women of the gross feminist persuasion, if he's silly enough to find one. All I want is for him to wake up, and enter into a relationship with his big head. He's far too young & promising for this.
As for the brothels .... please PK, don't start putting ideas into my husband's head! I'd like to remain married for at least another 23 yrs, at least.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
As an aside, I believe there are a LOT of women like Jeana out there. Women who simply are unable to see, or even care enough to see, that men are being driven away from them. Because they can't even be bothered to think about the odd thing from another's perspective, I can't be bothered to help them either. I can honestly say I probably wouldn't cross the street to help a woman I don't know....and that saddens me.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Jeana asks: "“So, this goes for men too who aren’t married and don’t have kids but want them. There’s something wrong with them?"
PK responds: Maybe, question: Do these men expect the women to financially support them as SAH husbands after they quit their hobby job to look after their kids? (And in a system that rewards men for doing so with custody and support at her expense?)
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
DING DING DING! We have a winner!
So many women think that us men owe them for their time. That we have to treat them up to a certain standard that makes high requirements of us (standards male friends do not require). That means there is a higher emotional/financial "cost" in associating with a woman. Well then a woman must supply more than a man in order for a man to continue that association. What can women supply that men cannot? Sex and babies.
And women wonder why men primarily think of women in view of sex with them? Jeana wonders why I make my assertion of what women are good for (which she has not rebutted, nor has she provided what the value of marriage to a woman is).
She just doesn't get it that women are pricing themselves out of the market for interpersonal relationships with men. Men are avoiding women because, even with their propensity to "put out" more than in the past, relationships with women are just too damned draining compared to a guy's friendships with men.
Men are asking "what's in this for me?" and finding it just isn't worth it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Justin,
You actually have an obligation, I think, to tell the female you’re with that you have had a vasectomy, like the female should tell you if she also can’t have children. You may not want children, but most of us (and you admit it) do want to procreate. Keeping it from her is very devious.
And getting your nails done, wearing makeup, changing your hair color, wearing a push up bra—those things can hardly be considered not being honest. You can pretty much tell about all of those things. And why would that matter anyway?
“If a woman wants to have a child and she's in a relationship she should discuss it with her partner so that she knows how he feels about it.”
I agree. So if your new girlfriend tells you 2 months into your relationship that she wants a baby, would you tell her that you had a vasectomy? Isn’t that dishonest not to tell her? More dishonest than painting your nails pink?
“Many of us have trouble sifting through the different varieties of feminists to find the true feminists who believe in personal responsibility (probably because there are so few of them).”
Real feminists will not use you but will think of you as a partner.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Davina says: "As for the brothels .... please PK, don't start putting ideas into my husband's head! I'd like to remain married for at least another 23 yrs, at least."
PK responds: You can take him (your son). Really. Actually, they serve really good coffee while you wait.
Tell your husband you're taking your son to the Sex and the City film, he won't follow you!
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Demon,
I’m not saying that men owe women anything. But for a man to lead a female on for a long time and then when she pressures him into marriage (which he may never have ever told her he wasn’t interested in), he leaves and she is in a bind with her biological clock ticking.
No, I know you guys don’t care about us because you can be 70 and still have a baby. But I do care, being a female, and it does pain me to see females who’ve invested a lot of time into a relationship thinking that the end result would be marriage and family, only to be disappointed.
You don’t have to do anything besides be honest. Can you do that, Demon?
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Davina, the source of men's willingness to be dominated is the fear of being unable to find another. You want to do him a BIG favour? Find a man that knows how to get YOU going (not your husband), and have him teach your son about picking up women. I say not your husband because he'd likely not take the advice then. Someone closer to his age, or removed enough from your family would do.
Do not, I repeat DO NOT give him advice on how to find and get women. No matter how well-meaning your advice, it's likely to make him choose the "mothering" type...as evidenced by his current beau, I'd say you've given him more than a few pieces of advice.
It's only AFTER men see how easy it is to find women that they begin to care about quality.
Women cannot understand this (unless you grew up fat and ugly - no offense, it's true), simply because you have NO CONCEPT of how hard it is for a man to get the attention of a woman. Or harder still, to get her to forget her dreams of the captain of the football team and "settle" for him. It's no fault of your own, but you cannot possibly understand.
When one hasn't eaten for days, McDonald's is a precious treasure to be guarded jealously. When one routinely eats Sirloin steak, McDonalds can be a nice change, but it loses it's lustre fast. You want him to be independant of women, to not seek their approval? Arrange to have him shown exactly how easy it is to get women's approval.
It's not one iota harder for a guy to get laid than it is for a woman in essence, once you get past the social conditioning and feminisation of men. If we don't encourage this more, we're definitely going to end up criminalizing male sexuality.
The downside is, he'll begin to see how thoroughly detestable a lot of women really are, and may become cynical and "bitter" like me.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
PolishKnight:
Jeana asks: "“So, this goes for men too who aren’t married and don’t have kids but want them. There’s something wrong with them?"
PK responds: Maybe, question: Do these men expect the women to financially support them as SAH husbands after they quit their hobby job to look after their kids? (And in a system that rewards men for doing so with custody and support at her expense?)
PK, what you responded with doesn’t make a lot o sense. Are you answering another question?
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Perhaps if most women didn't enter relationships with ulterior motives, women wouldn't be so disappointed.
Perhaps if most women didn't expect men to bow to or subconsciously know your ulterior motives, women wouldn't be so disappointed.
I'm sorry, did the realization that most women are users hurt?
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I do find it curious that I hear much much more about men avoiding marriage than women avoiding marriage (Annie is correct that both sexes demur from marriage in roughly equal proportions). Perhaps it is a social double-standard at work here? That men who avoid marriage are child-men, while women who avoid marriage are smart, sassy career women?
Sigh. Again, EW... depends on whose ox is being gored. Please review, and get back with me.
And I absolutely agree with everyone on these boards. Men here should absolutly avoid marrying today's unfeminine, unattractive, capable, independent, career-oriented woman, or anyone, for that matter. Your lives, and the lives of women will be the better for it.
Also...you folks may wanna review statistics spouted here...50% makes for a great sound byte...but it is slovenly math based in slovenly methodology.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Factory:
“As an aside, I believe there are a LOT of women like Jeana out there. Women who simply are unable to see, or even care enough to see, that men are being driven away from them.”
No one was ever driven away from me. And judging from the reactions I currently get from males, even the conservative ones who know I am a crazy leftist, I am not too terribly worried about being alone. Ever.
“Because they can't even be bothered to think about the odd thing from another's perspective, I can't be bothered to help them either.”
I am here to try to see your perspective. Or else I would not take the abuse! I am not a masochist, after all.
“I can honestly say I probably wouldn't cross the street to help a woman I don't know....and that saddens me.”
It should sadden you (wait—is that “shaming”?). Even though you can’t stand me, I would still help you, Factory. Even though you think that I and my kind are worthless, I would still do what I could to make your life better.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I got a great idea Jeana....how about your friends make themselves attractive to marry? Why not make themselves so damn enticing as a wife and mother that the man she's with can't help but marry her. How about she asks a man about kids right off the bat, if that's what she wants? How about she take some personal responsibility for her own damn choices? Or act like a friggin' adult?
We owe women NOTHING for their time, just like they owe us the same EQUAL amount....nothing. Of course I don't care about women's biological clocks....why the hell should I? It's not MY clock after all...and it's HER body, HER choice...right? I have the right to divulge as much, or as little, information about myself as I choose...JUST LIKE WOMEN CAN. If a woman tells a man she wants kids, and he's had a vasectomy, he is under the exact SAME obligation as women are to tell their man if they've stopped taking the pill....which in your eyes, if I'm not mistaken, is ABSOLUTELY NONE.
You keep saying feminists think this, and feminists do that. Everything I argue for is simple, outright equality. Same rights, same responsibilities, same consequences. You have argued against ALL of it, yet you call yourself a feminist. So which is the lie? Are you a feminist for real, or is feminism really not about equality after all?
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Demon,
“Perhaps if most women didn't enter relationships with ulterior motives, women wouldn't be so disappointed. Perhaps if most women didn't expect men to bow to or subconsciously know your ulterior motives, women wouldn't be so disappointed.
I'm sorry, did the realization that most women are users hurt?”
To want a long lasting relationship, marriage, and family is not an ulterior motive. Now that you know our motive, it should be no surprise to you and you can move onto Phase 2. Don’t pretend that you don’t know that women want companionship, stability, love, affection, and a baby.
We are not all greedy consumers who view you as ATMs.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
What was the second line? That we shouldn't be expected to subconsciously know?
Well guess what. Men do not want the current system of marriage. Don't pretend that you don't know that men don't want it, and quit complaining when they ultimately decide that your manipulative crap is no longer worth your continued (if you haven't withdrawn it) sex.
See, that subconscious knowing works in both directions.
Out of ALL of the women I've dated/slept with (not to brag, but it's a over 100), only ONE, ONE SINGULAR WOMAN has EVER told me within the first 3 dates that one of her ultimate goals was to get married.
One out of over 100.
ONE.
So, according to your logic, I guess only 1/100 women are actually honest? Only 1/100 don't have ulterior motives?
Or are you wrong and the other 99+ didn't actually want to get married at all?
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Annie Hunter Says:"And I absolutely agree with everyone on these boards. Men here should absolutly avoid marrying today's unfeminine, unattractive, capable, independent, career-oriented woman, or anyone, for that matter. Your lives, and the lives of women will be the better for it."
Factory replies: Hey, just happy to help Annie. Me and a bunch of my "bitter" friends have all done you and other women the favour of removing ourselves from the marriage market, and are mostly out enjoying ourselves and sport-porking 20-somethings between beers at the sports bar and the strip club. Anything I can do to help, you just let me know.
I'm actually pretty proud of our efforts too, given how many articles you women seem to be writing on the effectiveness of our "help" to you and your sex. What I'd really like to do is have a family and a home and a "normal" life (sort of), but since that's been made nearly impossible via selection and rules, I'm heartened that we can help in some, small measure.
You take care now. Don't forget to write and let me know how it all works out for you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Factory:
You are really on fire today. Perhaps you need some soothing music and a massage.
“I got a great idea Jeana....how about your friends make themselves attractive to marry? Why not make themselves so damn enticing as a wife and mother that the man she's with can't help but marry her. How about she asks a man about kids right off the bat, if that's what she wants? How about she take some personal responsibility for her own damn choices? Or act like a friggin' adult?”
Actually, my Berkeley-educated friends will ask a guy out. Will take personal responsibility, including birth control. Will pay for things. I guess we just know different sets of people.
“We owe women NOTHING for their time, just like they owe us the same EQUAL amount....nothing. Of course I don't care about women's biological clocks....why the hell should I? It's not MY clock after all...I have the right to divulge as much, or as little, information about myself as I choose...JUST LIKE WOMEN CAN. If a woman tells a man she wants kids, and he's had a vasectomy, he is under the exact SAME obligation as women are to tell their man if they've stopped taking the pill....which in your eyes, if I'm not mistaken, is ABSOLUTELY NONE.”
No, you’re wrong yet again. If a female goes off her pill and doesn’t tell the guy, of course that’s wrong. Of course. She owes it to the guy she’s sleeping with to be honest about that. Just as you owe it to a female to tell her that you’re not able to have kids. If a guy didn’t tell me after a year, I would be very angry.
“You keep saying feminists think this, and feminists do that. Everything I argue for is simple, outright equality. Same rights, same responsibilities, same consequences. You have argued against ALL of it, yet you call yourself a feminist. So which is the lie? Are you a feminist for real, or is feminism really not about equality after all?”
I think we have different opinions about what equality is. You seem to think it’s every man for himself. PK thinks it’s paying for half of everything, every time. I think I am for equality, real equality. But that doesn’t mean you being able to pick up and leave whenever you want and I have to deal with it. (Although I could because I am prepared.)
Yes, Factory, the type of female you MRAs and MRA chicks talk about would be very unfortunate to marry. I am not disagreeing. I would not want someone who was narcissistic, evil, cruel, etc. But you make a mistake by assuming that we are all like that. I could go on and on about how awful many men are and the types of things they do to women. But I know that all men aren’t that way. But you MRAs over-generalize, and I think it hurts you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
"Even though you think that I and my kind are worthless, I would still do what I could to make your life better."
Yeah, I can see evidence of that all over your posts. Maybe if you put the caveat "if it didn't affect women negatively" in there.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Demon,
100 women? If I slept with 100 men, would you think me a slut? Or, being the equality kind of guy you pretend to be (or not), would you think that was ok? Just curious.
But to answer your question: I doubt that any female is going to tell you within the first 3 dates that she wants to get married. She has no idea that you are the one. So she will not tell you that. That does not mean she has an ulterior motive. Wanting to get married is a fact. It is why most of us date. Why is this news to you? And what would a normal guy think of a female who said, “I want to get married soon!!”
I bet they would run away. I would.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Ahh, but Jeana, you simply DON'T understand...
It doesn't matter if women are like that or not.
What matters is they have the legal right to be like that if they choose to be that way.
And the incentives to exercise that legal right are ever increasing.
It's not women that are the problem, it's that marriage does not protect men equally that is the problem. If marriage actually had equal protection, I could marry a skank golddigging whore and it wouldn't be a problem. Because of how marriage is, I could marry a saint and have to hope that her virtue never fades.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I have no problem with equal rights and the proper feminist approach to achieve it.
Equality is not what has been acheived however. Its an imbalance of power. You see, the problem we have ladies and gentlemen, is NOT that marraige or women are bad. Its that if the woman wanted to do very destroy a mans life for whatever reason she sees fit, she can. Heresay is all it takes.
THAT in turn will ruin the feminist movement in my opinion, if they dont take measures to tame their own ranks.
There has always been checks and balances. Our country was based on the principle. I don't think women should be able to get free legal representation on heresay. I do think that a governing body should seek measures against a woman that uses the system to destroy and innocent man.
The problem is not the feminists its women that know they can and therefore, abuse the system.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
You take care now. Don't forget to write and let me know how it all works out for you
Thirty years later, F...it's pretty much a wash. We basically figger that if we were gonna cut any losses...we would have done it a long time ago.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I was very lucky in my divorce from a women whom I was married to for over 15 years. She decided to go after a married man for his money and break up his marriage of 15 years. I got her to leave the home 2 months after I caught her cheating. It took 4 years of a nasty divorce, but I have full custody of my 3 children(she left when they were 2, 6, and 13) and was able to keep my home. I sold rental property that I aquired before the marriage in order to pay her off and I even get a small child support check from her (based on her claim of minimum wage). The court ordered psychological evaluations identified her as having "Significiant Psychological Disfunctions", which sealed child custody for me. She now catches "Hell" from her new hubbys ex over every issue possible, and is seen by his older kids for what she is, a mental case. She is on her 3rd marriage, (I was number 2) and has always relied on the man to support her. No doubt this will not be her last divorce.
I am raising my kids (and enjoying it), working at a successfull job, aquired a Harley, a Boat, and a Jetski for my entertainment when the kids are gone on "Every other Weekend" I have no desire to remarry at this time and let another woman have the option of upsetting my life and my childrens life, much less rob me of my financial stability. I have the personality and looks to meet attractive women when I go out, but in no way have I found one attractive enough (physically or financially) to lure me into marriage again. I dont even look to trust the women who attend my church. I have my children to fill my life.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Oh and Jeana,
Do you think you can contend with our readers on the topic, and not be postulating where they'll be at 50. Thats a personal attack and really debases the credibility of your point.
That goes for you too gents.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
ROFLMAO!!!!
I work with a lot of 25-35 women in a big ER. Almost ALL of them are frustrated by the men they date refusing to get married or make any kind of commitment.
Most of them look at me as a "father figure", (an image I actively promote in order to avoid any perceived interest from either side. ) What I tell them when they talk to me all frustrated is just this-
You ladies are dealing with young men who grew up watching their fathers getting raked over the coals in family court, friends screwed over in court, lost kids, lost careers, in debt for the majority of their lives, and you're surprised they don't want marriage or kids??
Is their ANY surprise that young men focus on career and friends??
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Honestly? There's a difference between men and women when it comes to sex. Men who have sex have overcome adversity, while women who have sex have chosen to do so. Therefore that's where the double standard comes from. If you want to watch it in action, go to a bar and scream out "I want to have sex" and count the number of offers. Have your husband repeat the process and count the seconds until he is kicked out. I'm willing to bet your number will be higher.
Someday far in the future when men can get sex just as easily as women, men with large number of partners will be considered "sluts" as well.
Hrm. That seems to be the textbook definition of ulterior motive to me. So you mean to say that she's evaluating him as marriage potential but won't tell him the truth about it? That she's constantly judging him based on some preconceptions rather than just accepting him as he is and deciding if he's good/fun to be with?
And you wonder why I preferred dating younger women who didn't go thru that BS and instead just wanted to have a good time with me?
And most men date just to get sex. Why is that news to you? Why is men's desires to get sex "wrong" or "bad" or "using women" but women's desires are A-OK?
I respected her honesty. She respected mine when I told her my chances of getting married were slim to none. We stayed friends for 8-9 months until I made the mistake of attempting to set her up with a friend of mine.
Mistake only because we were really into each other and everyone other than us recognized it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
jeana Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
"Actually, my Berkeley-educated friends will ask a guy out. Will take personal responsibility, including birth control. Will pay for things. I guess we just know different sets of people."
Actually Jeana, not really, since I was 31 before I approached a woman for the very first time to ask for a "date". Prior to that I was with only women who approached me and asked me out. And by the time I was 25 and involved with my (now) ex wife (who asked me out after chasing me for 2 years) I had relations with well over 50 women (I don't count, I get ashamed). It still happens so often (at the age of 38) that I am getting rusty in the picking up women skills. The average age of the women making overtures is MAYBE 22.
Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm some loser who can't get a date.
I also NEVER pay for a first date...since I never have one. I "get together" with them, or "go pick them up and go for coffee", but there is never a "dinner and a movie" experience until well into any relationship. So you can cross me off the "bitter because he can't get laid and has to buy women's attention" list too.
Any issues I have with dating are simply me wanting to claw up the "scale" a little bit....just like women do ALL THE TIME. Except, rather than being concerned with facile issues (money, looks, breast size, car, etc.), I'm concerned with WHAT'S INSIDE HER. That's right...feminism succeeded, the "desireable" guys are looking at who you are rather than what you look like. Only problem is, you're ugly as hell as a group when viewed in that light.
Let me ask you, if a best girlfriend took you aside and told your your hairstyle was embarrassingly bad, would you listen to her and think about the hairstyle? Well, I'm telling you the future your son faces is bleak and scary, and you would rather argue leaf colour than admit the forest is there. Go ahead if you wish, but you betray a stunning lack of concern for his well being.
"I think we have different opinions about what equality is. You seem to think it’s every man for himself. PK thinks it’s paying for half of everything, every time. I think I am for equality, real equality. But that doesn’t mean you being able to pick up and leave whenever you want and I have to deal with it. (Although I could because I am prepared.)",
Yeah, there's no doubt we have different ideas about what equality is. Your version is REAL equality? How exactly is applying the rights and responsibilities of society evenly not equality? How is equal protection under the law not real equality? How is men having the same rights, with concomitant freedom from responsibility where warranted, as women NOT real equality?
Please, enlighten me and define REAL equality.....I seem to be thick today.
"But you make a mistake by assuming that we are all like that. I could go on and on about how awful many men are and the types of things they do to women. But I know that all men aren’t that way. But you MRAs over-generalize, and I think it hurts you.",
Ah, the "What will the neighbors think" argument. Guess what? I'm beyond giving a sh*t WHAT the neighbours think. I tell otherwise HOT women that spout feminist drivel at me while trying to bed me to f*ck off, and why, LOUDLY in public places. Shaming language won't work, neither will peer pressure and fear of repercussions. I've suffered them all already lady, you have no power here.
I know your position on what men should do. It's no different from the feminist party line (ever wonder why the same phrases keep popping up in the remarkably similar arguments used against certain topics? "Talking point" bulletins anyone?). I try to convince not just you, but those who follow these threads, because it's important, because our society is tearing itself apart, because the vast majority of women are either too stupid to recognize a problem, too complacent to care, or too ignorant of men to believe we can turn our backs on women.
We can, and are starting to. It hasn't always been this way.
I have daughters, and I want them to be happy. I want ME to be happy too. That's why I do what I do...to make it possible.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Men who have sex have overcome adversity, while women who have sex have chosen to do so.
snerk. Words fail me right now...but this one is going to work with me, where I imagine it will provide the day's entertainment.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Actually, I know a gay man who proactively calls himself a slut...
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Ok, Demon,
Maybe the intention of getting married is an ulterior motive. But when I think of ulterior motive, I think of something bad. I don't think that trying to find a guy that you'd want to spend the rest of your life with is bad. But you may be right.
"And most men date just to get sex. Why is that news to you? Why is men's desires to get sex "wrong" or "bad" or "using women" but women's desires are A-OK?"
If you only want sex (and really, you need to take a rest I think), then go for it. (I hope you and the others use protection, vasectomy or not). It's not using a woman unless you are dishonest about your intentions. Like pretending to like kids when you know you don't want any or can't have any. Or pretending not to want to get married when that's what you really want. It goes for females too.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Unfortunately, Jeanna is proof positive that many women will simply never be willing to do the self examination necessary to truly empathize with men enough to change the corrupt family law system. As long as they hold the metaphorical legal gun, they won't be willing to trade it for a truly equal treatment from our society, and that's unfortunate.
I don't think Jeanna is a bad person, no more than most, but I do think she typifies the female attitude towards the problems that men face post-divorce. Jeanna, while you make some valid points, that isn't the kind of help we need right now. What we need are men and women who are willing to take on the constitutional challenges that need to be launched to fix the many, many, civil rights abrogations that are happening primarily to men, but also to women, and grandparents. Women with ideas on how to bring LEGAL justice and EQUAL treatment to men. Not fairy tale endings or lectures on discussions that need to take place that invariably will not legally protect a man (or his children) to the same degree as a woman.
The facts are that travesties of justice happen all over the country every day to countless men in family courts, through no fault of their own, in ways that would never or only very rarely happen to women. Alas, many women are too self centered, or enjoy having that power of being treated with kid gloves, to really care how men are actually treated.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
# Annie Hunter Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
You take care now. Don't forget to write and let me know how it all works out for you
Thirty years later, F...it's pretty much a wash. We basically figger that if we were gonna cut any losses...we would have done it a long time ago.
-----------------------------
I'm sure your younger, never married "sisters" take comfort in that.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Factory,
“I tell otherwise HOT women that spout feminist drivel at me while trying to bed me to f*ck off, and why, LOUDLY in public places. “
Don’t you think you’re a little rude? And what “feminist drivel” would make you scream at and embarrass a female?
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Jeana says:
"And my “disgust”, if you can call it that, is not over any man’s bad situation, but it is rather frustration over the fact that you and the others are so bitter toward women that you never, ever want to be married to one. You all assume that marriage will be awful and will lead to a divorce and you will lose everything."
Jeana, I'm a woman and am certainly not bitter toward other women, and still I'm wary of my sons marrying when the system is rigged to bleed them dry and leave them without equal protection under the law. In fact much of the disgust I feel toward some women is a byproduct of my disgust for the corrupt money-grubbing system that governs social issues in our society. Because these women use this system for selfish gains. Factory said it earlier ... it really doesn't have much to do with the women, only marginally so. Yes, women can be selfish and try to nab a man for everything he's worth, but she wouldn't be able to do this if a system was not in place to encourage and enable her to do so.
Often, I can appreciate some of the points you make ... if only for the mere reason that we share a gender & I'm aware of the female perspective ... even though I'm completely opposed to what appears to be your overall worldview. To me, you sometimes have a very childish--someone mentioned idealistic--outlook on gender relations. And you allow yourself to be educated about masculism by gender feminists with an agenda, and not by actually listening to the male version of what masculism means to them. You get gender feminist theory to define masculism for you, rather than ask those masculism defines, namely men. I've said this a thousand times, you'll never be able to appreciate what the men discuss here from a standpoint of staunch gynocentricism(sp?) because you can not characterise masculinity with female ideals and expect to understand what it to man (not a woman) is.
Jeana says:
"It’s sad you think this way, Davina. What kind of women do you know? You need a new group of friends."
Jeana, I think it is all fine and dandy that you live in a cocoon where all the women you surround yourself with are good and decent and will never, ever do plenty of things that the men here so revile. But I live in the real world where bad and good women (just like bad and good men) do exist even though no one in my immediate family or friendship circle has experienced half the things people here have expressed they've experienced. The truth is I do believe many women do not set out to engage in the behaviours that are so strongly denounced here.
However, when you enable someone to be nasty without punishment, coupled with the strong emotions that relations at its worse between men and women almost always evoke you're asking for trouble, and that's exactly what we've got. How you can not see that with all the data that is out there, that is provided on this site, your knowledge of our family court system, and the general perception of men in the society ... is beyond me. It really is. We are not making all this up, Jeana. We don't just surround ourselves with such crazy people. As I've said, most of the people I know are faring well. It is simply a problem that exist in our society and to just write it off as bitterness or "you guys surround yourselves with the wrong people" is just godawfully dishonest. Many people here do not hate women as you might be quick to think ... it is simply a sad, accurate commentary of our times.
The attitudes among the men who visit this site is pervasive in the general society, it is just not politically correct to say it out loud so when people like you encounter these men and the studies like Weisman's you're shell shocked, and you begin to fret about the decline of women in men's eyes ... not because you're concerned about what behaviours have led to women loose favour in the eyes of men, but because you're afraid of the repercussions for women now that there's an increasing lack of male cooperation to satisfy feminine designs (there'll be no men for us to marry as we please, no men to help your sisters beat their haywire biological clocks.)
And that is where you and everyone here seem to clash. I sincerely do not believe you hate men. But, from the stance you often take here, you appear to take an interest in men's issues based only on your worry of how they may negatively affect your gynocentric worldview, not because you give a genuine rat's a$$ about men and their worries and concerns or the corruption of the system that is far more likely to benefit you or me more so than our husbands should we decide to end things.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Of course it's rude Jeana, do you think me a social moron? Believe me, I know exactly what I'm doing when I do that. And to answer your question, the kind of feminist drivel that's meant to shame and humiliate (which works SO well with so many men, you know exactly what I'm talking about), spoken across a table of several people. Sentences beginning with "If you were a real man", and "Men suck" type comments. Basically, women's water-cooler language.
Surprisingly, it also works as an aphrodisiac with many of them when you shut them up publicly.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
How you can not see that with all the data that is out there, that is provided on this site, your knowledge of our family court system, and the general perception of men in the society ...
The problem is that the data provided here is too often exaggerated, distorted, onesided, or occasionally outright wrong.
I too, have three sons, and am vocal in efforts to change CC legislation. But if you are claiming that the experiences of the men on this board comprise the norm...methodologically sound data is against you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Incidentally Jeana, is that the only thing you can respond to in my post?
Wow.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Annie...you have to come to understand our LIVED EXPERIENCE.....logic and data are constructs. Remember?
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
My younger, never-married sisters are unlikely to be interested in marriage with the majority of men on these boards...so you can certainly look at it as a "win-win," F.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:24 pm
How about any of the other men refusing to get married? Do they have to post here for it not to be a big deal?
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
MARRIAGE IS BAD FOR KIDS.
At least, legal marriage is bad for kids. To all you naysayers on marriage: HOW RIGHT YOU ARE!!!
To those menfolk who want to raise kids: THERE IS HOPE
You can raise STRONG/POWERFUL children with MASCULINITY (AND healthy feminine maternal input).
Just not too much of the latter, otherwise you'll get that glop of a child that represents the post industrialized norm:
an obesely diabetic, low achieving coddled vidiot that's alot closer to a cradle than to the THRILL OF THE HUNT! (metaphorically speaking, eg. male relentless pursuit of objectives).
Mine are coming up just great! Having great fun and all on track to Masters Degrees by age 16!
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Here's yer problem, F... the "lived experience" of some people is not the rational foundation for sound public policy. Moreover, if the "lived experiences" of others is all that is important, then I imagine there is plenty of tragedy to go around.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Factory,
“Sentences beginning with "If you were a real man", and "Men suck" type comments. Basically, women's water-cooler language.”
This is feminist drivel? I was thinking you would mention “ERA now!” or “Equal pay for equal work”. “Men suck” comments aren’t feminist comments. Maybe very bitter female comments, but not feminist comments.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
OK Annie Hunter! Lets toss stats asside. Lets talk about what happened to ME. Now try and say that the courts arent stilted!
I've been victim to false accusations and bigamy but my daughters mother still has primary custody! Shes a felon, just not convicted. Why? Because the jacka$$ district attorney of Peirce Co. Nevada refuses to prosecute bigamy cases! Since I couldnt prosecute her criminally, I tried to reason with the child protection agencies. I mean, how sane can she be when committing a felony!
Didnt matter. Justice in this country, particularly in regards to marraige, is a farce. Not just for men. Its a reality to me that EVERY marraige in America is unenforceable for "fiscal" and "low profile" reasons. It doesnt matter if your'e male or female. Your spouse can run off to Vegas right now and get married to someone else...
And you wont be able to do anything about it.
Hows that for a stat?
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Once again, I disagree, and I'll tell you why. When I first meet a woman, she is essentially a complete stranger. Even when my female friend tries to introduce me to her friends I am still a stranger to them, though maybe not a complete stranger). I would no more tell them anything about my personal life that might jeopardize my chances of starting a relationship than I would tell a potential employer anything that might jeopardize my chances of becoming employed. When do I get into a relationship with a woman, I don't go in with the expectation that the relationship will lead to marriage. In fact, I expect the opposite. After all, I am a complete stranger to her as well. As far as I'm concerned discussions about having children should only happen if she gets pregnant (which, in my case, would mean that we should be having a different discussion) or if we're talking about marriage. Save for those two situations, my vasectomy is a non-issue.
Those things do matter. When a woman does that, she is making herself out to be something she's not (unless, of course, she takes the time to get dressed up when she wakes up in the morning every single day and doesn't take it all off until she goes to bed). She isn't putting her best foot forward. She's creating a different version of herself altogether in hopes of attracting a guy. If she only put on a minimal amount of makeup and still looked good, then this wouldn't even be a problem. However, many women seem to have learned about makeup from the Bozo the Clown Show.
Several questions here. I'll try to answer them all. First, if a woman told me after two months of dating her that she wanted a baby I would run. I had relationships before I had a vasectomy and left for just that reason. Before my vasectomy I would never date single mothers, childless women in their 30s, anybody who tried to use any excuse to get out of using birth control, or any woman who openly declared that she wanted kids or was unsure of wanting kids. Now that I am fixed, I would still run as fast as I could because any woman who told me that she wanted to have a kid after only knowing me for two months must have some kind of problem.
Now, let's assume that I wasn't fixed and that I have been dating a woman for three years. If that woman said that she wanted to talk about marriage and kids, I would tell her, but not for any moral or ethical reasons. I simply wouldn't want to have any legal problems. I recently saw a story about a woman suing for marriage fraud; I wouldn't want to be the next victim.
Is it dishonest not to tell her? Well, I think it depends on the situation. If we've been dating for a while and she starts talking about wanting to get married and kids, I think it's ethically wrong to not tell her, but not dishonest. If she she asks about me wanting kids, I think it is ethically wrong to not tell her, but not dishonest. If she asks if I've ever had a vasectomy and I don't tell her, then yes, I think it is dishonest.
Is not telling a woman who wants to have kids about my vasectomy more dishonest than her painting her face and dressing up in more sexy or elegant clothes than she normally would do? I don't think so. I think that's all a matter of perspective. As a man, I am most attracted to how a woman looks. That's the first thing I notice about a woman. That's what attracts me to a woman and that's why I stay with women (though I occasionally stay with women because they have great personalities). Why is a lie about something that a woman values more dishonest than a lie about what a man values? It's all a matter of perspective as I see it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Davina,
“The attitudes among the men who visit this site is pervasive in the general society”
Not really. Whenever I ask any man about the types of things that go on here, they appear to be startled. Maybe if I asked a divorced man who lost his kids and house, it would be a different story. But more people think like me than think like you and the rest of the guys here. And even more would if you people could tone down some of your rhetoric. Same for some of the more extreme feminists.
“But, from the stance you often take here, you appear to take an interest in men's issues based only on your worry of how they may negatively affect your gynocentric worldview, not because you give a genuine rat's a$$ about men and their worries and concerns or the corruption of the system that is far more likely to benefit you or me more so than our husbands should we decide to end things.”
I am concerned about men’s issues because I do have men in my life. But I am not going to fall for the woman-is-evil theme that is replayed again and again here. Maybe I am too idealistic. But if so, you and the others are way too bitter. And I’m not going to condemn my gender for bad females who take advantage. Just like I’m not going to condemn all males for the bad behavior of some of them. If you target certain females, like when Glenn posts something about a woman who clearly has done something wrong, that is one thing. But when you condemn all of us, I do take exception to that.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:35 pm
How about any of the other men refusing to get married? Do they have to post here for it not to be a big deal?
Not at all. The "win-win" remains. People who do not want to get married should not do so. Less divorce, fewer broken homes...less tragedy=win-win.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I agree with annie on the Win Win.
I wish I could overcome this gigantic fear of repeating my last marraige. Terrified at the thought of another Springer episode romance.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Ah, love that one. "That's not REAL feminism". Now you can point to the dictionary, tell me that's what real feminists are like....and case closed.
Except I pay attention to the real world, and I don't need an academic to interpret reality. Nearly every transgression we are against here is a direct result of political and social pressures exerted by feminist groups of one kind or another. Others are merely existing social customs that have been twisted by feminist pressure groups to benefit women, and not men. Feminism is as feminism does. If it's good enough for a fictional developmentally challenged guy, it's good enough for me.
MRA's are not, and never have been about limiting women, or women's rights arbitrarily. It HAS been about balancing rights with responsibilities. This is where you may be confused. I'll clarify. Many think women's rights should be curtailed to reflect their responsibilities (ie, traditional family unit, no abortion, etc), where others (like myself) think the gains of the feminist movement are the cat's ass, and we want a piece too (abortion rights for men, mandatory paternity testing, etc).
I like my approach better, since it doesn't affect women at all if men gain equal rights to them. Well, unless they want to do something unethical that is.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
regarding prenuptual agreements:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2139263_argue-against-prenuptial-agreement.html
Step3: Do not sign a prenuptial agreement that attempts to address such issues as child support, custody or alimony payments. None of the 50 states will recognize such provisions, and the entire document will be easily overturned in a family or divorce court.
Regarding personal assets - yes, I had assets from prior to the marriage - I owned a fair amount of stock, and had a decent 401(k). Aside from my mortgage, I had no debt. I got stuck with 100% of the marital debt. She received 100% of the marital assets (stock and 401k) accumulated during the marriage. I got stuck with both sets of legal bills for the divorce, plus the cost of a defense attorney. I also had to pay for my house and all of the bills, plus pay child support and spousal support. (who the hell knows what she spent it on?) My ex hid joint property, claiming she "sold it to cover child expenses", as if, after I had to meet her housing expenses and utility expenses, and legal expenses, and medical insurance, she still couldn't live on $1500 a month. I lost $40,000 in equity on my house, had to pay for a $17,000 vehicle that the court awarded her possession of, that she later wrecked, w/o making her payments on it, and without having insurance on it. I got stuck with over $38,000 in credit card debt and utility debt.
9 months after our divorce was final, she somehow had the money to take me back to court again, demanding almost double the child support she was receiving. 18 months of litigation later, and $50,000 of sugar daddy money later, she lost custody.
It should come as no suprise that she's driving a new car, but can't make a child support payment under $150 a month for two kids, dispite living without any visible means of support in a house that leases for $1000 a month.
So, I'd have to say that the odds are bad that anyone's going to have a marriage that they're happy with, that does not end in divorce, and does not end in financial ruin for an ethical, hard working person. If that's you, I'd learn to protect yourself and your assets, and do not co-habitate, let alone marry.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Justin,
There is so much wrong with what you are talking about.
“[wearing makeup means] She's creating a different version of herself altogether in hopes of attracting a guy”, which you think is dishonest.
Trying to look your best is dishonest? I do try to make sure I stop short of the Bozo stage in makeup application, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of that. Except for plastic surgery, but I don’t care if females do that. It’s their choice. You can change your hair color too. You probably won’t wear makeup or get your nails done, but those are usually female things. It is odd that some of you have such a problem with that. If I want red hair and I’m born with brown, why should you care if I get it dyed? Why does it matter?
“First, if a woman told me after two months of dating her that she wanted a baby I would run… any woman who told me that she wanted to have a kid after only knowing me for two months must have some kind of problem.”
Do you talk to women at all on your dates? Or just hop into bed? If you haven’t talked about that within 2 months, I think you may have the problem. Unless you are in high school or college. But definitely, mid-20s and up, that is a perfectly normal subject. And a very important one.
“Now, let's assume that I wasn't fixed and that I have been dating a woman for three years. If that woman said that she wanted to talk about marriage and kids, I would tell her, but not for any moral or ethical reasons.”
Three years? Who goes three years without bringing up marriage and kids? Why are you afraid of the subject? Isn’t it better to get it out of the way so you can be on the same page? Anyone who goes 3 years probably assumes marriage is in the cards. So you really should talk about it if you do not intend to go thru with it.
“Is not telling a woman who wants to have kids about my vasectomy more dishonest than her painting her face and dressing up in more sexy or elegant clothes than she normally would do? I don't think so.”
Oh my god. I don’t think I have a response for that.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Well Annie, my concern is the portion of men that would like to get married, but won't out of fear of what could happen. I believe the numbers are staggering, and might quite literally shock a lot of women out of their complacence, but it's never really researched, and when it is in a small study like this, it's largely ignored. This is changing, and will continue to do so, but since there's an utter lack of a complete picture in the public psyche, it's no surprise most people think like Jeana rather than us.
Give it a few more years is all I can say......
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I chose to remain single. I have had plenty of people tell me I should get married and have kids. Well to that I say phooey. The only thing I can't do that a woman can is give birth. I can do everything else (cook, clean, shop, etc), and I don't have to check in with the Warden (wife) before I make plans or work late. If marriage is such a good thing, how come the divorce rate is so high? Ever notice it's the women who initiate the divorce 90% of the time? It seems to me that too many people (especially women) live in fantasy land. They are looking for the PERFECT mate. Here's a clue: there is NO such thing as the perfect mate.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Actually Jeana, in Justin's defense, there's a LOT of people that live together for years that will tell you there's no way in HELL they'd marry the person they're with. Seriously.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
QA, I am so sorry for what you have been put through. I wonder if the failure to prosecute bigamy is related to Nevada itself...home to polygamous enclaves. I wonder if the DA fears prosecuting women after years of official blindness to other instances? Be that as it may...your story only strengthens my resolve to see JPC become the law of the land before the end of the decade.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I dunno F...
Elsewhere, I've posted about the laconic BH's complete lack of sympathy and interest in the men's rights movement, and it traces directly to his position in senior managment...in a thoroughly male dominated profession. He sees the with contempt the reprehensible behavior of some men who later claim victimhood as an indictment of the men's movement...essentially believing that his "lived experience" is the end all. Fortunately, he has me, and eventually, he'll come around...but it is definitely going to take awhile.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
QuantumArtist:
I apologize if you think I was attacking poor Factory. I just wanted to make him think about his future. However, he is the one who debases your arguments by saying that “Me and a bunch of my "bitter" friends have all done you and other women the favour of removing ourselves from the marriage market, and are mostly out enjoying ourselves and sport-porking 20-somethings between beers at the sports bar and the strip club.”
This is what most of us think of when we think of MRAs. I thought you guys were trying to get away from that kind of stereotype. I guess not.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Factory :
"Actually Jeana, in Justin's defense, there's a LOT of people that live together for years that will tell you there's no way in HELL they'd marry the person they're with. Seriously."
1) Be honest with the person you're with that you won't ever marry them.
2) Why are you with them in the first place if you won't marry them?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
We might want to take note of Hillary Clinton's fresh defeat and find out how much of her lack of male support contributed to that defeat.
My guess is that it will become harder and harder to rally men to women's causes just for the sake of mom and apple pie. As the division between the sexes widens over time it will be interesting to see who wins and loses. Why will men want to pump more money into the health care system knowing that women will suck most of it up? Why will men want to support educational systems that educate children they don't see and that favor the females? Why will men want to support social security when it is women who depend upon it most? This is just a taste of what is comming down the pike.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Annie Hunter wrote;
"QA, I am so sorry for what you have been put through. I wonder if the failure to prosecute bigamy is related to Nevada itself...home to polygamous enclaves. I wonder if the DA fears prosecuting women after years of official blindness to other instances? Be that as it may...your story only strengthens my resolve to see JPC become the law of the land before the end of the decade."
Not sure what JPC is. I know what PAS is... 8)
Honestly, I think Marital law needs to be done away with, and a truly effective parental custody law would be one oriented toward establishing parental rights and responsiblities upon birth of the child.
That way if the parents break up, theres no legal mess for the break up. Parental rights and obligations would be pre determined, and therefore you wouldnt see much of the separation fighting and ambiguety which encourages it like there is now.
I really dont see how its the governments business who I hook up with as long as they're concenting adults. Thier ONLY concern should be toward the welfare of any resulting children.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I couldn't care less what our "image" is to women, and that kind of image is definitely not repulsive to the vast majority of men. As to your husband's attitude, it can also be postulated that men in power, who have never or not recently experienced utter helplessness, will definitely have a hard time understanding it. Much like women can't understand men's general difficulty in obtaining sex.
Thank God the vast majority of BOTH our countries consists mainly of "regular guys"....construction workers, salesmen, fishermen, accountants, etc. Not many would have a problem with the lifestyle you seem to think is a detriment to MRA-dom. Or do you mean to imply women wouldn't approve? Cause I can see your point, women really seem to HATE those lustful, brash, aggressive, sexually aware men. Yup, totally hate them.
Hey, I sense a new "sexual revolution" coming on.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
men's general difficulty in obtaining sex
In what universe is sex an entitlement?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
To Jeana who wrote;
"I apologize if you think I was attacking poor Factory. I just wanted to make him think about his future. However, he is the one who debases your arguments by saying that “Me and a bunch of my "bitter" friends have all done you and other women the favour of removing ourselves from the marriage market, and are mostly out enjoying ourselves and sport-porking 20-somethings between beers at the sports bar and the strip club.”
This is what most of us think of when we think of MRAs. I thought you guys were trying to get away from that kind of stereotype. I guess not."
I am one that doesn't share his avid enthusiasm. I don't particularly like staying out of marraige. I'm one of the many that acknowleges that its VERY hard to get by in life on your own, and would love to have a life long committed relationship. After having probably one of the most surreal divorses ever, however, I'm TERRIFIED to even try.
The result is, I'm one of the "strikers" but my reasons are not reasons of glee and to sport a trendy playboy lifestyle. My reasons are for a longing to be in a loving relationship, but unsure if I'll ever be able to feel secured from a repeat of my divorse.
THAT is absolutely hard. How will I ever know that this wont happen.
My guess is, your honest answer is, I cant.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
You have reason, Q...when I actually researched failure rates for second marriages...was sad and discouraged. (somewhere around 40-45% from a variety of legit resources/ much higher at quotemine sites.)
I do not have any answers for you...other than CYA separate domicile relationships, which can certainly be loving and commited, and absent financial risk.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Annie Hunter Says
"The problem is that the data provided here is too often exaggerated, distorted, onesided, or occasionally outright wrong. I too, have three sons, and am vocal in efforts to change CC legislation. But if you are claiming that the experiences of the men on this board comprise the norm...methodologically sound data is against you."
ANNIE, when I referred to data provided on this site I was not referring to those posted by readers in their individual comments. I'm talking about the data provided by Glenn, who no one can honestly accuse of being "one-sided" and whose sources are often very trustworthy.
Furthermore, this site and those who frequent here have only proven to confirm what I'd already experienced and seen in the general society, so while I acknowledge the odd few people here can sometimes to go off the deep end, the majority to me simply represents what has become the norm among men, their real attitude (no the kissa$$ PC one they present to the general public out of fear of being ostracised) toward women and it is sad that it has come to this. Considering the ideals of classic feminism, we in the latter days have royally messed up. That is what I believe should be obvious to whoever have eyes to see.
PK, you crack me up seriously. Take my son to a brothel?!? Have you lost your mind? My son would never, ever hear of it, neither of them, muchless agree to have me accompany him! lol I'm sure that's something he can arrange with his buddies with as little involvement from me as possible! I'm simply happy to do motherly duty and hand him a box of condoms and a few words of caution.
And fyi I do not watch Sex and the City, and neither does anyone else in my household.
FACTORY, thanks for the advice. It's always good to get another perspective. It continues to be a challenge to fully understand my sons now that they're becoming adults. Sometimes I get roasted for "meddling" too much, other times I get complaints that I dont involve myself enough then other times I get praise that I do things just right. Well, at least they're fair, right?
JEANA, the problem with those men who are startled is that until the issues we discuss here bites them on the arse then it is of no relevance to them and they continue to have a fairly positive view (and even this is arguable) of women and marriage in general. That's why many of them have remained single and can not relate to what's going here. But things are changing, even those guys who aren't married with kids, are being extremely cautious. I'd love to hear what your male friends say when discussing the same topic with his buddies. Men will never reveal their true thoughts about gender relations to a woman because they don't want to deal with the repercussions.
So once again you're missing the point. I find it curious that you say "And I’m not going to condemn my gender for bad females who take advantage", yet you identify with and staunchly support an ideology that does PRECISELY what you claim to disavow to men.
While I can only speak for myself, I'm convinced that it is also true for many others here ... and that is I have no interest in condemning women on a whole, I do not believe the entire female gender is evil thing just like I don't believe the whole men are evil thing. When I speak of women here I speak of those who are selfish and narcissistic and without empathy for anyone else's plight. Those who use the system to unfairly rob men of their assets, their children, their livelihood etc. I have the same disgust for men who engage in the same behaviour but they already have such a massive hate machine in the form of, but not limited to, radical gender feminists against them that they don't need me jumping on the bandwagon. They've already been exposed. The injustices toward men on the other hand are highly ignored and can use as many voice as possible to garner attention. If you think me engaging in simple human empathy is a slam against women, then I'm afraid that says a lot about you more so than it does me.
The difference between you and me, it seems, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you've pledged allegiance to women because you're a woman while I pledge allegiance to the equal and dignified treatment of all, man, woman, child, animal ... what the hell ever.
I've never been married to a woman, I've never had the bitter experiences of women that some here have described--in fact I'm very fortunate to have my life touched by some pretty amazing women--but I don't have to directly experience what they've experience to appreciate the injustice of what they've been thru at the hands of these women and a corrupt social judicial system to empathise with their plight. Just like how you empathise with rape victims (as do I) even though you've probably never been raped. So I reject the label of me being "bitter". It's rather ludricious actually.
I do believe we live in an individualistic, narcissistic society ... some, like you, seem quick and ready to label men with these traits but try to suggest that women in general are not as equally flawed. I reject that notion as pure, unadulterated BS. The female gender pool is also infected with bad eggs, and a consumerist(if there's such a word), narcissictic "me" culture continues to turn many women into greedy and selfish human beings who use men as success objects even in the face of feminism while they're hypocritically claiming to be strong, independent women.
To all the genuine go-getter women out there who don't need big brothers to solve their problems for them and who treat all people how they would want to be treated, they have my respect.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Actually D, I do cop to an intrinsic loyalty to my own gender, specifically in terms of the "hands-off man" policies, the primacy of confidences in the post service Sunday coffee klatches, the fierce defence of a friend done wrong by whoever, the intolerance of sexual double-standards, and the willingness to tolerate "wallowing" to a reasonable point. 8* ....
That said, inexcusable behavior is non-gender specific, and the blanket indictments of women on this board fail to come out in the wash. This is the mistake that undermines the credibility of the cause. Look closely at feminist blogs, and you will rarely see an indictment of men in general that is not swiftly and roundly dismissed as trash.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Annie Hunter wrote;
"You have reason, Q...when I actually researched failure rates for second marriages...was sad and discouraged. (somewhere around 40-45% from a variety of legit resources/ much higher at quotemine sites.)
I do not have any answers for you...other than CYA separate domicile relationships, which can certainly be loving and commited, and absent financial risk."
Alas, such relationships were putting me at odds with Mormonism. I guess I should be grateful though. Were it not for this cacophney, I might not have opened my eyes to free thinking. Still losing my faith was like losing a leg.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Oh dear...it was my understanding that mormans rivaled catholics, atheists/agnostics and us'n lutherans (buffs nails on shirt) in the lowest rates of divorce (19-22%). Such is not the case?
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Feminists have been trashing 'men in general' for years with their faulty and debunked research that seeks to portray
a large portion of men as rapists et al.
That said, women in general are not the problem. The legal system that allows this gendered tyranny and the feminist hate machine are.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Annie hunter wrote;
"Oh dear...it was my understanding that mormans rivaled catholics, atheists/agnostics and us'n lutherans (buffs nails on shirt) in the lowest rates of divorce (19-22%). Such is not the case?"
Leave it to me to be the extreme screaming exception... 8)
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
QA...come to church with us. You won't find many (if any) single women in your age group...but maybe your faith could be restored.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
QuantumArtist:
"I'm one of the "strikers" but my reasons are not reasons of glee and to sport a trendy playboy lifestyle. My reasons are for a longing to be in a loving relationship, but unsure if I'll ever be able to feel secured from a repeat of my divorse.
THAT is absolutely hard. How will I ever know that this wont happen.
My guess is, your honest answer is, I cant."
You're right; you can't know that it won't happen. But you can protect yourself. You can be as open and honest as you can about what you want from a new relationship. It is very, very important to communcate with your significant other. You know that, though. Romance will not go down the tube if you talk about the future and "what ifs". Don't let all the negativity here prevent you from another marriage. I really wish I had the solution. But I don't. You do deserve to be happy. You have every right to lay out what you want and what you expect from a relationship. If you have assets, you have every right to protect them. If you intend on having children, you have every right to be with them as much as you want. Maybe it's not enforceable in the courts, although it should be, but a sort of "contract" about what you want in a marriage, even if not legal, I still think is a good idea so both sides know what to expect. Nobody should be alone.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
1,500 surveyed is only a drop in the bucket when there's a million of us out there. After 16 years and two kids I love more than life itself, my wife was convinced by her not-yet-separated slut friend to do the same thing. So, with no infidelity, no physical abuse on either side, no drinking, no drugs and a husband that handed over his check every week, she decided to break the family up as if we were 14 year olds.
The four of us wound up in front of a therapist when he asked if anyone of us wanted this divorce. Each of my kids said no and then I said no. She looked at me and said "Oh, make me the bad guy". I tried everything to save our family and my marriage, but she her hatred only grew because I was trying hard to save us - even going to our priest and filing a motion for court ordered marriage counciling --- which she refused to attend despite the state ordering a 6 month freeze on the divorce procedings.
Worst yet is she convinced my daughter that I was some kind of monster and now I've lost my little girl indefinitely. She hasn't spoken to me in 2 years -- 6 months before the divorce was final. I was so distraught that for year I could only think of suicide every day. I came so close and only the thought of my son being with out the dad he loves kept me from doing it.
Yes, she got the house (mostly paid for), the furniture, half of our savings, part of my pension and even my dog. I had to pay for her to finish her bachelors degree and yet the court still doesn't require her to work - and the kids are 13 and 16. After alimony and child support, I'm left with only 1/3 of my pay check. They even made me pay for her lawyer.
My four sisters and many friends are all in shock at what the court did to me and how cruel she continues to be using the kids to punish me -- keeping my son away as much as she can. AND THE COURT DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR MY PLEA.
After this tragedy and sea of injustices, I've lost all faith in our justice system -- including the evil blood sucking divorce lawyers that are only our there to rape us of our hard earned savings. I hold all of them in contempt including the leglislators that put these criminal laws out there.
My advise to all men out there is DO NOT get married. Have children out of wedlock, raise them, pay for them, love them, but DO NOT marry their mother -- no matter how much you love her -- until our state governments make major changes to family and divorce law. I spit on all of them for what they've done to my kids, for what they've done to my family having to watch me suffer, and for what they've done to me -- all because I married a woman that is only interested in her own needs and believes she's entitled to a coushy life on someone else's dime.
Even with a Master's degree and 30 years with my company, I no longer can afford to retire at 65. At that time I'll be a couple years past alimony and can put all my life insurance in my son's name. I'll see my son through college and then drive my old truck off a cliff and will leave the judge and his court a note congratulating them for another torturing of an honest hard-working citizen and for taking away everything important to him.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Sorry for how long it's taken.
You're thinking as a woman. How you look is not as important to you as it is to many guys. In my experience, women tend to discount men's feelings about how a woman looks when, in fact, those feelings are very important to men. For example, I am partial to brunettes with olive skin. It is difficult for a woman to go from brunette to blonde or red. It is much easier, however, for a woman with brown hair and very light skin to go to a tanning salon and get a little color. It is also easy for a blonde to dye her hair a different color and to get a tan. How a woman looks matters to many guys and is important to them. Why it is important is unimportant because the fact exists. Whether it is important to you is unimportant because it is important to many guys (some prefer blondes, some prefer brunettes, some prefer Asians, some prefer Hispanics, some prefer Europeans, some prefer pale-skinned women, some prefer darker-skinned women). Suggesting that men should not care so much about a woman's appearance is like suggesting that a woman should not care about what a man does for a living. Sure, in a perfect world those things wouldn't matter, but we don't live in a perfect world. We live in the real world where people have preferences and it is not up to you to decide what preferences people should have.
I do as little talking as possible. I throw out open-ended questions so that they can talk as much as possible. I actually do pay attention to what they are saying (as well as how they say it) so I can learn as much as possible. I listen more than I talk because it's difficult to learn about another person when you're always talking. When I do talk, though, I talk about unimportant subjects (e.g. what sports I like, what I like to watch on TV, what activities I like, and so on). One of my primary objectives when I first meet someone is to hop into bed. If I can't enjoy sex with a woman then what's the point? I have plenty of friends who I enjoy doing things with and talking to. The point of getting into a relationship, as I see it, is to share things with a person that you don't share with others. What things don't I do with my friends? Well, I don't have sex with them. That's about it. If I can't enjoy having sex with a woman then she's just another friend.
I am in my late 20s, but I don't feel that the subject of children is terribly important (whether it's because I'm fixed or because of my philosophy on dating is irrelevant). I typically date women in their mid-20s. I'm not going to assume that a woman in her mid-20s wants kids. As for me having a problem because I won't discuss children or marriage after only two months, I don't understand how that makes me a problematic person. Two months is not a long time. That's eight weeks (or close to nine). Sixty days (or sixty-one or sixty-two, depending on the months). I probably only go on seven or eight dates during that time with one woman. I have other things to do with my time. I have a job. I have things I enjoy doing by myself (like kayaking out on Lake Michigan). I have friends who I spend time with. Two months is not nearly long enough, in my opinion, to get to know a person well enough to start talking about marriage and kids. When I was 22 I was a med student for eight months. Guess what, I've never been a med student. People, in general, put their best foot (or a fake foot) forward at first. When they become comfortable they let their guard down. That can take a long time in many cases. I dated a woman once without seeing her with her make-up on. She would wake up before I did in the morning and put her make-up on and brush her teeth so that I couldn't see her at her worst (that relationship lasted several weeks). The point is that I would not talk about marriage and kids with a woman unless I knew enough about that woman to feel that she was worth having that discussion with.
Well, as I said earlier, I've not gone three years with a woman. I am only in my late 20s. Dating for me is just something to pass the time. It allows me to branch out, to network. If I could grow women in my garden I would. I'd save money on drinks and dates. I wouldn't have to buy new clothes all the time or new cologne. I wouldn't have to worry about rejection. Life would be so much easier for me if I didn't date. As for getting it out of the way so that we can be on the same page, experience tells me that such an approach to dating is a bad move for a man. It makes you look needy (I don't know too many guys who enjoy it when their dates start talking about marriage and kids after a few dates). Is it worthwhile to talk about goals and objectives? Yes. Marriage and kids? No. I've heard women suggest that men simply tell them what they want up front; that the men will be more successful if they do that. Well, in my experience, that is not as successful as being very nonchalant. Of course, my experience is only in dating. I've never intended to find a future wife, so my view on this whole subject is probably different than yours (you seem to be focused on dating as a vehicle for long-term relationships and marriage, which is fine if that's what you're looking for).
I think I had a very valid point. What makes what is important to a woman more important than what is important to a man? The answer: perspective. If you don't value appearances but value children, lies about appearances will be less important than lies about the desire or ability to have children. The converse is also true. Values are very subjective. A large segment of the population can certainly share the same values, but that doesn't make those particular values any more important than the values of the people in the minority.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Philip L. Caouette:
“I'll see my son through college and then drive my old truck off a cliff and will leave the judge and his court a note congratulating them for another torturing of an honest hard-working citizen and for taking away everything important to him.”
Please don’t do this. Your son and daughter need you. It’s important that you stay around for them.
Have you tried going to your ex-wife’s family and friends? Or had you sisters and friends do so? Maybe it’s possible that people in your ex-wife’s life don’t really understand what you’ve gone thru. I think they need to be barraged with the reality of what you have been reduced to. And if she attends church, have your sisters and friends go to it and let everyone know what has happened. People are allowed to get away with things when no one knows what is going on. But when abusive practices come to light, oftentimes there is a change for the better. This is what Amnesty International does. Also, anyone (even Glenn) who advertises a bad situation and provides contact info for people to let those with influence know that they are being watched. Please try it.
And don’t go off a cliff. Please don’t.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Gosh Justin...aging happens. It is important to me that I look good at my age. It is not important to me to compete with the awesome cougar, Samantha.
And beware of what you are advocating. As women have gained financial clout, female requirements for masculine appearance have increased. These days, guys are evaluated and accepted/dismissed in terms of their overt "hotness" more than ever before. It is not going away. The perogative you appear to be reserving for the guys is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Women are making the same kinds of judgments as men, and from what I can discern, men are not particularly thrilled about it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Justin:
I don’t understand what your first paragraph is about. You initially said that women who put makeup on are dishonest. And then you said looks are important. So I don’t understand.
Talking about having a baby with YOU after 2 months is not what I was talking about. Of course you would want to run. Me too. But mentioning that you do eventually want a family before 2 months is not scary. Only if someone is insistent that it is to be you, which is a little crazy.
You once lied about being a med student?? And you still think that wearing nail polish is dishonest? It is not a matter of perspective. You can tell if someone has nail polish or makeup on. You cannot tell if they have a vasectomy or are a med student. The makeup and polish are NOT MORE DECEPTIVE.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I'll see my son through college and then drive my old truck off a cliff and will leave the judge and his court a note congratulating them for another torturing of an honest hard-working citizen and for taking away everything important to him.
I second Jeana's plea. You are catholic. Take it to your faith, your priest, your church. Do not end it before you see the incipient reforms become the law of the land.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
This argument on this board walks in circles around a fundamental fact: American radical feminism has as its goal the destruction of marriage because its ultimate goal is gender apartheid. The females posting here want to defend this little fem thing or that little fem thing. Nonsense. Men avoid marriage because men are avoiding involvement with women, and they do this because the women who have been "feminized" envision male-female relationships in terms of a power struggle for domination: in marriage as in feminism in general, the personal is the political, which means that the political is the personal, and that means in turn that gender relationships are nothing more than struggles for control or and power over a person of the opposite gender.
Feminists and particularly feminist lawyers are responsible for the divorce laws as presently enforced, something which the authors of "Legalizing Misandry" have demonstrated at great length. There is nothing that goes wrong for males in divorce cases that is not traceable back to the feminist anti-male hatemongergs who declared a "war by other means" against males in the 1970s, and have been granted their victories by liberal legislators and judges.
This is not really about the questionnaire and its facts that Glenn originally posted. That deals with results, externals, details. What it's all about is gender war: males are finally accepting a fundamental fact about many females, something that feminists have been propagandizing for the last half-century: namely that heterosexual males are women's enemies, and the only self-saving thing that females can do is avoid them. Males' avoiding marriage is their avoidance behavior in turn.
The feminists are winning by males taking that tack, but I would like to see a much greater escalation of the gender war. If feminist females want to do their feminist thing and war against males, then they should be forced to pay the price. You do gender war, you pay the price. I would like to see an internal blockade, or embargo: no feminist female receives any good or service regarding which a heterosexual male has either (1) invented it; (2) produced it; (3) delivered it. Embargos are a standard war tactic. They want a war with males, they should be faced with a standard consequence of doing so: retaliation.
And so spare me the female whines. Deal with the situation that you people have created, or shut up.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Olustee,
“You do gender war, you pay the price. I would like to see an internal blockade, or embargo: no feminist female receives any good or service regarding which a heterosexual male has either (1) invented it; (2) produced it; (3) delivered it.”
Ok. So you have no claim on our babies.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
And once again, the voice of reason shouts out from the towers.
Ironic.
I would like to see all sexist men denied anything that a woman has produced and delivered.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I was using my own views as an example. I enjoy natural beauty. I am interested in women with particular physical attributes. A woman's skin color and hair color are important to me. One could almost say that I have a fetish for those things. It is certainly possible, and very likely in certain cities and countries, to be beautiful without much, or any, makeup. For instance, I was in Paraguay and southern Brazil last year (I'm pretty sure it was last year). I saw so many beautiful women there who did not need makeup. They were naturally beautiful (some of them had some new assets, but I don't have as much of a problem with that). There's a difference between caring about someone's appearance and caring about how someone achieved that appearance. I prefer to wake up with someone who looks just as good as they did the night before.
Now, other men might like women with naturally perky breasts or women with a toned rear or women with some other physical attribute (or personality attribute). The point that I was trying to make was that you are discounting what is important to men because those things aren't important to you. How can you complain, then, when a man doesn't value something that is not important to him but important to his girlfriend? The answer is that you can't unless you are willing to be a hypocrite (I choose to avoid that problem by simply opting out of marriage and children altogether).
While there is a huge difference between talking about wanting a family eventually and wanting a family with me after only two months, I find those discussions at that point a little scary. Little red flags start waving in my head when a woman starts asking me about those things before she knows enough about me. I guess my value system is in a different place. I talk about private matters with very few people, and even then only with very close friends and family.
Well, that was back in the days when I wore fake wedding bands to bars, rented higher-end cars for a night or two, and drove by homes that were under construction that I said were mine. Necessity is the mother of all invention. I no longer have to resort to such tactics. Now I can simply just be me.
Again, the point that I was trying to make was that the things that matter are all subjective. You obviously value healthy relationships that will go somewhere and having children. I don't. I value other things. Your values are no more or less important than mine. If I value women who are naturally beautiful then a woman who dyes her hair and uses makeup will be less attractive to me. If you value men who want to be in healthy long-term relationships and possibly have kids then men who lie about those things will be less attractive to you. Who is more right to value one thing over the other? Neither of us. We simply have different values.
As a side note, I don't date women who wear nail polish or eyeliner or who have dyed their hair (I stop dating them whenever I see those Clairol boxes in the bathroom). There are plenty of Mediterranean women in my area and Chicago is right around the corner. Because my expenses are low I can afford to be choosy.
I don't really have a problem with that. In fact, I'm thrilled about that. I eat well and I exercise (I'll probably be riding my bike the 30 miles to work if gas hits $6.00/gal as some have predicted). I also come from a family that has its share of good-looking people. Also, some of those cougars do look good. I've been tempted several times to take the plunge. As for whether other guys are happy about it, that's not my problem. Maybe they should hop on a bike or go for a swim once in a while. If women want to compete with each other for the in-shape guys, let them. I'd say that the time for having women fight over us guys who aren't doctors, lawyers, and politicians is long overdue. If the fact that I can bike 25 miles in an hour means that women are going to start fighting over me, then I'm thrilled.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Well, that was easy.
So--jeana and Annie Hunter: you agree that you are at war with heterosexual males? Fine, now for the rest of the thread, the males who are party to it know who and what they're dealing with: their enemies. And that means, to my mind, that much of what has been discussed so far is beside the point. What Glenn's original post was about was not "avoiding marriage," but gender aparheid between two gender-defined political groups who are enemies of each other.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Oh man! Guys give the ladies a break. Stop being critical and... stupid.
Get to the point. We both have a problem. Men dont want to get married. We need solutions, not petty banter.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
It's amazing what women will admit to without saying. A couple of posts ago I had Jeana telling me that women were untrustworthy, just not quite in those words (blaming the man for trusting her instead).
What you need to remember is the fundamental truth of gender relations:
Men are evil
Women are bad
Once you grasp that, everything else is cake.
Like we did in the first place?
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Why do we need a solution to marriage?
Nobody, Glenn, Jeana, anyone... not one person has demonstrated what advantage there is for men in marriage. Marriage has been dead for men since the 1800's.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Demonspawn wrote;
"Why do we need a solution to marriage?
Nobody, Glenn, Jeana, anyone... not one person has demonstrated what advantage there is for men in marriage. Marriage has been dead for men since the 1800's."
You're right. We dont need a solution to marraige! As I've said frequently in this topic... We need to abolish it altogether.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I don't think I'm being entirely petty. I think that my main point is central to this entire discussion. Women don't have enough respect for the things that men value and men are voting with their feet. Jeana was quick to dismiss the value that I and many men place on physical appearances. Why? Because it's not important to her. The same could be said of anything else that men value (e.g. cooking, cleaning, sex on a regular basis, etc.) that women have decided aren't important, or aren't as important, to them. This is a problem that is wide spread, and certainly not limited to women. One of the problems, however, is that the solutions to this problem tend to cause the person offering the solution to be made out as some kind of misogynist. If I had a radio or television show and suggested that women could solve this problem by cooking, cleaning, and having sex with their husbands, and not in that particular order, I would labeled a shock jock. If I was an average person saying that to a woman I would probably not be seeing her for much longer. But guess what, for many men, those are the things that they value.
People don't have the right or power to change what another person values. They can either accept these men the way they are or move on but they can't change them. The problem is that women as a whole don't respect our values and thus don't cater to our needs.
You want a solution women? Here's one: cater to our needs. Do the things that we want you to do and don't complain about doing them. That's it in a nutshell. Take it or leave it. You want something from us? Tell us what it is. If we don't give it to you, stop marrying us and stop getting into relationships with us. What ever you do, don't try to change us.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
You know what ladies and gents?
Marraige isnt working for anyone. Man, women, or the children. THAT is the point here. The feminists lose because there are women that want meaningful marital relationships, which is quickly growing in conflict with men that see it as a potential bomb in their peverbial life, which they're not inclined to play with.
There is only one acceptable conspiracy theory for this in my opinion. Everyone loses but the lawyers.
Believe it or not, everyone I've seen in this board is on the same team, just different angles.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Demonspace,
I'm not sure about your timeline:. The timeline of marriage's demise seems to me considerably shorter, going back to the 1970s when women began to understand the "power" that anti-male RadFem gave them. Now, if you're into power--and all the sadomasochistic machinations that interest draws in its wake--then marriage is only licensed sexual sparring. That's what you get when you make male-female relations matters wholly of who controls what. And if that is the case, then of course marriage is dead as it can be, because no marriages ever take place in the first place on those grounds.
But for the moment taking divorce as the reference point: divorce is about seizure of personal property, something that war has always been about. If males no longer want to make themselves vulnerable to attack by females armed with laws lobbied into place by the likes of Catharine MacKinnon and her ilk, then they're not going to get married. And that, as I said earlier, is exactly what RadFems are after: gender apartheid. So it all comes down to feminist "lawfare" (war by way of legal attack) after all, since divorce laws are today precisely the spawn of that political agendum.
My notion of war is eminently nonmetaphorical: what women "empowered" by feminist-driven divorce laws are capable of doing the posts on Glenn Sacks' blogs infinitely demonstrate. What males have yet to discover is the need for developing a political power base in response, one that can coerce the political processes that have become anti-male weapons. Feminists did it by telling all political males that they were "sexists" if they didn't do what they demanded. Now is the time for males to organize their own political power lobbies. For one thing, it would shorten threads like this one, because then male energy would be channeled into doing something "constructive,--as what QuantumArtist seemed to request--and they would have less time and inclination to complain.
It all comes down to making feminist women feel political and legal pain. That's how war coerces. As I said, you want to do gender war, then by all means let's do gender war. And that means coercion by means of the threat to inflict pain. Go after the legislators, go after the judges, go after the legal profession. Call them out, make them embarassed, threaten to take away the public stipend they receive by holding public office.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Justin Bowmen wrote;
"You want a solution women? Here's one: cater to our needs. Do the things that we want you to do and don't complain about doing them. That's it in a nutshell. Take it or leave it. You want something from us? Tell us what it is. If we don't give it to you, stop marrying us and stop getting into relationships with us. What ever you do, don't try to change us."
Speak for yourself dude. There are many men that dont need "catered" to. Many of us are not looking for a kitchen cleaning servant. I can clean my own dishes thanks.
I want a life teammate. Just scared to look for one is the problem.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
"# QuantumArtist Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Oh man! Guys give the ladies a break. Stop being critical and... stupid.
Get to the point. We both have a problem. Men dont want to get married. We need solutions, not petty banter.
"
I couldn't agree more. There is absolutely nothing to be gained for a man to enter into marriage, except, loss of property, loss of income, loss of time with any children he may have.
Myself, I'm a rarity, a unicorn of sorts. I'm a dad with custody. But I couldn't have done it without the sheer mountain of evidence against my child's mother. I gained custody of my daughter as a single father just after her 1st birthday.
She's six years old now, and I still have 4k left to pay on that legal fight. Despite the 14 prior arrests for DV, despite the court obtained and prior evidence of mental illness, it almost bankrupted me.
Why did I ever date that woman?? Cuz she puts on a good front when you meet her. She lies about her past. I caught her poking holes in condoms and ended it there. Right there. And right about two weeks too late.
Do I recommend to my 16 year old son to seek out marriage ? Hell no. Not a chance. Not until a man cannot be destroyed on a whim by his supposed life partner.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 pm
It doesn't have to be cooking and cleaning. If you value something else that your girlfriend or wife refuses to do for you simply because she doesn't see why it's important then you will probably be upset. It's about women, and men for that matter, having enough respect for the things that their SOs value. It doesn't have to be something that women have to do for men. It could be allowing their men to do things that they want. It could be doing something with their men, even though they don't enjoy it as much (or at all).
I am a pretty good cook (I'm eating seafood-stuffed ravioli that I made as I sit here and type). I can clean for myself, do my laundry for myself, and pay my bills for myself. When my girlfriend does any of those things for me I appreciate it because I know that there are plenty of women who won't do those things just because they don't want to be perceived as some lowly domestic woman. I can also kayak by myself, take vacations to places that are interesting to me by myself, climb mountains by myself, try new foods by myself, and pleasure myself. All of those things are more fun (for me) when there is someone else enjoying those things with me (whether it be a friend, family member, or girlfriend). If I were to get married to the wrong woman, all of those things would be less fun or I might not be able to do them at all. Why take that risk?
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 pm
QuantumArtist said:
“You're right. We dont need a solution to marraige! As I've said frequently in this topic... We need to abolish it altogether.”
I agree.
PK said:
“Celia, here's some advice.”
Thanks – I enjoyed it!
PK asks:
“Why do you tell your daughter the same thing?”
Because I think marriage is an agreement between two individuals to be together - because they want to be together and it REALLY is no one else’s business. You don’t need to be married to be together and happy in a healthy relationship.
In this country “society” says that marriage is a state matter. I say up yours. Marriage here is nothing more than an open invitation for society to stick its nose into our private lives – no thanks, feel free to stick up well and truly up yours.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
My personal experience says that people change in relationships. Sometimes its the male and sometimes its the female. It's the subject of several bad jokes. Then you have love the social system, and its inherent unfairness, they watched the secondary like a hawk for my payment to the ex.
But, did they ever check on the children to be sure that they were mentally healthy and that she was living up to the agreement. HAHAHA that right this is Texas--our officials are child addicted. Males are always wrong!
If the IRS sweep down to take your children away, we would have a cow. But, if our Texas State child care agency does this and its ILLEGAL....well, that just fine.
And, the polygamist community has to go to parenting classes. By the way do our State Officials have to go to law school and learn the laws....again. Start with the Constitution please. That's right you don't have the right to reproduce. Oh, well....it just kids right.
You don't pay the State official to get it right when it cost $60,000 a day. Do the math 60 days....threating to take the children away permanently. There's a scare for the kids. Don't you love this. We used to call this kidnapping.....is that abusive. And, these are State officials....not just one....this went to the top, our Attorney General.
How about a parents bill of rights. It would stop the legislature and agencies which are child addicted. The social relationship and the political and power realities are in stark contrast.
If we, males, don't appear to have sensitivity to children that's because the system doesn't give fathers the right to have the children and the laws do not ask for accountablity from the primary care person. I still remember the way that we determined whether she would get the children or me. Nothing was more humiliating. I was a male. And, when my Texas lawyer told me that unless I could show her to be an alcoholic or drug addiction the judge I had no real chance to get the children. Ok, where's my rights....in the hands of the legislature.
Oh, please......a system that has no accountability. If the legislature is in session check for your wallets, please. The body that got it wrong and keeps it wron. And, its easy to sell.....I prevented child abuse.......by separating the polygamist children and threating to permanently take them away. The system is broken, it can't be fixed.
There is a real problem with our social systems and equal accountability.
The message is simple for males do not get married in the US and do not have children in the US. Just look at the caucasion birth rate. We, males, did it to ourselves......all in the name of the child. Its easy to get child addicted. In theory it looks so good, in practicallity can't be done.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Justin,
“Jeana was quick to dismiss the value that I and many men place on physical appearances. Why? Because it's not important to her.”
No, Justin, I was questioning why you thought wearing makeup and nail polish was dishonest, MORE DISHONEST than not being honest about having a vasectomy.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
As for whether other guys are happy about it, that's not my problem.
SNERK! Loving this one, for all the obvious reasons.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Olustee:
“So--jeana and Annie Hunter: you agree that you are at war with heterosexual males?”
I will not speak for Annie, but I think she would agree with me that we are not at war with any of you. If we were, we would not be here. I don’t like war.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Celia wrote;
"Because I think marriage is an agreement between two individuals to be together - because they want to be together and it REALLY is no one else’s business. You don’t need to be married to be together and happy in a healthy relationship.
In this country “society” says that marriage is a state matter. I say up yours. Marriage here is nothing more than an open invitation for society to stick its nose into our private lives – no thanks, feel free to stick up well and truly up yours."
*CHEER*
I'm so glad its not just me that see this. Why is the government prying into our lives saying you can only be with one person, or of opposite sex. Why is it that seperation of church and state doesnt apply to this?
Marital law is a money sink and nothing more. We can do without it.
Spread the word!
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
QA says Speak for yourself dude. There are many men that dont need "catered" to. Many of us are not looking for a kitchen cleaning servant. I can clean my own dishes thanks.
I want a life teammate. Just scared to look for one is the problem.
I second that! I've watched far FAR too many friends get destroyed by divorce. I've watched my father, two brothers get destroyed by divorce.
When I divorced my wife, (my two older childrens mother), I was lucky. She just left. No bitter divorce, no protracted custody fight. My youngest daughter's mother definitely made up for that. (Sorry ladies of the group here, but I find it hard to remain married to someone who leaves me for another man).
She was in such a hurry to file for child support, despite being as well employed as I, that she tried to file while pregnant. I paid for her prenatal care, I paid for the delivery, I paid for two nurseries, and I paid for a DNA test as soon as my daughter was born.
Personally, I think marriage and conception of children should be as hard to obtain as divorce and custody fights are now. Perhaps that would erode this lunacy called marriage, and make it a heck of a lot harder for someone to just walk on a whim.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm
So--jeana and Annie Hunter: you agree that you are at war with heterosexual males
Yes. It is my mission in life.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Also boys...I would like to point out that one of you is looking at suicide. Perhaps you could bag your self -absorbed nonsense long enough to give the man some support?
Jackasses.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Jeana wrote:
"No, Justin, I was questioning why you thought wearing makeup and nail polish was dishonest, MORE DISHONEST than not being honest about having a vasectomy."
I dont know why anyone would lie about this anyway. It would only matter to women wanting to have children of their own, and there are always other options.
Also, I definetly dont see makeup as "dishonest". OMG talk about scraping the bottom of the arguement barrel! Whered you dig up that refuse of an arguement Justin? Frankly, I think most women look MUCH better without makeup, but thats just me. But hey! If they want to put it on, its their face!
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
The original dismissal that I'm referring to was in your 7:48 comment:
It doesn't matter why it matters. What matters is that it does matter. Being dishonest about something that matters to a man, however trivial you may think it is, is no more or less dishonest than a man being dishonest about something that matters to a woman. What you think about what a man values is not going to make that man value that thing any less. I tried to make that point as clear as possible. Also, I don't think I said that a woman who wears makeup is being more dishonest than a man who lies about having a vasectomy. If I did, I apologize. Let me make this very clear. A woman who lies about something that a man values is no more or less dishonest than a man who lies about something that a woman values. Each person's values are their own and ought to be respected.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Annie Hunter wrote;
"Also boys...I would like to point out that one of you is looking at suicide. Perhaps you could bag your self -absorbed nonsense long enough to give the man some support?
Jackasses."
I must have missed that post? Sadly, I can only say he's not the only one walking that rope. I cling to a hope that my experience will one day bring change. One day perhaps, the things I've experienced can be eliminated because I didnt go down without a fight. I cling to a hope people might learn and listen to what I have to say and heed my warnings.
Everyone that is married is living under a false assumtion that their marraige is an enforceable contract. I assure you that if you are married now, it can be violated via bigamy through Los Vegas as easy as you can buy coke at a 7-11 and you cant do anything about it. I know because its happened to me.
I say abolish the marital law. Its messed up and they dont intend to enforce it anyway.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Speaking as a geek, I can say that my prospects were dismal in the first place. I'm certainly not a pickup artist. Reliable, hard working, trustworthy, respectful - the traits that have earned me the respect of my peers are not worth a damn in the dating market, where flash, fun, danger, and bling are the name of the game.
So, it's been pretty liberating. I've hit this realization a few times that I've been wasting my time looking for a relationship. Much like you can be a dick when you're driving a crappy car, when you realize you're pretty undesireable in the first place, not blowing a whole lot of time and effort to kiss ass and flirt, or worring about the impression you're making is a relief. You can be as rude and selfish as women are. I can be as discourteous while driving, or not opening doors, or fixing things.
(case in point - my friend is selling his house. I'll help him tile, paint, fix the deck, fix the fence, move, pave a new drive way, etc. A woman I know asked if I'd use my truck to help her move. Since I know that there's no way I can expect any reciprocity, I was convieniently busy that weekend. She can call the cutie she's seeing with the beemer, if he's not hung over)
My favorite restaraunt has become a place called Fogo de Chao. WIth a $45 base admission, it's not some place I'd take a date. (I cannot understand why some bring their skinny, dainty girlfriends - the salad bar is nice, but not THAT nice.) I go with friends who don't need me to entertain them and stimulate their minds while we're enjoying 15 different kinds of meat in a continuous parade. "More, Sir?", "Oh Yes! OM NOM NOM NOM"
I think I've spent most of my adult life lonely, or, in rare moments, wishing I was.
I understand the thoughts of suicide during a divorce (yeah, I'm sure someone will be encouraging me to keep at it until I succeed). I was doing everything I was supposed to in good faith. Didn't matter. Didn't count. Nobody (in the family law system) gave a damn about the truth, especially where it diverged from the comfortable, tried and true formula of abused housewife / bad violent pervert husband.
Sure, there may not be a majority of women out there who will set out to ruin their spouse in a divorce. The problem is that any woman CAN, and no one knows how their betrothed is going to react when she goes to war. Even if she doesn't have that intent at first, she's got a pile of divorced friends, a good many attorneys, and a legal system that encourages it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Again, that's your opinion, which you're entitled to. However, I only like brunettes. I don't date redheads or blondes. I hate it when I find out that a woman has dyed her hair. I also only date women with olive skin or Hispanics. To me, women with pasty white skin are disgusting. That's a personal preference of mine. I've dated women who went tanning who later stopped going to the tanning salon and let their skin resume its natural hue. You may not think this matters, but I do. Those are just a couple of the things that matter to me and your inability to, or refusal to, understand that is not going to make me change my mind on those things. Are there other things that are important to me? Yes. You may not agree with those things either. I'm not going to stop thinking that those things are important just because you think that they are silly. I might think that the things that you value are silly. Should you stop believing that they are important just because I think they are silly?
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Philip L. Caouette
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
He is the one Annie is referring to.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Jeana Said:
"Ok. So you have no claim on our babies."
."
rondog:
I've never read anything so foolish in my life. women do not make babies on there own, Jeana. Sometimes, men even help deliver them.
Also,don't forget that mens' sperm is so important that it controls the sex of the baby intirely.
Annie Hunter said:
"I would like to see all sexist men denied anything that a woman has produced and delivered."
If that embargo were to take place, men would be affected very little. What Olustee is calling for, would be devestating to women, though.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Justin Bowen Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Is not telling a woman who wants to have kids about my vasectomy more dishonest than her painting her face and dressing up in more sexy or elegant clothes than she normally would do? I don't think so.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Justin Bowman wrote;
"Again, that's your opinion, which you're entitled to. However, I only like brunettes. I don't date redheads or blondes. I hate it when I find out that a woman has dyed her hair. I also only date women with olive skin or Hispanics. To me, women with pasty white skin are disgusting. That's a personal preference of mine. I've dated women who went tanning who later stopped going to the tanning salon and let their skin resume its natural hue. You may not think this matters, but I do. Those are just a couple of the things that matter to me and your inability to, or refusal to, understand that is not going to make me change my mind on those things. Are there other things that are important to me? Yes. You may not agree with those things either. I'm not going to stop thinking that those things are important just because you think that they are silly. I might think that the things that you value are silly. Should you stop believing that they are important just because I think they are silly?"
Thats fine for you! I like olive skin and dark hair too. I like pasty skin too... Hell, at this point, I'd settle with a nice girl that takes care of herself and wont destroy my life!
Your initial statement was on behalf of all mankind however. Please be sure that when spouting personal opinions, not to spout them as my opinions too. Much appreciated.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Justin,
"To me, women with pasty white skin are disgusting."
Ok, so if we are born with very light skin and we put powder on to be a little darker and lotion with color added to have a little darker skin, that still disgusts you. So we can't win. Sorry I'm disgusting. Good thing you can't see me! My light skin would blind you.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Offended_Dad wrote;
"Sure, there may not be a majority of women out there who will set out to ruin their spouse in a divorce. The problem is that any woman CAN, and no one knows how their betrothed is going to react when she goes to war. Even if she doesn't have that intent at first, she's got a pile of divorced friends, a good many attorneys, and a legal system that encourages it."
Aye! Now thats the rub isn't it?
I may wind up loving someone dearly, but if I marry them, I end up giving them a peverbial gun to my heart. She can pull the trigger at any time. How will I know if she ever will? Point is, she could.
Having had it happen, and being DEEPLY emotionally wounded from it... I dont know if I can hand that "gun" to anyone again. I just cant risk it.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:07 am
I completely forgot about that. I'm going to do something really mean that I heard someone do to another person (who, as far as I know, has not killed himself).
If you're still reading this, think about this: how will your kids feel when they hear that you killed yourself? Imagine what their faces will look like and what they will feel when they hear the news that their father killed himself. Imagine how they will feel for the rest of their lives after you've killed yourself. Is it worth it to you to cause them to suffer just so you can end your suffering? Is having money and things more important to you than being able to share in your kids' lives? If the answers to those questions are yes, then have fun. If the answer to those questions are no, then perhaps you ought to get some counseling and talk to your ex and let her know what she's doing to you.
By the way, if someone is nosy enough and didn't care about an individual's right to make his or her own life choices they could plow through the archives on this site to find out more information and give the information to the police. Some states are required by law to follow up on such information and keep tabs on such people. Just a suggestion.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Actually, you would be affected by very much. Word has it that prehistoric women are credited with the discovery, invention, production and delivery of ...agricultural foodstuffs, textiles, and medicines.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:09 am
And probably the wheel.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Jeana - Justin's not talking about dressing up in nice clothes, he's talking about the deceptive things, like pushup bras/padding, dying hair, colored contacts, etc.
However, I do have to say that not revealing that you're sterile (male or female, and weather you know it or not) is grounds for annulment in Texas, and likely other states as well.
So, I would have to state that it's a minor ethical lapse (white lie), until a proposal is issued. Certainly far less than not disclosing an STD.
There's a lot of things that people should be compelled to disclose. Since feminists are all concerned about IMBRA, I propose that filing for a marriage license includes a mandatory background check on both parties, including a report on every time the police have been called out to their residence, and a mandatory test / exam / report of any mental issues. That might have saved me and my family a lot of grief, by not marrying someone who's freaking nuts.
Invasive? Someone needs to make an informed decision where child welfare is a likely concern. If the court can order a mandatory psych eval and criminal background check, it should be done BEFORE there's kids and property and tens of thousand in legal bills. The system being what it is demands a more pro-active stance.
Unfortunately, the state and the legal profession have an interest in crazy people making babies. As the Demotivators poster says - "If you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the situation".
June 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Jeana to Justin;
""To me, women with pasty white skin are disgusting."
Ok, so if we are born with very light skin and we put powder on to be a little darker and lotion with color added to have a little darker skin, that still disgusts you. So we can't win. Sorry I'm disgusting. Good thing you can't see me! My light skin would blind you."
I'm inclined to agree. This may be how he truely feels, but so being allow me to be the first to ask...
How petty can you be dude?
Seriously Justin! There is much to be said about a girl that takes care of herself, but skin color? Hair color? Words like disgusting?
Allow me to say what the women may not want to say but I know are thinking... you're a pig and a racist from the sound of it.
Women in any shape, color, religion, are not disgusting. They arent our enemies either. They are the mothers of our present and future children.
I really think you need to adjust your priorities man.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Actually, you would be affected by very much. Word has it that prehistoric women are credited with the discovery, invention, production and delivery of ...agricultural foodstuffs, textiles, and medicines.
And definitely the ambush divorce.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Again, interesting that the only people who cared about a potential suicide were Glenn, (taking immediate action) and a coupla feminists. Why is that...do ya'll think?
June 4th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Jeana has a Homer Simpson moment...
“I don’t understand what your first paragraph is about. You initially said that women who put makeup on are dishonest. And then you said looks are important. So I don’t understand.’
Jeana doesn’t understand- what a shock. Just because looks are important does not make it okay to lie about them. Lets say that a woman thinks poetic skill is important in a man, and then finds that the poems he’s been reading her are not his own but Lord Byron’s. Would you support him if he said “But you say poetic skill is important, yet you’re angry that I passed off Byron’s poems as my own. I don’t understand, honey”
Understand now, Madam? Or will it always be a case of “She walks in darkness, like the night...” with you?
“Ok. So you have no claim on our babies.”
How incredibly arrogant of you . “Our babies”. Like it or not, mom may have had the longer part of it but without dad you wouldn’t be here. Like it or not we were all produced by both sexes. You cant deny us something that isn’t your product any more than it is ours.
Annie Hunter Says:
“I would like to see all sexist men denied anything that a woman has produced and delivered.”
Im not sure sexist men have any great need for Liquid Paper.
.
I think the girls are peeved because the primaries are over and the Hill has gone down in flames. Its nice to know that even if the white women and the elderly in the Democratic party cant see evil when it hisses in their face, at least the young and the blacks aren’t so stupid.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Indeed Jeana...if I read the plan right...all men would be running around naked, and the question of who has the biggest penis could be resolved without violence. I think Oulstee's idea is a win-win...
Women get clothes, food, medicine and the kids...and general peace. The men get everything else. Another win-win.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:22 am
You don't have to take it personally. I'm sure there are plenty of wonderful women out there who I'll never date simply because I am not turned by pasty-white skin. I'm sure that there are plenty of women who don't like white guys under 6 feet tall who I'll never be able to date because I'm not 6 feet tall. I wish I was 6 feet tall, I'm almost 6 feet tall, but since I'm not I accept who I am as I am and life goes on. You could be the most honest, trustworthy, interesting woman in the world, but we would never go on a date (supposing you ever did divorce your husband) simply because I wouldn't be able to get past the color of your skin. That's just the way that I am.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Annie Hunter postulated;
"Again, interesting that the only people who cared about a potential suicide were Glenn, (taking immediate action) and a coupla feminists. Why is that...do ya'll think?"
Well, I cant speak for the other guys...
Personally, I dont know what to say to the guy. I walk that rope every day. Its short lived, but every day I wonder why I cling to life. There are only 2 things I cling to now.
First, is the hope that one day my daughter will know the full truth and understand I tried to handle things honestly, in the only way I knew how. I truly hope she'll understand and that she'll love me.
The other is that one day I might be able to take my highly unusual situation and use it to bring about meaningful change to others. If I could help save families with what I know, if I could keep others from hurting so much... If I could bring about the abolition of injust and unconstitutional marital law, bringing religious and relationship freedom to our people... If I could help form preventative custodial laws, rather then reactive ones...
If I could even get people to THINK about it... all the hurt would have REASON.
Yeah, think I'll stick around for that.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:25 am
I would like to see an internal blockade, or embargo: no feminist female receives any good or service regarding which a heterosexual male has either (1) invented it; (2) produced it; (3) delivered it. Embargos are a standard war tactic. They want a war with males, they should be faced with a standard consequence of doing so: retaliation.
MC...apparently you missed the word "either."
Please tell me how a man has ever produced or delivered the offspring?
June 4th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Michael C.,
Sorry you can’t tell I’m wearing pink nail polish. Sorry you can’t see my dark roots. Sorry you think that my legs are naturally smooth and not actually waxed.
Sorry you think that is a lie.
As for the “babies” comment, it came after a diatribe about, typically, how bad we females are. Specifically, Olustee said: “I would like to see an internal blockade, or embargo: no feminist female receives any good or service regarding which a heterosexual male has either (1) invented it; (2) produced it; (3) delivered it. And so spare me the female whines. Deal with the situation that you people have created, or shut up."
Men contribute to babymaking but didn’t invent, produce or deliver them. They are an important part, of course, but since you don’t actually do (1), (2), or (3), you can’t have the babies.
It was an attempt at humor for a humorless man.
And FYI, Hillary Clinton and Barack both did great. They both were neck and neck. It was a tremendous victory for both. And I’m very proud that a woman went so far in a man’s game. Down in flames? You mean like Giuliani, Huckabee, Ron Paul, etc.? Like them?
She held on for quite awhile, Mike.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:27 am
You don't have to take it personally. I'm sure there are plenty of wonderful women out there who I'll never date simply because I am not turned by pasty-white skin.
Scot-Irish-Nordic-English bred women everywhere are destroyed!
June 4th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Annie Hunter wrote;
"Indeed Jeana...if I read the plan right...all men would be running around naked, and the question of who has the biggest penis could be resolved without violence. I think Oulstee's idea is a win-win...
Women get clothes, food, medicine and the kids...and general peace. The men get everything else. Another win-win."
LOL, maybe then women would come to ME...
Sorry... its immature I admit it! I couldnt resist! lol
June 4th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Annie, you are so funny.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Justin:
“You could be the most honest, trustworthy, interesting woman in the world, but we would never go on a date (supposing you ever did divorce your husband) simply because I wouldn't be able to get past the color of your skin. That's just the way that I am.”
Well, I guess at least you are honest.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
There are two fundamental problems with an american marriage, one is the simple fact that as soon as you say I do you become part of the state machinery. The state seemingly has a great interest in taking it's pound of flesh, if the marriage is with children then one of the parties becomes a signed up involuntary socialist with no 'out'. Other than those who take their lives (males) in their tens of thousands each year as a last chivalrous act but foolish nevertheless, yet who can blame them.
The choice of the judiciary championing females is simply the fact that the avalanche of techniques used to perform what is an effective parendectomy against a father or male, females would never withstand. The denaturizing of relationships is a technique used by the bolcheviks, as with many such formed societies, as are the results.
What men have learned is simple, you become property at the whim of both the state and the spouse or else ! Now who in their right mind would want to sign up for that.
We can but conclude in the cold light of day there has to be something bigger going on, attorneys are predictable. I think egocentric mentally retarded sadistic social dwarfs with a penchant for the green stuff would best describe their demeanour, the issue is they are predictable (worse some grow up and occupy the greater proportion of legislative bodies in each state), as are women, as are their female bodied male leaders. They are as stalin was credited with stating, 'Useful idiots'.
Even men are predictable, so even though any human claiming active grey matter in thought perhaps occasionaly gets an idea it doesn't often congeal into something tangible. Psyops techniques are very similar to that used and orchestrated by our favorite black robed bench warrior's, but only under the auspice of state administrative power. Has anyone made any sense for all this, it is and will be part of our nations downfall, anyone any ideas. Anecdote and individualism will no longer suffice, as will the price we all will pay if we continue to relate only at a basic level, with individual agendas.
Any male worth his salt should have at least read the book written by Stephen Baskerville, 'Taken into Custody' if it were up to me I would have this as required reading for all males.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Whos trying to kill themselves? I didnt see that, i was being distracted by the screeching of harpies.
Any way, in case the man is serious, he and anyone else contemplating the big sleep should keep this in mind- i guarantee you that a spilt second before that bullet entered Kurt Cobain, he thought two things, the first was "Uh, this may not have been a good idea after all" and the second was "Uh,oh. Too late now." Temporary problem with a permanent solution equals bad idea.
“Again, interesting that the only people who cared about a potential suicide were Glenn, (taking immediate action) and a coupla feminists. Why is that...do ya'll think?”
Interesting that the only people to use this man’s comments about suicide to score points against the other side were the feminists. Why is that..do ya'll think?
Shame, madam, shame.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:32 am
QuantumArtist,
Thank you for the visual! I always like to picture people who post, and I know how I will picture you.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Look, I'm not suggesting that we take all of women with pasty-white skin out and burn them in a big bonfire. I am simply turned off by the color of some women's skin. I'm also turned off by morbidly obese women. In fact, I find them physically repulsive. Do I think they ought to be shipped off to some far away land? No. But I don't have to find them attractive or not say that I find them repulsive. If things that I have little or no control over make me small minded, then so be it (some people can't help being attracted to the same sex. Does that make them small minded?).
I'll say it again, a woman with pasty-white skin or a woman who is morbidly obese may be the most wonderful, intelligent, interesting woman on the face of the earth, but I'll never date her. If she ran for president and her politics agree with mine, maybe I'd vote for her (I think it'd be great to have a libertarian woman in office). If she were a boss with great ideas, maybe I'd support her. As a man who dates women, I don't have to look at them as potential girlfriends. Does it bother me that you think I'm a racist? No, because I know I'm not a racist. Does it bother me that you think I'm petty? No. I'm sure there are things that you think are important that I would find petty. Do I care that you think I'm a pig? No. There are women who enjoy my bluntness. I am my own person and make my own decisions.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Jeana wrote;
"Thank you for the visual! I always like to picture people who post, and I know how I will picture you."
*blush*
LOL
June 4th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Michael,
"Interesting that the only people to use this man’s comments about suicide to score points against the other side were the feminists. Why is that..do ya'll think?
Shame, madam, shame."
And yet she is right. And you cannot answer. She also said Glenn. Which means that she contacted Glenn as well as I did.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Interesting that the only people to use this man’s comments about suicide to score points against the other side were the feminists. Why is that..do ya'll think?
Shame, madam, shame.
So, any words of support for Phillip? YET?
June 4th, 2008 at 12:38 am
http://www.thetextileguide.com/tghist.htm
June 4th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Annie Hunter Says:
Annie Hunter blthered...
"Actually, you would be affected by very much. Word has it that prehistoric women are credited with the discovery, invention, production and delivery of ...agricultural foodstuffs, textiles, and medicines."
I'll have evidence for this outrageously anti-male comment or you'll never hear the end of it. Evidence -or the Hunter will find herself the hunted.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Justin wrote (reasonably well I might add);
"Look, I'm not suggesting that we take all of women with pasty-white skin out and burn them in a big bonfire. I am simply turned off by the color of some women's skin. I'm also turned off by morbidly obese women. In fact, I find them physically repulsive. Do I think they ought to be shipped off to some far away land? No. But I don't have to find them attractive or not say that I find them repulsive. If things that I have little or no control over make me small minded, then so be it (some people can't help being attracted to the same sex. Does that make them small minded?).
I'll say it again, a woman with pasty-white skin or a woman who is morbidly obese may be the most wonderful, intelligent, interesting woman on the face of the earth, but I'll never date her. If she ran for president and her politics agree with mine, maybe I'd vote for her (I think it'd be great to have a libertarian woman in office). If she were a boss with great ideas, maybe I'd support her. As a man who dates women, I don't have to look at them as potential girlfriends. Does it bother me that you think I'm a racist? No, because I know I'm not a racist. Does it bother me that you think I'm petty? No. I'm sure there are things that you think are important that I would find petty. Do I care that you think I'm a pig? No. There are women who enjoy my bluntness. I am my own person and make my own decisions."
Well, the laws of attraction are different for everyone I guess. You're right too, attraction has nothing to do with racism, so I regress and apologize. I see your point that our opinions dont matter on this topic, and that makes sense to me since your opinions wouldnt change who I'm attracted to either.
I dont always like your angle, but you stand by your opinions. Admirable.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:41 am
To Annie Hunter who wrote;
"So, any words of support for Phillip? YET?"
Written something twice now...
June 4th, 2008 at 12:42 am
"So, any words of support for Phillip? YET?"
What do you think i meant by saying Kurt Cobain regreted it at the last moment? That he shouild go for it? Another feminist who lies about what men have or havent said. And of course, this does not address your willingnesss to selfishly use the mans predicament to score points. You, madam, are a poor excuse for a human being.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:43 am
No shot at you, Slim. I'm even thinking, that had we been blessed with a daughter or two...
June 4th, 2008 at 12:46 am
I wonder if anyone would think that it's ok NOT to date someone with light skin but not ok to look for a date with a good job. Oh, actually most everyone here.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Lessee...screeching...poor excuse for a human being...and threats...
I'm just quivering at your overwhelming manliness, Michael.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:46 am
http://schoolscience.rice.edu/duker/garden/gardenhis.html
June 4th, 2008 at 12:47 am
I'd also be ok with giving Quantum a daughter to marry. But I only have a 7 year old boy.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Michael Claymore who wrote;
"What do you think i meant by saying Kurt Cobain regreted it at the last moment? That he shouild go for it? Another feminist who lies about what men have or havent said. And of course, this does not address your willingnesss to selfishly use the mans predicament to score points. You, madam, are a poor excuse for a human being."
Easy there tiger! She hasnt seen the replies I think. Just like I didnt see the suicide post. This thread is clipping pretty fast. Give her the benefit of the doubt please.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Honestly, I simply don't care enough about interfering in the life of another person to do much about it. I generally don't help others unless they ask for help or unless I can see a clear and pressing need (donating canned goods to homeless shelters and churches, giving books to the library, etc.).
If that's a more wide-ranging question, I suppose it might be because women are nurturers and herd-minded and men are more individualistic. The desire of women to help people, whether they have any business interfering in another person's life or not, must be strong one (though men certainly also have that urge).
Also, I have mixed feelings about suicide. On the one hand, I can understand that some people are facing problems that they see no way out of and thus think that suicide is a good alternative to facing those problems. On the other hand, I can't see myself pursuing that alternative to problems because I simply like myself too much and have a great deal of confidence in my ability to overcome anything (I suppose if I caught brain cancer or AIDS or was paralyzed from the neck down I might choose suicide, but short of those kinds of life-altering situations I can't think of anything that would cause me to choose suicide over hard work and determination (whether it be simply to overcome some hardship or to live a better life than someone just to show them what they missed out on). To me, the idea of suicide is an odd one. Death, and what follows, is something that all people are curious about.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am
And if the best you feminists can do in terms of what women produce is babies- which you merely co-produce- and supposed achievements buried so deep in the mists of time that no-one knows what sex invented them, then youre going to be even easier to take down than our male loons. I must run- i have an IT class. I suppose women invented computers as well, back in the pre-history days, from flint. And here's another matriarchal theory for you -they invented binary, based on the fact that they have two breasts.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Jeana who wrote;
"I'd also be ok with giving Quantum a daughter to marry. But I only have a 7 year old boy."
Thanks, I'll pass... lol
June 4th, 2008 at 12:55 am
MichaelClaymore wrote;
"And if the best you feminists can do in terms of what women produce is babies- which you merely co-produce- and supposed achievements buried so deep in the mists of time that no-one knows what sex invented them, then youre going to be even easier to take down than our male loons. I must run- i have an IT class. I suppose women invented computers as well, back in the pre-history days, from flint. And here's another matriarchal theory for you -they invented binary, based on the fact that they have two breasts."
Who cares? The human brain is an amazing thing. Man and women are equally capable of contemplating great things for the progression of the species. I think yours is a bit wrapped up in conspiracy and "us versus them" to really do anything great. Seriously man, let it go.
Its time for solutions. Not finger pointing extremism.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:57 am
When you put all of this into perspective it is a bit sad. Here we are talking about why men and women aren't getting married, why I don't like women with pasty-white skin, and why feminists are evil when a man is talking about killing himself. I guess those horrible feminists do deserve a few brownie points for caring enough about a fellow human being enough to want to interfere in his life for his benefit.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Justin:
"Honestly, I simply don't care enough about interfering in the life of another person to do much about it. I generally don't help others unless they ask for help or unless I can see a clear and pressing need "
You're very young, aren't you, Justin? (Is someone saying he wants to go over a cliff a pressing need? I think so!!).
"women are nurturers and herd-minded and men are more individualistic. The desire of women to help people, whether they have any business interfering in another person's life or not, must be strong one (though men certainly also have that urge)."
What is this with the women are herd-minded? I saw that as I was browsing thru last week's comments. Are you calling us cows? Because, I guess, we make milk? Ok, I guess. But I don't like being thought of as a cow. And yes, I think women do want to help out even if it looks like we're interfering in someone else's life. We do want to fix things and people and make people happy. But it cannot always be done. And it is hard to accept.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:00 am
And if the best you feminists can do in terms of what women produce is babies- which you merely co-produce
Bwaa ha ha ha.
and supposed achievements buried so deep in the mists of time that no-one knows what sex invented them,
Intellectual cowardice...google if you dare!
I suppose women invented computers as well, back in the pre-history days, from flint.
Well no...but we got kevlar and the inkjet? printer...
June 4th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Annie Postulated;
"Well no...but we got kevlar and the inkjet? printer..."
That and my grandmother made the most sinful brownies ever. Never seen the like since.
Brownies pwn all other inventions!
Everyone loses, grandma wins again!
June 4th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Thanks Justin...I went so far as to do a people search, hoping for I don't know what.
Guys, ya gotta care about your feloows. You just have to...or the cause become a sad joke.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Quantum,
I hope you have the recipe. Women like a man who can bake. Anything chocolate.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Again, Annie, yes. I agree with everything she says.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Jeana wrote;
"I hope you have the recipe. Women like a man who can bake. Anything chocolate."
OMG I wish I had more time with her and my grandfather. They were really the only people that really cared about us kids growing up.
I remember her brownies being so good (20 years later) that I'd never give up the recipie even if I made a couple million off it!
Besides, they'd probably decide that MSG and and some other sweetener was better anyway... and completely alter it so its more addictive then crack cocaine... and in the end, not taste like her bownies at all.
/sigh
June 4th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Twenty-seven actually. First, I think we all need to realize that he did say that he was going to see his son through college. His son could be grade school or almost done with college. I don't mean to make light of this but I think we do have a couple days.
Second, when people are suffering because of their own actions and don't ask for help, I don't see much of a need to get involved. I generally don't help people unless they ask for help or have had a bad situation thrust upon them. There are many more people who need help and are more deserving of help (people whose countries have been washed away tsunamis or whose countries are leveled by earthquakes, people who are innocent victims of crime, and kids are some of the people I try to help). I see suicide as something akin to an addiction. It's tough to see people go through it, but in the end, you can't help someone who doesn't want it. Glenn may call the police on this guy to try to get him some help, but if this guy doesn't want it then no amount of badgering or help will help him.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:17 am
I understand the suicidal thoughts. I'm sure nearly everyone here does. I struggle with it every day, I know what you mean.
All I can say is, I haven't seen any evidence it gets better, but I believe it can. How can it not?
Hang in there.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Factory wrote;
"I understand the suicidal thoughts. I'm sure nearly everyone here does. I struggle with it every day, I know what you mean.
All I can say is, I haven't seen any evidence it gets better, but I believe it can. How can it not?
Hang in there."
Yes. Please! It can change. We have to let go of the blame game though. The enemy is not women. Its not even feminists. Its the system that works against everyone. There is a better way, and if we work toward that mutual ground, we'll all see a better day.
Purpose man. Find it. Believe in it. Then direct it towards an equitable solution. It will help you hang on.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:25 am
I'm inclined to think that a public posting on a heavily frequented board using his own name is as loud a cry for help as can be made, Justin.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:27 am
I was referring to what you suggested in the latter part of this comment, though women do make milk. :p
Anyways, this is enough typing for me for one day. Good luck finding that guy.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:29 am
I couldn't possibly care less who invented the friggin' wheel. What the hell is wrong with you people? Marital breakdown is the issue here folks, and it's an important one. This is the reason why politicians are letting the floodgates open to Mexico (for example)...replacement birth rates. Marriage became a bum deal long ago, men left the idea behind in increasing numbers (logarithmically increasing, ergo the current "sudden" shift), not enough kids are being born to replace retiring (and dying) workers, so immigration is the "answer". As is subtle encouragement of "Single Mothers by Choice".
Google "Frankfurt School".
This was done ON PUROSE, as part of a larger strategy. Marital breakdown has been a central tenet of feminism since it's inception. The question one must ask is, "Why?".
June 4th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Oh for God's sake, stop using the suicidal declarations of a total stranger to shame the men on this board. Have you no shame yourself?
June 4th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Oh for God's sake, stop using the suicidal declarations of a total stranger to shame the men on this board.
You shame yourselves.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Factory wrote;
"Oh for God's sake, stop using the suicidal declarations of a total stranger to shame the men on this board. Have you no shame yourself?"
Hey now! I dont think she was shaming anyone. I think she was making a point that... uh... hey, some guy just posted about suicide on our board doesnt anyone care?
All I can say is that I do care, but I dont know what I can do about it without even an email address and possibly an alias forum name.
Though, now that she mentons it, I will try one thing...
June 4th, 2008 at 1:50 am
http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/abpi/history/history2.html
June 4th, 2008 at 1:56 am
OK, here it is all you suicidal thinking people. Here's how I get through every day (so far), and it might work for you....
You don't know me. If I off myself tonight, you might feel a twinge of remorse at being rude on a post or something, but ultimately there's about ZERO impact on your life if I were to do so. Same as the average guy on the street. In other words, there's no legacy.
I can either off myself in some anonymous way, OR, I can work towards a positive development. A change for the better. And best of all, since I'd already decided to off myself, it's all "bonus" time. I can do what I feel is right without fear of the repercussions because really, I should by rights be dead right now.
So, if you're feeling like there's no reason to go on, no point, remember this....now you're free to do the things that make history, since you have nothing to lose. Why squander that opportunity on sleeping pills or a $2.00 bullet?
June 4th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Hey, was the poster Philip L. Caouette? I read that post, didnt see any suicidal declaration there. All I saw was some justifiable anger for a system that disrupted his dreams of a happy family.
Or do I have the wrong guy?
June 4th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I married and divorced. I accumulated quite a much before my marriage. My wife came in with 5K in her pocket. I loved my wife. I loved to life with her. One day she decided that grass is greener on the other side of the fence. After six year of marriage, she left with 1/2 of what I owned. Our union produced no children.
Now, 10 years after my divorce I am on "top of the world" again. I am quite successful at what I am doing. I am also being pretty well reimbursed for my knowledge and every days efforts. I love to run my business again, people around me love me too. I have beautiful house, cars, garden, take 2-3 overseas vacations every year. For the last 10 years, I made it a habit to spend my Xmas holidays in Hawaii - every year with different woman.
I would never, never, get married again. Why should I do such a stupid thing ?! I love every day of my life. And as far as the cleaning duties goes ? Well, I hired a maid !
June 4th, 2008 at 2:33 am
So, that's what they call it (going on strike). I don't call my decision that. I just state I'm staying single until death do I part. It's a personal decision. I am a single parent, and love my children to death. My brother says its because I over studdied relationships and human behavior. I spend many hours helping others with relationship issues. One person I helped said my decision must be based on always dealing with the worse of the worse in helping others with their problems. I don't see it that way. I see it as a well thought out decision and my obligations to raise my children in a happy home. I also choose not to date, nor have any physical contact. I should have become a priest. lol
I'm not against marriage. I am against how people treat other people. Quite often people treat others outside their home better and with more respect than they treat those they claim to love. The word love and marriage have lost value. It's something people do today then repeat when a small conflict arrises. Government issues and family court has gone overboard with their policies and laws. My children and I have actually look at other countries to relocate too, because I want them to have an environment where the government treats their citizens as being important contributors to society, not important contributors to line the pockets of those who already don't suffer financially. Integrity and personal character are of the past. Corruption and personal gain has overcome making decisions which are for the benefit to all. Laws are being passed which "sound good at the time" yet the facts of the damage they have the possability of causing are not verified.
The world is going to hell quickly. It could be turned around easier than those in power want to admit. First, many need to bend over and gently remove their heads from their anal cavity, and join us in reality.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:04 am
Single 'n' (very) happy wrote;
"I married and divorced. I accumulated quite a much before my marriage. My wife came in with 5K in her pocket. I loved my wife. I loved to life with her. One day she decided that grass is greener on the other side of the fence. After six year of marriage, she left with 1/2 of what I owned. Our union produced no children.
Now, 10 years after my divorce I am on "top of the world" again. I am quite successful at what I am doing. I am also being pretty well reimbursed for my knowledge and every days efforts. I love to run my business again, people around me love me too. I have beautiful house, cars, garden, take 2-3 overseas vacations every year. For the last 10 years, I made it a habit to spend my Xmas holidays in Hawaii - every year with different woman.
I would never, never, get married again. Why should I do such a stupid thing ?! I love every day of my life. And as far as the cleaning duties goes ? Well, I hired a maid !"
You're both lucky you didnt have kids, and unlucky cause you dont know what you're missing. My child changed my perspective on everything. Its hard to explain to someone that doesnt have a child. They see other people working hard and seeing sites like this where people are all worked up and think that they'd rather stay single and play their life away.
Ever wonder what it is about kids that makes those people work so hard? Ever wonder why they get so worked up at a site like this one?
Kids. YOUR kids. They change you. Profoundly. Fundimentally.
Its a step in life, just like when you move out of your parents house the first time. You had to take on more responsibility. The ball was now yours to carry. Its scary at first, but then you realize all the other good things that come from it.
Kids are kinda like that. I'm glad you're having a good time. The best revenge is a good success as they say, but you dont know what you're missing with kids!
Sounds to me like you'd have a lot to offer one too. Just a thought... 8)
June 4th, 2008 at 3:22 am
To QuantumArtist:
I love kids. My siblings have lots of kids. They got the genes going. Honestly said, I wish I'd have them, too. But, reality is different. What are kids good for if you love them and then they will be forcefully removed from your heart by our biased divorce court ? And the you will be ordered to be pay tons of money for the "privilege" of having them? I wouldn't wanna send a check to my ex every month to prove to my kids that I am their father. I see my friends around me and see what they have to go through. What you are saying is nice - but in real life - highly improbable. I am very happy where I am today.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Single 'n' (very) Happy wrote;
"I love kids. My siblings have lots of kids. They got the genes going. Honestly said, I wish I'd have them, too. But, reality is different. What are kids good for if you love them and then they will be forcefully removed from your heart by our biased divorce court ? And the you will be ordered to be pay tons of money for the "privilege" of having them? I wouldn't wanna send a check to my ex every month to prove to my kids that I am their father. I see my friends around me and see what they have to go through. What you are saying is nice - but in real life - highly improbable. I am very happy where I am today."
As happy as you can be considering aye? Its sad things are this way.
June 4th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Guys,
Much as I disagree with a lot of what Jeana and Annie Hunter say.
Much as I dislike Annie Hunter's attitude of "Also boys... bag your self -absorbed nonsense... Jackasses."
Much as I am absolutely disgusted by Jeana and Annie Hunter's use of a man's fragility to score points on this forum. To shame and antagonise.
They are right on one thing.
Did any of you read Philip L. Caouette's post on June 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm ?
That was the saddest and most heartfelt posts I've ever read on here. It painted a picture of my own worst fears in my years to come.
The man came here for support and recognition of his story and as far as I can see, nobody has listened to what he has to say.
Philip, I read your post and it spoke to my heart. I wish I could be with you to listen to what you've been through and to support you.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Yes, Philip L. Caouette spoke words of truth. Yes it was sad. But the statement;
" I was so distraught that for year I could only think of suicide every day."
Is not a declaration of the present. Its in the past tense.
Lucky him! I, and I'm sure many others, still deal with it. I think it just goes along with having your past and present cast away, and your future ruined. When all see is a life of indenturemen, when you feel is pain, sometimes you just want it to stop.
All I can say is that it helps to have a vision of something greater then the sum of your current life to look forward to, to strive for. I cling to life on the hope that one day another father will never have happen to them, what happened to me. I cling to the thought that their son or daughter will know their father better then mine does. I cling to the idea that I can bring reason and purpose to it all by effecting change and putting up a fight.
Yeah, it helps a lot.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:44 am
I don't post much. I enjoy reading the comments and thinking about what has been written. However, whenever volatile threads come up, people like jeana and annie seem to post to the extreme amount, badgering, insulting, and generally trolling. I'd like to ask both of them to step out; jeana already claimed she would previously. Basically, you are ruining what is for me, a chance to look into some of the issues and concerns people have with marriage. You 2 step in and divert it off into petty name calling, subtle insults, and generally wasted posts. Please understand that other people, who do not post, would like to read and gain info without the trash you stir up.
I'd also like to ask that some of the other posters who reply to them, bantering meaningless off topic point, trying to vie with them to see who can "score points" or "win an arguement" to stop. I, and I am hoping the large majority of us who read to gain insight, gain nothing from it. From an outsiders perspective, instead of stepping around dogshit, you are running up, smearing yourself in it, and hollering to the world about it. Please try to think of the larger picture; many young people, men and women, are reading these comments to see what experiences people have had, and trying to gain knowledge for our future. Please consider this before you post.
Finally, I'd like to suggest that although the internet is a fun place where people say anything without fear of reproach, a fellow posted a bit about killing himself; whether he means it or not, I assume many people here, especially people who have gone through some of the experiences detailed, have felt the same way. Please provide info on how you resolved the issues, what help, if any, was received, and what specific things changed your mind.
Thanks.
/Joe
June 4th, 2008 at 9:28 am
American women are "at war" with heterosexual males to the exact degree that they make their own the feminist argument that relations b/t males and females is a struggle for domination. If that's what it is, then that is de facto and de jure a form of war. Now, feminists and specifically feminist lawyers are in the business--and say so, read their law journal articles--of pushing laws involving marriage, divorce, sexual harassment, rape, and the workplace that are founded on and presuppose the above fundamental assumption. Not every woman in the country buys into this position, but the position is out there to be bought into, since it exists in myriad federal and local laws and regulations governing the above areas of gender dispute. The result is a lot of gender-war-making that wouldn't have happened if it had not been possible, and if would not have been possible without the input of anti-male hate feminist lawyers.
Make no mistake: I've spent eleven years of my life researching this issue after I left academe where I was the object of routine insults from my feminist "professional colleagues" on a daily basis for no other reason than that I was a heterosexual male. What is taught in institutions of higher learning is gender-based hate philosophy. The vast majority of the population of this country has no understanding of this source of gender war-making, and my ultimate goal is to "out" radical feminist hatemongering in both web-based and print media.
That said, I can only urge the males on this thread to do some research on their own. Get hold of a number or two of the gender-based law journals--not everyone's favorite reading, but it will curl your hair nonetheless. These journals are published online and include journals published by Duke, Wisconsin-Madison and most of the Ivy League schools. This stuff reads like "Mein Kampf" and anti-semitic hate propaganda produced by the German National Socialist Party during the mid-1930s.
Too many of Glenn Sacks' posters limit the purview of their concern to immediate personal problems. To that I respond that for the feminists who hate you the personal is the political, and whatever has happened to you in divorce situations has its source in applied radical feminist anti-male hate philosophy developed in college Women's Studies Courses, which are the academic foundations of feminist law courses in the law schools. For them, attacking heterosexual males has been since the 1970s the focus of a collective effort of academically-trained feminists, and the "point" of the spear is feminist lawyering. NOW, e.g., has for years had a program for "educating" local and federal judges in "feminist legal studies." They hate your guts, and they want to inflict as much damage on you as they can legally get away with.
And it will continue until a critical mass of males take their legal destinies into their own hands and start to fight back.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I empathize with Philip L. Caouette, I truly do.
I spent two years trying to help out a friend.
You see, he started out with the American dream- 3 kids, the dog, the three car garage. A great job in the IT industry.
In 1999, his wife decided she "wasn't in love anymore". Well, she was,,, just not with him. About the same time, he lost his 140k a year job when the company he worked for went belly up.
So now, he was living with his parents, owing 3k a month in child support, unemployed, and without legal representation.
The first time the child support court put him in jail, was after his 5th attempt for a downward adjustment due to him only making 35k a year now. He was over 150k in arrears when the kind judge gave him an open ended sentence for "contempt of court" and work release.
He spent 2 years in jail, out during business hours, and in jail nights and weekends. He NEVER saw his children. There had never been any allegations of abuse, DV, drugs, ETOH-- nothing. Nothing but a man who was dead broke,, and in jail because of it.
Last year, during his lunch break, he went to his parents home, borrowed a shotgun, went into a field and he blew his brains out.
His note read- at least the kids will get social security benefits.
He was my friend, and I miss him. I hate her and what the courts did. Is that so hard to understand?
Annie,, jeana,, you really don't understand why men don't want to marry?
You really don't understand why custodial fathers teach their sons and daughters to avoid marriage? I promise you, mine will avoid it like a plague.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Jeana said...
“As for the “babies” comment, it came after a diatribe about, typically, how bad we females are."
Oh I see, so a man insulted you and you decide to insult all men. Feminist fairness strikes again. Keep in mind that much of what comes from the men you rail against was caused by one woman or two and is now being used to attack all women. If its not sauce for the goose, neither should it be for the gander.
“And FYI, Hillary Clinton and Barack both did great. They both were neck and neck. It was a tremendous victory for both.”
You must be watching some other race, from where I sat only one of them won- the man.
“ And I’m very proud that a woman went so far in a man’s game.”
Don’t be proud. Even if getting this far on the strength of the sexism of the white Democratic females was something to be proud of the pride would belong to the Hill not to you. And how is it a man’s game when a two term Senator gets to run simply becasue she's female?
“Down in flames?”
Yes, down in flames. What else can you call it when you are so unpleasant and so unlikable that despite being a white woman in primaries numerically dominated by white women you can’t get the nomination? Its like Al Sharpton running against Don Imus for Mayor of Harlem and losing. Now that would be humiliating.
“You mean like Giuliani, Huckabee, Ron Paul, etc.? Like them?”
Yes, I mean like them. I notice you didn’t throw in Richardson and Edwards so I assume that you are assuming that im right wing. Im an anti-feminist so of course I must be on the right. Otherwise why not give the names of the Dem losers? We are after all discussing the Democratic race, not the Republican race.
“She held on for quite awhile, Mike.”
Only because the sexist white women in the party tolerated behavior in her that they would never have tolerated in a man. Its isn’t to her credit, its to their shame.
The main thing I’ve learnt from this race is that apparently the majority of white female Democrats are much lesser people than I had assumed.
"Interesting that the only people to use this man’s comments about suicide to score points against the other side were the feminists. Why is that..do ya'll think?Shame, madam, shame."
And yet she is right. And you cannot answer.’
Here’s an answer- the men here know hyperbole when they see it. Its also quite likely that they, like myself, go straight for the comments of posters we are familiar with and ignore someone who may be putting in just one appearance, especially when a topic has so many comments. And I notice that you don’t answer my question as to why she tried to use this mans supposedly suicidal state of mind to score points. Shame on you also, madam.
Then Annie throws in some typical dishonesty,,,
“Lessee...screeching...poor excuse for a human being...and threats...”
I think anyone who has read my views on here for a while knows that the “threat” was an intellectual threat, not a physical one. I’ve never threatened anyone here physically and I think you know that but in order to vilify the enemy you are lying. You also do not address any of the questions I posed, such as why use the man’s predicament to score points? This kind of behavior puts you in the same moral ranks as people who object to any kind of child support and who think “Might is Right.” Also, where is the evidence(look the word up online, Madam) that women invented any of those things you mention? “Word has it” is not evidence, if it were, then we would have to deduce from what some of the more extreme members claim, that women are all scum, after all “word has it”.
While there is evidence that women worked in agriculture as far back as Catalhoyuk, there is no evidence that they invented agriculture. At this moment I am working at a computer, but this is not evidence that I invented it.
As for jeanas two cents about the wheel, it was first used for transport as opposed to pottery in ancient Sumer, which was a patriarchy. It’s possible that it is the one patriarchy whose inventors were mostly women but I doubt it, and again, therei s no evidence as to the sex of the innovator involved.
Back to Annie...
“I'm just quivering at your overwhelming manliness, Michael”
Oh, no, not an attack on my precious manliness, whatever shall I do? Join the ranks of Kurt Cobains perhaps. I find it interesting but not surprising that you choose to blame what you see as negative behavior on my manliness. Why not attribute it to a flaw I may have as a human being, rather than as a male? Through this comment you have lost theright to criticize the men here who blame various feminine evils oin female nature without looking like a massive hypocrite.
You also wrote...
“Bwaa ha ha ha.”
I must admit I cant tell if this is supposed to be you crying, or me laughing like a mad scientist, I must however, admit it is the most eloquent thing you’ve written since joining our little tete-a-tete.
“and supposed achievements buried so deep in the mists of time that no-one knows what sex invented them,
Intellectual cowardice...google if you dare!”
No. Intellectual cowardice is claiming to have evidence and then refusing to put it forward. Most anthropologists, even most of the feminist ones, will tell you that there is no evidence as to the sex of the creators of such ancient inventions. It shows the weakness of your position that you must reach back to a time of which little is known in order to claim some innovations for your sex.
“I suppose women invented computers as well, back in the pre-history days, from flint.
Well no...but we got kevlar and the inkjet? printer...”
Kevlar, rather like babies, was a joint effort between Stephanie Kwolek and Roberto Berendt. How typical of you to try to attribute the work of both sexes to only one. As for the inkjet printer, the only name I could find was a Stephen Sears. Take heart though, you did discover some radioactive substances without which humanity would not have the wondrous gift that is The Bomb.
And as for Quantum Artist, you've really pulled the wrong dog's tail...
“Easy there tiger! She hasnt seen the replies I think.”
Dont call me tiger- i am not your friend, Mr Chivalry, and frankly, I doubt if you do much thinking at all, if you did you wouldn’t be defending her- after all, you don’t know she hasn’t seen them so don’t defend her based on information you don’t have.
“Give her the benefit of the doubt please.”
No. Try reading the consistently dishonest postings of these women for a couple of months and then see how eager you are to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you seriously think Annie is avoiding giving evidence about who invented what because she cant bothered, or because she lied to us and she knows it? Stick around, newbie, you’ll find out.
“Who cares?”
If you are more than an apologist for women behaving badly, if indeed, you “Don’t care” then why point this out to me rather than pointing it out to Annie when she claimed women invented all those things? Apparently, it only becomes irrelevant when a man is arguing it.
“I think yours is a bit wrapped up in conspiracy and "us versus them" to really do anything great.”
“Yours”? What the hell does that even mean? My what? If you are going to jump into fights that aren’t your business you should at least be able to properly articulate your thoughts. Also, at what point did I mention anything regarding conspiracies? And again, if the “Us versus them” mentality upsets you so why didn’t you call out Annie and jeana? Because “us versus them” is fine when it’s the girls doing the attacking but as soon as the boys start fighting back its too divisive?”
“Seriously man, let it go.”
No. And, stop saying “man”, it makes you sound like you’re stoned.
“Its time for solutions. Not finger pointing extremism.”
Where is the evidence for “extremism” on my part? Demanidng evidence before i take someone's views seriously makes me an extremist? We should all be so extremist.
Why cant we get some honest feminists up in this place? Feminists who argue against what we actually say, rather than against straw men. Feminists who use reason and evidence rather than fantasy to shore up their beliefs? And while we’re at it, why not get some unicorns and Hobbits to join us?
And yes, this has all gone way off topic. But hey, I didn’t bring up fantasies of a pre-historic nature, the girls did. Anyway, marriage as it is sucks and why anyone does it is beyond my simple male intellect.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:16 am
386 comments, is that a record? Amazing how strongly everyone feels about this.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
George asks: Did any of you read Philip L. Caouette's post on June 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm ?
PK responds: Not until you asked. Here's why: I had the computer taken away from me at 6PM and my wife did her homework until 1AM. I checked this morning and read backwards (and several hundred comments have been posted since then.) It's not that we're ignoring him, it's that his response was buried which is symbolic of how the squeaky wheel gets the grease meaning there are a lot of squeaky, greasy wheels out there.
George continues: That was the saddest and most heartfelt posts I've ever read on here. It painted a picture of my own worst fears in my years to come.
PK responds: I agree. I know well-educated, well-to-do men with similar stories who say that, out of the blue, their wife just gets the itch to divorce. One I talked to said that they went for counseling and she went on a b*tch session and the job of the counselor was just to act as a referee (your turn, your turn...) and eventually she decided that it was best to stay together and all is well again. He got lucky.
George continues: The man came here for support and recognition of his story and as far as I can see, nobody has listened to what he has to say.
PK: As I said, be fair and give us some time. There are now hundreds of comments to read.
In answer to his point as well as that of someone who said that misogyny is due to legal journals fanning the flames and Jeana's claim that it's not "feminism" which is about bashing men, here's my opinion:
Feminism and women's rights is about women getting goodies without a requirement to live up to adult responsibilities. Many men even bought into it and view these as "rights" which are now full entitlements. This is like handing a 15 year old teenager the keys to a sports car and telling them to TRY to act responsibly. As women struggle to retain and increase their entitlement portfolio it's natural for them to resent and blame men for all their problems in addition to despising them for failing to live up to traditional expectations. Don't you know? Phillip should ENJOY giving 2/3'd of his paycheck to his ungrateful ex-wife? A REAL man would! "Man up!"
This attitude exists not only with SAH housewives but also (and especially) with feminists and career women who see the world in terms of getting high paid jobs to blow money at da shopping mall. It's impossible to seperate the notion of so-called women's equaltiy from man-hating. If you aren't yet convinced, think of it this way: When you go to work, do you do so to be "equal?" To be "empowered?" No. EVERY man does it because it's their JOB! To pay the BILLS! It's amazing for me to imagine that there are people out there who think of work as some kind of hobby and life as a candy store. I want to say it must be nice but I know that they are always worried that the candyman could come back anytime so they become hateful, untrusting people. "People out there are so greedy! They're trying to break into my house and rob me! I know because that's what I think when I'm breaking into people's houses..."
You can't weed the garden until you know where the roots are. Find the roots.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Jeana says: "I think we have different opinions about what equality is. You seem to think it’s every man for himself. PK thinks it’s paying for half of everything, every time. I think I am for equality, real equality. But that doesn’t mean you being able to pick up and leave whenever you want and I have to deal with it. (Although I could because I am prepared.)"
PK says: I never said that. Ever. You're trying to build a rediculous strawman to attempt to divert attention from your notion of "equality" meaning you getting "equal" access to all the rights and entitlements immediately and then looking the other way when the collection plate comes around. Your romantic relationships with nearly all the men in your life started out with you as a financial recipient. Like a child. You don't want real equality. You want men as second class citizens and workhorses.
Aside from the morality of such a position, I think it's also unworkable. Even during your generation when it was workable, what woman wants a trained dog for a mate? I can see in our culture why so many women disdain men: it's like making love to the garbageman (nothing against garbagemen.) As men become more wussified or bitter, the double dipper days are coming to an end.
You're going to look back on the comments on this forum as MODERATE by comparison to what's coming...
June 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Jeana asks: "“So, this goes for men too who aren’t married and don’t have kids but want them. There’s something wrong with them?"
PK responds: Maybe, question: Do these men expect the women to financially support them as SAH husbands after they quit their hobby job to look after their kids? (And in a system that rewards men for doing so with custody and support at her expense?)
Jeana asks: PK, what you responded with doesn’t make a lot o sense. Are you answering another question?
PK responds: That's the danger of answering a question with a question: It creates confusion. I should have just answered you directly. My apologies.
Jeana, the point is that women benefit from marriage and dating such a man. In your notion of "equality", he pays for the dates and puts up the money for children and whether you acknowledge it or not, risks losing children in a divorce. So even if he's in a rush, it's a pretty easy bet for women to make.
For men, the risks and costs of dating an aging, childless career women are all upfront and obvious. This is why there's even jokes with men about them. "Biological clock tickers" is what they are commonly referred to even by LIBERAL men. They want to have children, fast, and their commitment to marriage is questionable even compared to gold diggers. Indeed, the phrase gold-digger instantly is assumed to be female since the vast majority of them are women.
That's why I suggested a dowry. It solves a lot of these problems and provides these women with an opportunity that they otherwise wouldn't have. You like to say that "equality" isn't about the sameness (such as men footing the bill on a date). Great, let the high income career woman drop $200K into a trustee account that will be his if she divorces him and takes his kids away.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids. This means either one of two things, neither of them good:
1) The men weren't that concerned over losing their kids.
2) The men didn't realize how common it is for fathers to lose their kids.
I'm going to have to go with number 2 as this is a study of never married men. Most of them probably never had children either. Loseing your kids is kind of an club that few talk about. Let's face it with all the womens issues out there, there's hardly room for our issues. I think a lot of the time people assume that men that lose the kids deserve it for some BS reason. "He must of been dangerous. etc." Never "She's just being vindictive." Sad but true.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:53 am
QuantumArtist:
I think perhaps the disparities in reactions between {Annie Hunter and Jeana} and the rest is that what Philip posted was not surprising to most people here. It is not unknown or special.
A lot of people on this board have probably had similar experiences, think about suicide, and this place has likely been a lifeline to more than a few.
I'm not sure if Annie and Jeana realise that. How desperate a lot of the people here are.
And it's clearly it is not because people don't care. They do care, and that's why they are here.
Joe:
I agree with you; I don't like the arguments either.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Annie asks: "So, any words of support for Phillip? YET?"
Sigh... I do hope his situation improves. I wanted to write something for it, but after weighing in on Pastor Chris' situation, I was, as Bill Whittle says, "out of altitude, out of airspeed, and out of ideas." I just couldn't come up with anything helpful. My apologies to you, Phillip.
And to Steve, about 100 comments back: Don't worry, you didn't offend me at all. I have for a while now had my eyes opened to what the United Methodist Church really is -- an organization that drank the leftist Kool-Aid and went back for seconds. I doubt that most Methodists realize where a lot of their collection-plate money goes, because the organization does a pretty good job of hiding their liberation-theology adventures from the parishoners. Organized Christianity is getting pretty close to its moneychangers-in-the-temple moment.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Michael Claymore said:
"386 comments, is that a record? Amazing how strongly everyone feels about this."
If I recall, Glenn had a thread not too long ago that had over 500 responses.
MXY
June 4th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I was very worried about losing my son when I divorced for sure, but I was older, 48, and I think more emotionally mature. And it worried him, too, since he was only 6 years old and not old enough to understand the situation. You are right: unless you go through the divorce process you do not understand how easily it is to be emotionally disconnected with your child. Men are concerned abut losing their children during divorce, but probably have a hard time articulating those feelings clearly. Back to the key issue of the article about why men are afraid to marry. Now that my son is 14, I have been very honest with him about his mother and women in general, and I have made it clear that he should not agree with me, but come to his own conclusion. I have told him that he needs to be very cautious of women, and how to recognize a woman who is greedy, narcissistic, and self centered. He does not have a girl friend, though, most of his friends do. I have also told him to learn to think about women with his head, not his penis, which he finds amusing at his age. Hopefully, he will grow up with a better more thoughtful understanding of women and some of the mistakes and pitfalls to avoid and how dangerous they can be. More importantly, I always am sure to tell my son how much I love him every day.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
"386 comments, is that a record? Amazing how strongly everyone feels about this."
Can't be since the article about paternity tests got about 481.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I wish Philip C the best. I hope he realizes that he doesn't have to "take it like a man" and suffer in silence. There are counseling and/or psychological services out there that could potentially be of help. One thing that also helps me sometimes is taking negative energy and transorming it into positive advocacy for men's rights issues.
Hang in there Philip. You are not alone.
MXY
June 4th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Joe,
“badgering, insulting, and generally trolling”
“divert it off into petty name calling, subtle insults, and generally wasted posts”
“without the trash you stir up”
I’m sorry, Joe, that you think I am here only to cause trouble. I actually have better things to do with my time than to make men angry. I have not had any of the poster’s experiences and I am trying to learn from them. And I am. But it is extremely difficult, given the rude, insulting, and generally irritable manner that so many of them dive into time and time again. But I do my best to ignore it and try to see beyond the misogyny. Because I think that there are some very real issues and I would like to educate myself.
It is not easy to try to defend males’ rights when I know that the MRAs are so incredibly hostile to women. It is very hard. I am almost tempted (so many times) to give up and leave you to your rage.
It is not in your best interest to only have comments that talk about how absolutely terrible feminists are and even women in general. This does not help your cause. And it turns off people like me who would like to help you.
Sometimes I do respond to the anti-female remarks, but wouldn’t you respond to anti-male remarks?
I wonder how many other females would want to post something but see that they would only be ripped up. And for that matter, how many men might want to post but who might differ in opinion from some of you.
If you think I am “trolling” (I don’t even really know what that means) or insulting, then tell me. I know that I have not been intentionally insulting to anyone. And if I was, I apologize. I think so many of you are very sensitive. One time I said, “You men are interesting creatures” and a guy took offense and said, “We’re not creatures, we’re human”. What I think is mean is acceptable to all of you, and what you think is mean I just don’t understand. But point it out to me. I don’t want to offend you. I try very hard not to offend you.
Disagreeing with comments should not be confused with stirring up trash or insulting you.
If you choose to live in a society in which women comprise half the population, then you need to learn how to talk to us and to relate to us. If you can’t even tolerate another point of view, then what is the point of this blog besides being a He-Man Woman Hater’s Club?
June 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
"And beware of what you are advocating. As women have gained financial clout, female requirements for masculine appearance have increased."
I still believe it is much easier for a female to remain "slim" than it is for a male to be "toned and buffed." Many people remain skinny with minimal effort due to metabolism. I am very skinny myself. If I was a female, I would have market value just the way I am.
I feel as if males are now judged on their status/success AND their appearance..........a double whammy. I have done my part to lower my beauty standards of females. I wish females would return the favor and not expect so much out of guys like me.
MXY
June 4th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
MasculistXY:
Females expect much less appearance-wise from men than men do for females. You guys look good with hair and without hair. We do not look good balding. At all. Ever.
You can be overweight and that’s perfectly fine with most of us. Even desirable. The same is not true for women. And, fyi, it is a huge effort to stay slim for us.
I don’t think any of you men have much to worry about as long as you stay clean and somewhat in style.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Jeana - trolling is deliberately posting something inflammatory to antagonize the blog. "baiting" the blog just to see who wastes their time responding.
In light of this article, (young single) men are coming to the conclusion that mar