A thread wherein guys rant, complain, and chat about MANLY MAN THINGS page 223

[Blackcatbone]

she & others would rather use shaming language and call me a misandryst (sp?)

Misogynist. You would call me a misandrist. I should be planning for a canoeing trip, but I'll reply anyhow. First though, you should define fault. Should a woman stay in a marriage where her husband is cruel, if not physically abusive? What if he withholds sex? What if he expects her to keep a spotless house, have dinner on the table when he gets in, offers no support for her working or advancing her ability to earn money? Having kids and keeping a house is a lot more than shuffling them off to school and watching Oprah all day, which can make it quite difficult to be fully employed. There is just so much gray area that to make sweeping generalizations reveals a bias and an inability to see the nuances that make up real life.

I don't have a horse in this race. No children, not having children, and when I divorced I walked only with my savings and investments, personal items. He gave me a small amount of cash as I left some stuff that was too much for me to take, furniture, artwork, that type of thing. By law in the Netherlands everything has to be thrown into the pot and divided equally. I told him from the beginning I didn't want anything but we had to file numerous documents so that I didn't get anything of his. I did this not because of hard feelings, but because I didn't need it. I believe in playing fair. His ex-wife got alimony from him for a period of time until she could get on her feet financially. They had three children together which she stayed home to take care of, as agreed to by both parties. The house that they had lived in was paid in full and she continued to live there, just paying the taxes and upkeep. (I could have forced them to sell and taken half of his share) He did the right thing by her, I did the right thing by him. (We're still friends, BTW) It's about seeing the gray areas and not being an asshole.

[Grumpycakes]

I agree with kenn's post... Once again I urge the people here to read Taken Into Custody by Stephen Baskerville if they wish to see just how corrupt the family "court" system is and how the divorce/child support INDUSTRY really is. Outside of wanting to raise children, there is no logical reason for any self-respecting man to marry in this country with the laws the way they are... and even non-marriage relationships can result in a man's ruination with just the say-so of a scorned woman.

Hell I'll go one further. I wouldn't, and won't, marry in this country period. There simply is no benefit to me as a man to do so.

My brother.

[RitaRose]

Should a woman stay in a marriage where her husband is cruel, if not physically abusive? What if he withholds sex? What if he expects her to keep a spotless house, have dinner on the table when he gets in, offers no support for her working or advancing her ability to earn money?

Oh, so you've met my ex-husband then!

[marcadav]

I will not share the sordid details of my ex's secret life on this site. Suffice as to say, I put him through college, gave up my career to further his in a state that didn't honor my credentials. By mutual agreement, stayed home, raised 3 children, allowing him to travel and further his career/ salary growth. I am, legally, as well as morally,entitled to an equal share of any income that was produced during the marriage.

More importantly, anyone who brings children into this world is, regardless of outside circumstances ( who want's the divorce, if one parent stays home,etc),is responsible for the moral, emotional, psychological, physical, financial security of that child/children.

IMO, if you do not want to be held liable for alimony, get that settled up front in a pre-nup. If you no not want to be held liable for child support do NOT have children. Once children are in the picture, not only do you have a moral, psychological, emotional ,financial responsibility to provide support, you will have legally imposed responsibility.

[kenn]

I will not share the sordid details of my ex's secret life on this site. Suffice as to say, I put him through college, gave up my career to further his in a state that didn't honor my credentials. By mutual agreement, stayed home, raised 3 children, allowing him to travel and further his career/ salary growth. I am, legally, as well as morally,entitled to an equal share of any income that was produced during the marriage.

your choice, most states hold 50/50, i'm not arguing against that, but alimony rather

More importantly, anyone who brings children into this world is, regardless of outside circumstances ( who want's the divorce, if one parent stays home,etc),is responsible for the moral, emotional, psychological, physical, financial security of that child/children.

IMO, if you do not want to be held liable for alimony, get that settled up front in a pre-nup. If you no not want to be held liable for child support do NOT have children. Once children are in the picture, not only do you have a moral, psychological, emotional ,financial responsibility to provide support, you will have legally imposed responsibility.

many states do not honor prenup alimony, if the wife contests it in those states the prenup gets thrown out

pft, like choosing not to have kids is a 100% there won't be kids? what happens when the wife cockholds the husband? what happens when she won't get an abortion even when it was agreed to prior to marriage?

[Rosegin]

Absent children and proof of fault, there is no good reason a man should owe his ex-wife ONE RED CENT in the event of a divorce. If she stayed at home becoming best friends with Oprah instead of advancing in a pointless public relations career, that is her body her choice, and the consequences are hers to grapple with. There is nothing to prevent a woman to pursue a job while being a stay at home mom, especially given the power of internet driven businesses. To believe otherwise is to believe that the state should treat women like children, incapable of accounting for their own life choices. And if that’s the standard by which the state will act with regards to women’s post-marital entitlements, then I suggest the state extend its paternalistic logic to other realms in which women operate. A repeal of female voting rights would be a good start.

If a woman initiates divorce from a man and children are involved, unless she can prove fault by her husband she should not even get child support. I can already hear the disingenuous whining. “But the children will suffer! Think of the children!” If the children are suffering she can always stay with her husband, give them to the husband if she decides to ditch him, or put the kids up for adoption. If she wishes to give the kids to the ex-husband, but he’d rather not have his freedom and funtime curtailed by babysitting duties (and I wouldn’t blame him), *and* the divorce was his fault, he can have the option of paying child support in lieu of physically raising them.

Any woman who has a problem with what I wrote has revealed herself to be a leech intent on riding the gravy train.

Men do not "babysit" their own children, they parent them.

I never understood the logic of one parent getting custody while the other parent gets weekends and child support. Why not have the child spend equal time with each parent?

[marcadav]

[QUOTEpft, like choosing not to have kids is a 100% there won't be kids? what happens when the wife cockholds the husband? what happens when she won't get an abortion even when it was agreed to prior to marriage? Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010 [/QUOTE]

If anyone chooses to have sex, without medical guarantee of sterility, then they are knowingly taking the risk of producing a child. With medical certainty, it's the medical professional that should be held accountable-- not the mother and certainly NEVER the child.

[Rosegin]

your choice, most states hold 50/50, i'm not arguing against that, but alimony rather




many states do not honor prenup alimony, if the wife contests it in those states the prenup gets thrown out

pft, like choosing not to have kids is a 100% there won't be kids? what happens when the wife cockholds the husband? what happens when she won't get an abortion even when it was agreed to prior to marriage?

Not wanting the child does not remove his responsibility from the child. If he didn't want children, he should have had himself "broken" so that he could not reproduce, not relied on birth control, of which all forms have failure rates. You can't force a woman to get an abortion any more than you can force her NOT to get one.

I wonder what horrible examples of marriage/parenting you have been exposed to. It seems you have deep rooted anger in regards to both.

[kenn]

If anyone chooses to have sex, without medical guarantee of sterility, then they are knowingly taking the risk of producing a child. With medical certainty, it's the medical professional that should be held accountable-- not the mother and certainly NEVER the child.

never the mother? really? one of my friend's wife was on the pill but she forgot to take the pill twice (supposedly) as a result he has two more kids than he planned

if a woman cockholds the husband there should be no legal responsibility for the husband to pay for someone else's kid, that's absolutely insane

[Rosegin]

never the mother? really? one of my friend's wife was on the pill but she forgot to take the pill twice (supposedly) as a result he has two more kids than he planned

if a woman cockholds the husband there should be no legal responsibility for the husband to pay for someone else's kid, that's absolutely insane

I do agree with this.