-
Let's keep in mind that gays are still far from equal here -- there's still plenty of hate and discrimination. (Think of "don't ask/don't tell" and the brouhaha over gay athletes.) It's also worth noting that the changes in laws and general acceptance are fairly recent.
DS, again I think the suicide stats are a bit misleading. While divorced men have higher suicide rates, so do divorced women (though there is also one major study disputing this), and so do widowed men. Never-married men also have higher suicide rates than married men (higher even than married men in Australia), and are twice as likely to die at a younger age than married men. There are plenty of studies that show that there are many other health problems for those who live alone -- higher rates of heart disease and strokes, higher rates of death among smokers, pneumonia, being under psychiatric care, etc. Cripes, even your odds of being in a fatal auto accident are substantially higher if you're single! Same thing is true with alcoholism and drug abuse (though widowed women, paradoxically, have very low rates on these compared to everyone else.) By and large, all these things hold for both sexes, though rates tend to be higher for men (heck -- what death statistic isn't?)
This stuff is true not only in the US but elsewhere, and would indicate that being alone is what is hard on people, not exclusively how they get to be that way. If anything, these things would seem to be an argument that, for our own health, we should all just put up with a higher level of female bullshit! :D
-
Obviously, the reason single men have higher probablilities of dying in car wrecks is because married men's wives won't let them go anywhere. And obviously married men have lower suicide rates because if you don't divorce the ***** before you blow your brains out, she gets half your money. Wouldn't want that.
-
darkseid you have good point here.
I think It is also were more easy for gays because
their rights don’t challenge directly somebody else rights.
gays did compete directly with women’s rights.
That is why probably gays got more support.
Man's rights are direct challenge to woman
Therefore women are not going to give them away without the fight.
I think it is going to be even worst.
I think if the American man are not going to change his attitude toward the woman, we are going to get even into bigger troubles.
For example, just few years ago Canada introduced the new low promoted by feminists which even more increasing alimony after divorce.
-
[QUOTE]Originally posted by darkseid
[i]In order to change the problem of laws favoring AW, we have to be the majority vote to send a bill to Congress to amend the divorce laws. [/i][/QUOTE]
Actually, the divorce laws haven't changed much over the years to favor women. It's the interpretation of those laws by judges that really sways things. Over time, interpretation swings pro-male to pro-female. Right now it's pretty much pro-female. But, believe it or not, it's more pro-male than it was 10-15 years ago.
-
Purplengold,
If it is interpretation that changes, then it must be the judges that vary from state to state. In NYC, a majority of the ex-wives get MORE than half of the husband's income in alimony and child support. In california, it is a clear cut HALF of the salary and wealth. I am not sure of some other states but I guess they might be less pro-female than NYC and California which sucks for divorced males.
-
Laws themselves have by and large been gender-neutral for a long time, mostly since the Supreme Court ruled in the late 70s that alimony laws that only awarded to wives violated equal protection of the law. I've read that in terms of child support, men are actually less likely than women, if they have custody, to receive what they're supposed to get (though of course that may very well be because they don't pursue it for a variety of reasons.)
This is an interesting issue, but so far it seems mostly anecdotal -- does anyone know a source for good stats on distribution of resources in divorce? It would be nice to get a good overview of where things truly stand; better still if it takes a look at things over time.
-
The terms "alimony" and "child support" are very different from each other and any statistics and/or research cited should attempt to distinguish them. If a man has a few kids, why SHOULDN'T child support be more than half his income?
-
I agree wholeheartedly, and I should have been clearer -- that Supreme Court decision resulted in almost [i]all[/i] of the laws relating to marriage having gender specificity removed -- it was just an alimony case that happened to be before the court. Any useful stats are going to make distinctions between childless hourseholds and those with kids, look at age, duration of marriage, etc. I just haven't been able to find any decent information -- though there's plenty of info out there on divorce rates, and on incomes for men and women before and after, I've found precious little on the details of actually divvying things up.
-
Well, there are as many answers to that question as there are states (plus the VI, PR, etc). In my state the child support is based strictly on a formula similar to student financial aid in that it considers both income and assets but weights them differently. The result is that if you get screwed in the asset division, you will owe less child support. It also ends up being quite common under this formula that women pay child support to men, although I'm sure the reverse is still more common.
-
Can you point to anything that lays out how things actually [i]do[/i] occur, not just the formula, but how many cases in year X broke down in this or that way? Darkseid claims below that in NYC a majority of women get more than half, PNG says that judges' don't favor women as much as they used to -- I'd just like to find some stats somewhere that quantify things.
-
Nope. I just pointed it out because the consequence of the asset distribution affecting the income distribution was an interesting and probably unintended consequence. It would tend to make the overall settlement less extreme and more middle-of-the-road, which is probably good in my opinion. Note that Darkseid is from NY and PNG is from CA so those states may tend to the extreme one way or another.
-
For several years I have mongered exclusively in other countries. I was pretty sure there was a reason for that, but just in case I wandered into the forum section for my home state.
I now think that the many, perhaps most, of the previously mentioned problems with American Women can be attributed to the presence of so unbelievably many dumb fucks among the American Male population. What a bunch of morons. Guys are saying things like, "I paid $300 and got a hand job. Is that a good deal?" and "I heard some guys go to other countries for sex. Any of you guys ever do that?" To this, some AM responded, "Dude that is not smart because you can't drink the water and there's a lot of diseases there."
There? Where??? Are there only two types of countries, America and Not America???
Sorry, just venting. Even Eric Rudolph would have coat hangered some of these dumb asses. I'll try not to go in that section again.
-
This is the kind of shit I am talking about:
"Has anyone seen Ann, white, around 21, 5'4", 140lb ? Usually hangs around Aurora and Chinatown. She is a druggie and a thief, but sometimes provide good service in a pinch."
My goodness. I like my druggie thieves a little slimmer (isn't that the whole point of drugs???) and more consistent.
So is this a commentary on the stupidity of American men or a commentary on restrictive prostitution laws? Either way it is a sad state of affairs.
-
It's not just the stupidity of American men overpaying for low quality prostitutes but it is their ignorance as well. Most American men don't have passports or visas and some never will get it. They don't know that there is a whole different world to explore outside of America. Some even think other countries are not worth exploring and that America is "it". They even think that NYC is "THE Mecca of Meccas". They couldn't be more wrong than that. I live in NYC and I find Rio de Janeiro or Amsterdam much more exciting because of the less restrictive laws in those other cities. In NYC, there are so many laws that it feels like all you can do is eat, sleep, and overwork. The cities or towns aother than NYC are much more boring because there is nothing to do and it is dead. In countries where we monger, at least prostitution is legal and in Amsterdam pot and public drunkenness is legal as well. My friends that don't have passports don't know that firsthand because they are too lazy or too stupid to go out and get one to explore these countries. Some of them even make the excuse that they are tied down to their American wives. I even asked them why they can't bring their wives with them and they admitted that they are not as adventurous as I am. All they have to go on is the tales that I bring back to them after my trip.
-
I agree with you, Darkseid. For these reasons it has been my practice for many years now not to tell my non-traveling friends anything about my trips. They ask, "How was your trip?" and I say "Great!" and change the subject.
A few years back a buddy expressed some interest in going to Amsterdam with me. I told him to get a passport ASAP. He procrastinated. Finally I asked him why and he said he didn't want to get all the shots (inoculations). I didn't bother telling him you don't need any shots and I have no idea what kind of shots he thought you did need.
Another friend who somehow actually has a college degree heard I was going to Buenos Aires. She said, "Oh, I went to the tropics one time and I got a skin rash." I didn't bother telling her that Buenos Aires is the same latitude as Albuquerque, about 1000 miles from the Tropic of Capricorn, and that only a tiny portion of that large country is in the tropics.
Another friend asked a person who was visiting from Spain if there were any "white people" there. And after I got back from Spain one guy (also a college graduate????) asked me why I didn't just go to Méjico instead; "it's the same thing and a lot closer."
I like to torture these people by using kilometers and centigrade. When they say "How many miles is that?" I say I don't know.