[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I know T-Nation lore holds that men are the primary victims in divorce, but statistically women are far more likely to become impoverished as a result of divorce.
[/quote]
I’ve read some of these men’s rights advocates recently, and while I agree with you that their whining about shit like male suicide rates and breast cancer research is pathetic and a little strange (its really no one else’s fault if you shoot yourself in the head), they do have a valid point about divorce law in this country.
1 - Alimony should have been done away with 20 years ago.
2 - Child support can go in about 90% of cases because joint custody should be the default.
3 - The division of assets should be based on what each person contributed to the family financially during the marriage.
I’ve seen too many friends fucked over by marriage and the divorce industry to think that everything’s just hunky dory with marriage 2.0 as they call it.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I know T-Nation lore holds that men are the primary victims in divorce, but statistically women are far more likely to become impoverished as a result of divorce.
[/quote]
I’ve read some of these men’s rights advocates recently, and while I agree with you that their whining about shit like male suicide rates and breast cancer research is pathetic and a little strange (its really no one else’s fault if you shoot yourself in the head), they do have a valid point about divorce law in this country.
1 - Alimony should have been done away with 20 years ago.
2 - Child support can go in about 90% of cases because joint custody should be the default.
3 - The division of assets should be based on what each person contributed to the family financially during the marriage.
I’ve seen too many friends fucked over by marriage and the divorce industry to think that everything’s just hunky dory with marriage 2.0 as they call it. [/quote]
I agree with #1 and #3, but not #2. Joint custody is NOT the default for many good reasons; one being that many dads are NOT willing to do joint custody. This is why I have my children 71% of the time. Btw, my ex only pays less than 25% in the child support division of costs. Sooooooo, FYI some of the people who get fucked over are THE WOMEN.
This quote from the article make a lot of sense. Overall, the article is a bit too whiny.
In general, women are better at playing social mind games. They bond together more and whine more. Men would get the same treatment if they also do that, but I doubt that’s something most men would want to do.
This is true, but I don’t really care. There can never be true equality. I’m fine as long as life is going well in general; there’s no need to whine about the smallest misfortunes and disadvantages. Women behave the way they do because deep down, they feel weak. They lack the physical strength, so they go for the social control, even at the cost of honor. In this society, a good looking girl who complains a lot would get anything she wants. Rationally, that’s the best way to live because it’s stress free and easy, but that’s not something real men would do. I like to actually work to make real achievements and appreciate them. I feel a need to suffer through hard times to appreciate life. It’s OK to live a shorter life if you have achieved something great. Every choice you make will have opportunity costs. Men can accept it and move on, women tend to regret things, whine, and feel sorry for themselves. As a result, they can more easily obtain physical gratifications out of sympathy of others, but I’ll stick with my mental calmness.
[/quote]
I don’t know what kind of women you associate with, but everything you say about men is ideally true of women as well. An intelligent, secure woman doesn’t whine to have her needs met. There are better and far more satisfying ways to achieve her ends. I will grant that women are on average not as strong as men, but I don’t think this is something that sends most women into frenzies of insecurity. For one thing, there are men everywhere who seem to enjoy doing strength-y, lift-y, jar-open-y things. Just as I am eternally pleased to try to problem-solve men’s relationship problems, which is a strength of mine with the superior capacity I, and most women, have for empathy. I love to exercise it because I’m good at it. That’s the impression I get of the men who come flying across the room to snatch the water cooler bottle out of my hands at work. (Yes, I can lift it.) They seem to want to do it.
The women I associate with enjoy challenge and goal attainment. They don’t want to sit around doing nothing at someone else’s expense any more than the sort of man I associate with does.
This quote from the article make a lot of sense. Overall, the article is a bit too whiny.
In general, women are better at playing social mind games. They bond together more and whine more. Men would get the same treatment if they also do that, but I doubt that’s something most men would want to do.
This is true, but I don’t really care. There can never be true equality. I’m fine as long as life is going well in general; there’s no need to whine about the smallest misfortunes and disadvantages. Women behave the way they do because deep down, they feel weak. They lack the physical strength, so they go for the social control, even at the cost of honor. In this society, a good looking girl who complains a lot would get anything she wants. Rationally, that’s the best way to live because it’s stress free and easy, but that’s not something real men would do. I like to actually work to make real achievements and appreciate them. I feel a need to suffer through hard times to appreciate life. It’s OK to live a shorter life if you have achieved something great. Every choice you make will have opportunity costs. Men can accept it and move on, women tend to regret things, whine, and feel sorry for themselves. As a result, they can more easily obtain physical gratifications out of sympathy of others, but I’ll stick with my mental calmness.
Men aren’t 2nd class citizens because women whine to get what they want; men are only 2nd class citizens when they feel that they are inferior to others. If you feel that you are your own free man, then nothing else really matters.[/quote]
Women don’t whine. Some women whine and give us a bad name, but not ALL women whine. We make ourselves heard. We have to metaphorically yell at the top of our lungs until we’re heard because this has been a MAN’S world since it began and women have been the second class citizens. Men who think women whine to get what they want, IMO, are afraid of women and afraid of giving them power. Heaven forbid we should show compassion for our fellow women and do everything we can to help them. Men don’t need to do this because it’s a MAN’S world. Women have had to make things happen for themselves, to prove that we have brains and can think for ourselves. We are not just baby-makers. We do not exist to clean up after men and make their food. If you think this, you need to jump in a DeLorean and go back to 1955.[/quote]
I don’t feel that I have to whine or shout and I have no quarrel with men. I have a problem with misinformation and gratuitous stridency, both of which were evidenced in the article. I don’t like it when either gender does it, though I do feel grateful to the women brave enough to whine and shout through the early days of the women’s movement, which came with beatings and imprisonment and such.
The changes they brought about are so recent in the big scheme of things. I would like for men to at least understand that the world we inhabit today is the world they (men) created. For example, In 1977 Oregon became the first state to make marital rape illegal. A year later the first man in the U.S. was charged with marital rape while still living with his wife. 1978! It wasn’t until 1993 that wife rape had become a crime in all 50 states, though it wasn’t until 1996 that every state had entirely removed the marital rape exception to the law, which had defined rape as “the forcible penetration of the body of a woman, not the wife of the perpetrator,” making rape within marriage a legal impossibility.
The origin of the marital rape exemption is generally thought to trace back to the 17th century, when Matthew Hale wrote: “But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract.”
Nice! (Now, why would women married prior to 1977 think alimony was a fair trade for services rendered?)
But aside from considering the above a part of my national history, I feel as cct does, that I am entirely fine as I am. Not second class at all. Although I make less money than people do in male-dominated fields with educational attainment levels alike to mine, I chose it knowing that it pays poorly. Perhaps I would feel differently if I weren’t financially protected by the earning power of a male with more monetary ambition than myself, though. I don’t know.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I know T-Nation lore holds that men are the primary victims in divorce, but statistically women are far more likely to become impoverished as a result of divorce.
[/quote]
I’ve read some of these men’s rights advocates recently, and while I agree with you that their whining about shit like male suicide rates and breast cancer research is pathetic and a little strange (its really no one else’s fault if you shoot yourself in the head), they do have a valid point about divorce law in this country.
1 - Alimony should have been done away with 20 years ago.
2 - Child support can go in about 90% of cases because joint custody should be the default.
3 - The division of assets should be based on what each person contributed to the family financially during the marriage.
I’ve seen too many friends fucked over by marriage and the divorce industry to think that everything’s just hunky dory with marriage 2.0 as they call it. [/quote]
I work with too many impoverished women and children not to agree with you, but from the other direction. I think alimony will disappear as the women die off who were raised with the expectation that child-rearing was their primary purpose. Those women need to be protected.
This quote from the article make a lot of sense. Overall, the article is a bit too whiny.
In general, women are better at playing social mind games. They bond together more and whine more. Men would get the same treatment if they also do that, but I doubt that’s something most men would want to do.
This is true, but I don’t really care. There can never be true equality. I’m fine as long as life is going well in general; there’s no need to whine about the smallest misfortunes and disadvantages. Women behave the way they do because deep down, they feel weak. They lack the physical strength, so they go for the social control, even at the cost of honor. In this society, a good looking girl who complains a lot would get anything she wants. Rationally, that’s the best way to live because it’s stress free and easy, but that’s not something real men would do. I like to actually work to make real achievements and appreciate them. I feel a need to suffer through hard times to appreciate life. It’s OK to live a shorter life if you have achieved something great. Every choice you make will have opportunity costs. Men can accept it and move on, women tend to regret things, whine, and feel sorry for themselves. As a result, they can more easily obtain physical gratifications out of sympathy of others, but I’ll stick with my mental calmness.
Men aren’t 2nd class citizens because women whine to get what they want; men are only 2nd class citizens when they feel that they are inferior to others. If you feel that you are your own free man, then nothing else really matters.[/quote]
Women don’t whine. Some women whine and give us a bad name, but not ALL women whine. We make ourselves heard. We have to metaphorically yell at the top of our lungs until we’re heard because this has been a MAN’S world since it began and women have been the second class citizens. Men who think women whine to get what they want, IMO, are afraid of women and afraid of giving them power. Heaven forbid we should show compassion for our fellow women and do everything we can to help them. Men don’t need to do this because it’s a MAN’S world. Women have had to make things happen for themselves, to prove that we have brains and can think for ourselves. We are not just baby-makers. We do not exist to clean up after men and make their food. If you think this, you need to jump in a DeLorean and go back to 1955.[/quote]
I don’t feel that I have to whine or shout and I have no quarrel with men. I have a problem with misinformation and gratuitous stridency, both of which were evidenced in the article. I don’t like it when either gender does it, though I do feel grateful to the women brave enough to whine and shout through the early days of the women’s movement, which came with beatings and imprisonment and such.
The changes they brought about are so recent in the big scheme of things. I would like for men to at least understand that the world we inhabit today is the world they created. For example, In 1977 Oregon became the first state to make marital rape illegal. A year later the first man in the U.S. was charged with marital rape while still living with his wife. 1978! It wasn’t until 1993 that wife rape had become a crime in all 50 states, though it wasn’t until 1996 that every state had entirely removed the marital rape exception to the law, which had defined rape as “the forcible penetration of the body of a woman, not the wife of the perpetrator,” making rape within marriage a legal impossibility.
The origin of the marital rape exemption is generally thought to trace back to the 17th century, when Matthew Hale wrote: “But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract.”
Nice! (Now, why would women married prior to 1977 think alimony was a fair trade for services rendered?)
But aside from considering the above a part of my national history, I feel as cct does, that I am entirely fine as I am. Not second class at all. Although I make less money than people do in male-dominated fields with educational attainment levels alike to mine, I chose it knowing that it pays poorly. Perhaps I would feel differently if I weren’t financially protected by the earning power of a male with more monetary ambition than myself, though. I don’t know.
[/quote]
I don’t feel that I need to whine either, to make myself heard. Shout? Possibly. It depends on the issue. Most of my statements were speaking about the past, the history of the women’s movement. I don’t feel second class at all either, but our grandmother’s and great-grandmother’s generation obviously did or they would not have fought for equality.
I agree with you 100%.
On the subject of marriage, wedding vows, until 1922, had the women saying “love, cherish, and obey” so the history of marital rape does not surprise me one bit. Historically, women used to be things, to be bartered with, to be controlled, to be used and in some countries they still are.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I know T-Nation lore holds that men are the primary victims in divorce, but statistically women are far more likely to become impoverished as a result of divorce.
[/quote]
I’ve read some of these men’s rights advocates recently, and while I agree with you that their whining about shit like male suicide rates and breast cancer research is pathetic and a little strange (its really no one else’s fault if you shoot yourself in the head), they do have a valid point about divorce law in this country.
1 - Alimony should have been done away with 20 years ago.
2 - Child support can go in about 90% of cases because joint custody should be the default.
3 - The division of assets should be based on what each person contributed to the family financially during the marriage.
I’ve seen too many friends fucked over by marriage and the divorce industry to think that everything’s just hunky dory with marriage 2.0 as they call it. [/quote]
I work with too many impoverished women and children not to agree with you, but from the other direction. I think alimony will disappear as the women die off who were raised with the expectation that child-rearing was their primary purpose. Those women need to be protected. [/quote]
I can’t think of one woman I know that believes that child rearing is their primary purpose. I think that some women (and there are men who actually do this) who abuse the alimony privilege, and that’s why I agree that it should not be readily available anymore. But in a case where the wife or husband stays home with the kids while the other one goes to work, when the marriage fails, the one who stayed home FOR the kids should get some help if and only if their ability to get a job was hampered by the fact that they were not working for some time. Amount of time should be taken into consideration because in theory, the longer you are out of the work force, the more difficult it MAY be to secure a job, for many reasons. But once a job is secured, I think alimony should no longer be required. I know women who don’t even TRY to work because they get alimony. I think it’s wrong to be a lazy ass and ride on someone else’s coattails for the rest of your life if you are perfectly capable of working. And your EX husband should not have to support you… and vice versa.
This quote from the article make a lot of sense. Overall, the article is a bit too whiny.
In general, women are better at playing social mind games. They bond together more and whine more. Men would get the same treatment if they also do that, but I doubt that’s something most men would want to do.
This is true, but I don’t really care. There can never be true equality. I’m fine as long as life is going well in general; there’s no need to whine about the smallest misfortunes and disadvantages. Women behave the way they do because deep down, they feel weak. They lack the physical strength, so they go for the social control, even at the cost of honor. In this society, a good looking girl who complains a lot would get anything she wants. Rationally, that’s the best way to live because it’s stress free and easy, but that’s not something real men would do. I like to actually work to make real achievements and appreciate them. I feel a need to suffer through hard times to appreciate life. It’s OK to live a shorter life if you have achieved something great. Every choice you make will have opportunity costs. Men can accept it and move on, women tend to regret things, whine, and feel sorry for themselves. As a result, they can more easily obtain physical gratifications out of sympathy of others, but I’ll stick with my mental calmness.
Men aren’t 2nd class citizens because women whine to get what they want; men are only 2nd class citizens when they feel that they are inferior to others. If you feel that you are your own free man, then nothing else really matters.[/quote]
Women don’t whine. Some women whine and give us a bad name, but not ALL women whine. We make ourselves heard. We have to metaphorically yell at the top of our lungs until we’re heard because this has been a MAN’S world since it began and women have been the second class citizens. Men who think women whine to get what they want, IMO, are afraid of women and afraid of giving them power. Heaven forbid we should show compassion for our fellow women and do everything we can to help them. Men don’t need to do this because it’s a MAN’S world. Women have had to make things happen for themselves, to prove that we have brains and can think for ourselves. We are not just baby-makers. We do not exist to clean up after men and make their food. If you think this, you need to jump in a DeLorean and go back to 1955.[/quote]
I don’t feel that I have to whine or shout and I have no quarrel with men. I have a problem with misinformation and gratuitous stridency, both of which were evidenced in the article. I don’t like it when either gender does it, though I do feel grateful to the women brave enough to whine and shout through the early days of the women’s movement, which came with beatings and imprisonment and such.
The changes they brought about are so recent in the big scheme of things. I would like for men to at least understand that the world we inhabit today is the world they created. For example, In 1977 Oregon became the first state to make marital rape illegal. A year later the first man in the U.S. was charged with marital rape while still living with his wife. 1978! It wasn’t until 1993 that wife rape had become a crime in all 50 states, though it wasn’t until 1996 that every state had entirely removed the marital rape exception to the law, which had defined rape as “the forcible penetration of the body of a woman, not the wife of the perpetrator,” making rape within marriage a legal impossibility.
The origin of the marital rape exemption is generally thought to trace back to the 17th century, when Matthew Hale wrote: “But the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract.”
Nice! (Now, why would women married prior to 1977 think alimony was a fair trade for services rendered?)
But aside from considering the above a part of my national history, I feel as cct does, that I am entirely fine as I am. Not second class at all. Although I make less money than people do in male-dominated fields with educational attainment levels alike to mine, I chose it knowing that it pays poorly. Perhaps I would feel differently if I weren’t financially protected by the earning power of a male with more monetary ambition than myself, though. I don’t know.
[/quote]
I don’t feel that I need to whine either, to make myself heard. Shout? Possibly. It depends on the issue. Most of my statements were speaking about the past, the history of the women’s movement. I don’t feel second class at all either, but our grandmother’s and great-grandmother’s generation obviously did or they would not have fought for equality.
I agree with you 100%.
On the subject of marriage, wedding vows, until 1922, had the women saying “love, cherish, and obey” so the history of marital rape does not surprise me one bit. Historically, women used to be things, to be bartered with, to be controlled, to be used and in some countries they still are. :([/quote]
Isn’t it weird that as women’s and men’s “rights” grow closer to leveling out, some men feel as if it THEY are being treated unfairly? As you ladies mentioned, women have merely been trying to raise the level of women’s rights to basically be less controlled and unfairly treated. It’s a man’s world, but some men fear that they eventually will no longer have the upper hand. Women are just trying to be equal, while men are fighting to stay on top.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I work with too many impoverished women and children not to agree with you, but from the other direction. I think alimony will disappear as the women die off who were raised with the expectation that child-rearing was their primary purpose. Those women need to be protected. [/quote]
I can’t think of one woman I know that believes that child rearing is their primary purpose. [/quote]
It would be strange to think of one thing alone in that way. I have known couples who get a great sense of purpose about being a family and while doing so also achieve other things (whatever they are), the ‘baby factory’ concept of women is anti-family as it becomes an overly specialised role that places an artificial barrier between mother & child and the rest of the family
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I know T-Nation lore holds that men are the primary victims in divorce, but statistically women are far more likely to become impoverished as a result of divorce.
[/quote]
I’ve read some of these men’s rights advocates recently, and while I agree with you that their whining about shit like male suicide rates and breast cancer research is pathetic and a little strange (its really no one else’s fault if you shoot yourself in the head), they do have a valid point about divorce law in this country.
1 - Alimony should have been done away with 20 years ago.
2 - Child support can go in about 90% of cases because joint custody should be the default.
3 - The division of assets should be based on what each person contributed to the family financially during the marriage.
I’ve seen too many friends fucked over by marriage and the divorce industry to think that everything’s just hunky dory with marriage 2.0 as they call it. [/quote]
I work with too many impoverished women and children not to agree with you, but from the other direction. I think alimony will disappear as the women die off who were raised with the expectation that child-rearing was their primary purpose. Those women need to be protected. [/quote]
Whoever taught these women did a horrible job, a wife’s primary purpose is to suck the cock and make sammiches.
In all seriousness what do you think the primary purpose of a wife should be? Take care of her husband? That has always been my understanding of the primary purpose of a husband.
I think the primary purpose of both wives and husbands is to serve the family, whatever they determine that “family” means to them. A partnership meant to advantage all involved parties. In some instances that means a servile wife and a demanding husband. In others I suppose you might get the reverse. The question would be whether both parties feel served by it.
I know that many fundamental religious types feel comfortable with relationships that would be completely unacceptable to me and I think to my husband. There are many reasons why a very traditional relationship would not be a workable one for me as a woman of my time, the most compelling of which is that it wouldn’t be economically safe in the event of a divorce. If I lived a hundred years ago that wouldn’t have been an issue. Then the questions would have been more about preference.
Marital partners can choose to keep one partner home to care for children. That’s fine, but in today’s world a woman does that at considerable risk to her own economic security. Even leaving aside the question of the fairness of alimony, a couple can’t divide an income in half and expect to be housed and fed and clothed separately to the same standard they enjoyed as partners.
I know the need to weigh child rearing preferences with career viability creates tremendous tension in high-functioning women. Thinking about it, these are probably the women marrying the men in Uncle Gabby’s social circle. Thinking more about it, I am probably exactly the sort of woman Gabby fears. If my husband and I divorce the “equitable” division of property could be perceived in a number of ways, given the disparity in our earning power.
I work with too many impoverished women and children not to agree with you, but from the other direction. I think alimony will disappear as the women die off who were raised with the expectation that child-rearing was their primary purpose. Those women need to be protected. [/quote]
Are they impoverished because they got pregnant when they were teenagers and dropped out of highschool? Are they or have they ever been hooked on drugs? How many were ever even married in the first place? I seriously doubt most of the impoverished women and children were ever middle class or even working class to begin with.
Alimony will disappear when women have to start paying their ex-husbands alimony because they were the primary bread winner. In today’s economy that day seems just around the corner.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t know what kind of women you associate with, but everything you say about men is ideally true of women as well. An intelligent, secure woman doesn’t whine to have her needs met. There are better and far more satisfying ways to achieve her ends.
[/quote]
Ideally when I go down to the lumber yard I should be able to buy enough straight lumber, free of knots, spalting, and soft spots to build my little gym/wood shop strong and square. But in reality I have to work with what I’ve got, and the wood they grow these days isn’t worth a shit. If you’ve ever had the chance to tear down an old house, or even a tobacco barn, and see the quality of the wood that came out of American forests 100-200 years ago, it will make you sit down and weep.
That would make me feel all warm and fuzzy, but you’re married. Jam yesterday and jam tommorow, but never jam today.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Thinking more about it, I am probably exactly the sort of woman Gabby fears. [/quote]
Ha, no. I don’t like busy people, but you don’t seem opportunistic or unfaithful. You seem like the type of woman who is easy to read up front, and not the type who would wear a mask just long enough to get married.
[quote]WormwoodTheory wrote:
men don’t need a fucking support group.
we’re men.
grow a pair.[/quote]
good luck in your divorce court
[/quote]
Not at all. Growing a pair will keep you OUT of divorce court, assuming you’re with the right kind of woman to begin with. Mind you, having balls and being an asshole is not the same.
As I’ve gotten older I’ve learned that REAL women appreciate real men. Too many men these days are pussies because they’ve been mistakenly led to believe that’s what’s needed to please women… It doesn’t please them - at least not any who are worth pleasing.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I know T-Nation lore holds that men are the primary victims in divorce, but statistically women are far more likely to become impoverished as a result of divorce.
[/quote]
I’ve read some of these men’s rights advocates recently, and while I agree with you that their whining about shit like male suicide rates and breast cancer research is pathetic and a little strange (its really no one else’s fault if you shoot yourself in the head), they do have a valid point about divorce law in this country.
1 - Alimony should have been done away with 20 years ago.
2 - Child support can go in about 90% of cases because joint custody should be the default.
3 - The division of assets should be based on what each person contributed to the family financially during the marriage.
I’ve seen too many friends fucked over by marriage and the divorce industry to think that everything’s just hunky dory with marriage 2.0 as they call it. [/quote]
I work with too many impoverished women and children not to agree with you, but from the other direction. I think alimony will disappear as the women die off who were raised with the expectation that child-rearing was their primary purpose. Those women need to be protected. [/quote]
Are they impoverished because they got pregnant when they were teenagers and dropped out of highschool? Are they or have they ever been hooked on drugs? How many were ever even married in the first place? I seriously doubt most of the impoverished women and children were ever middle class or even working class to begin with.
Alimony will disappear when women have to start paying their ex-husbands alimony because they were the primary bread winner. In today’s economy that day seems just around the corner.[/quote]
Sorry, this was poorly written. I didn’t mean to suggest that the women I deal with were successful pre-divorce. There are issues in the population I deal with. I really think, though, that the biggest problem for the kids I work with is having no fathers. They are overwhelmingly single-parented. Which is why I somewhat agree with your list, which was meant to be my point.
1 - Alimony should have been done away with 20 years ago.
2 - Child support can go in about 90% of cases because joint custody should be the default.
3 - The division of assets should be based on what each person contributed to the family financially during the marriage.
With the exception of the alimony, which I think is still needed for women married prior to…oh, I don’t know, the 8os, maybe. Because those women were raised under a different social contract. That was a separate thought, it doesn’t have anything to do with impoverished parents I work with.
Women in my social group are not going to become impoverished by divorce unless there are other (internal) problems, you’re right. However, it is my understanding that women with children are the ones suffering the sharpest decrease in living standards long term post-divorce, even in the middle and upper-middle classes.
Looking at your list again, I’m thinking #3 isn’t fair to women who bear the brunt of the child-bearing career hit. Which is, let’s face it, all women. Pregnant women are treated differently. Women who have to leave work to run and pick up a sick kid from school are treated differently. Women who get weird phone calls at work are treated differently. They are far less likely to advance. That’s why lower management is lousy with women while upper management is lousy with men.
So I guess that leaves me wholeheartedly supporting only item #2, joint custody. That would improve the lives of all concerned, in my opinion.
You all realize, right, that the birth rate is falling precipitously among educated women, who want no part in being the bearer and primary caretaker of children if there is no economic security in the role? The smart money is on remaining single and independent, and it is increasingly a choice that attractive, intelligent women are making. They are becoming the people who don’t want to buy the cow when they can get milk for free.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t know what kind of women you associate with, but everything you say about men is ideally true of women as well. An intelligent, secure woman doesn’t whine to have her needs met. There are better and far more satisfying ways to achieve her ends.
[/quote]
Ideally when I go down to the lumber yard I should be able to buy enough straight lumber, free of knots, spalting, and soft spots to build my little gym/wood shop strong and square. But in reality I have to work with what I’ve got, and the wood they grow these days isn’t worth a shit. If you’ve ever had the chance to tear down an old house, or even a tobacco barn, and see the quality of the wood that came out of American forests 100-200 years ago, it will make you sit down and weep.
[/quote]
Okay, so you’re saying…what? Women are like the lumber? But if so, who are the men?
I didn’t realize that about the wood, by the way. That’s interesting. And sad.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Thinking more about it, I am probably exactly the sort of woman Gabby fears. [/quote]
Ha, no. I don’t like busy people, but you don’t seem opportunistic or unfaithful. You seem like the type of woman who is easy to read up front, and not the type who would wear a mask just long enough to get married.[/quote]
