Alex,
For your 1st post couldn't you have written a little more? Are you the guy who wrote War and Peace???
Printable View
Alex,
For your 1st post couldn't you have written a little more? Are you the guy who wrote War and Peace???
If you don't like it - don't read.
So, is this something you actually wrote, or is it something from somewhere else? I ask because of the "distribute this document over the internet" rejoinder. If it's not original, would you cite the source, please? I'm interested because this has an intriguing dynamic of fairly well-reasoned and well-structured argument combined with either a translation or an English as a second language set of obvious errors. I want to be able to understand its context, this being a thread about American women...
Alex, I know a couple--the husband is an artist, a sculptor. He does generate some income by selling his work, but the wife is in fact the "bread-winner" supporting the two of them. Examples like this may be relatively uncommon, but they do exist. I would suggest that they may not even be as uncommon as we think. They're just not as highly visible as the traditional model. I can't think of a movie that depicted such characters, and one certainly won't be seeing a sit-com about a high profile woman attorney and her loveable house-husband. But these situations do exist. Marriage is many things to many people. I'll agree that the model of marriage that you're condeming exists, but it's not all that's going on out there, as you seem to imply.
Furthermore, Western Culture is NOT a matriarchy. It's not as hard-core a patriarchy as it's been historically (women have a lot more pull than they did even 30 years ago), but a matriarchy it isn't. You sound like someone with an ax to grind, not like the logical, informed person you think you sound like.
for : joe_zop
"is this something I actually wrote ?" - yes. It's not a translation.
English is my second language - it's true. You, probably, see some mistakes - please feel free to correct them and distribute, if you agree with the thesis. That's the idea. I don't claim any copyright for this text.
for : jwny72
I am not against marriage itself, but against marriage law as it is today. Take off all financial liabilities from this law and then it's fine.
Of course there are different marriages, but happy couples don't need this law and lawers !
Look, if you have a problem with marriage laws there is an easy solution. Think first and don't get married. . . -P
Why so much words against marriage? Just stay away from it.
A- For those who are already into it:
1- use ur assets to get loans (in a case of a divorce, just withdraw your cash & you'll only have liabilities to share)
2- convert ur assets into intangible ones as much as possible (knowledge,etc.)
B- For those considering the marriage:
1- make sure to discuss the idea with a lawyer since you're about to get into a contract
2- financially assess the woman situation as she does for you (be as strict a a mortgage company)
C- For all of you, get a passport and travel to view the woman/man from a different perspective
Alex:
An intriguing post, and here are a few comments on it. First, let me note that people who don't like the situation don't need to get married, so it's not as though someone's being born into poverty and needs to overcome things to have a fair shot.
First, I'd have preferred a couple of US law citations in a thread about American women, as FedUp is quite fond of reminding us that they are two different countries, with different perspectives on things.
While I find much of what you have to say well-stated and reasoned, there are a few places where I also find flaws. As your missive is long, I'll just start with a couple.
First and foremost, I have a problem with the way you just dismiss economic realities when economics are at the core of your argument. You can't have it both ways -- either economics count or they don't. The assertion that the situations are basically equal between the sexes is simply not true -- the truth is that the average woman in the workplace does earn substantially less than a man does. And this is true pretty much everywhere (one can look at the European Union and it ranges from 68% in Greece to 89.9% in Eastern Germany, with the UK at 73.7%.) The US falls in these general ranges as well, though women here have had more success at closing the gap. While the above are figures strictly about income, and there's also still a gap in pay for equal work as well. There are many reasons for this, and we can debate them ad nauseum, but the bottom line in your argument is an equal ability (not opportunity) to support oneself, and that's still not true. You tend to dismiss this by saying that men need more money because men need to pay for sex and women don't, but that's a rather ingenious approach that's unsupported by facts. If you're seriously contending that men take that extra 25% or so they make and spend it on sex, I'd like to know where your information comes from. At $40k a year, that would come out to close to $200 a week.
Also, the simple truth is that divorce [i]is[/i] tougher on women -- according to the latest census, 21% of recently divorced women are below the poverty line, as opposed to 9% of men. And that's even in the environment you say economically favors women. Pretty much every report and study I've seen says that divorce still tends to make men richer and women poorer, with the gap widening when there are children involved. Part of this is simply that men tend to have been working longer, and in better jobs, and length of work experience tends to impact compensation.
The last time I checked, all fifty states in the US had a no-fault divorce option, so it's at least possible to cut the strings cleanly and say goodbye. (Whether one can actually make use of these laws, depends, of course, on the two people involved.)
Women spend more time on housework because they "need it more"? Does that explain why men spend more on sex as well? Whether it's money or marriage or dentistry or food, someone who wants their needs met needs to give something up in order to get it. If men want sex, they'll give up pretty much anything, including a house (little head thinking) and if women want a house to work on they'll give sex. Given this, why should the man complain when he has to give the house up at the end of the equation? Wasn't that part of the bargain? If we use your math, and men need that extra 25% to get sex, then that pretty much covers the cost of the house, doesn't it? (Let's see twenty years of $40k at 25%a year = that's a $200k house.)
As far as your argument on kids, sorry, you completely lost me on that one. Ok, you feel that it would be a good thing if there were fewer kids and lower property values. Goody -- that's you; I know plenty of my friends who live and die for their kids. Sure, there are some men who feel "trapped" into marriage by pregnancy, but that doesn't mean that their perspective is somehow trump. I also don't see how your argument can have it both ways -- that the interests of the adult are paramount, and the interests of the child are not, and that the man somehow suffers when his family is gone, but he shouldn't be responsible for paying to raising these kids because he doesn't get much time with them (or want it -- the majority of those two-hour a week visitation scenarios you decry are ones where the father shows no interest.) And, for what it's worth, I *do* know a couple of women who pay child support, which obviously means I also know women who have not been awarded custody.
The woman has total control of pregnancy because she can choose to get pregnant no matter what the man does? And the only alternative is not to get sex? Huh? Ever hear of condoms?
"NORMAL SEXUAL LIFE IS NOT LESS IMPORTANT, THEN NORMAL FOOD" and "SEXUAL LIFE IS OUR PRIVATE LIFE, AND THERE MUST NOT BE LAW, THAT IN ANY WAY CONNECT OUR PRIVATE LIFE WITH MONEY" -- are you telling me that you've somehow found a way to get free food all the time? Please, share your secret -- that way I can have more money for sex...
Don't misinterpret this -- I'm not at all slamming you for your opinion and perspective. I believe in healthy discussion, and part of that is pointing out areas where clarity is needed or where disagreement exists.
hiya boys :) missed you all. ok, on with the feminist diatribe....
family law has nothing to do with sex. do they ask you how many times you had sex during your marriage as part of the court process? does the judge say "i hereby award you with the house and half of your husband's worldly goods, for being so damn good in bed all these years?" i personally agree with you that marriage is a state/church sanctioned form of prostitution...strictly by the definition of goods received for sexual services...but is sex really all there is to marriage? what on earth possessed you to suggest that a man's (supposed) extra desire for sex should have any bearing on a family court ruling?
there are soooo many things about that chauvenist and totally misinformed "thesis" that i want to pick apart, but i'll try and limit myself to child support and women ending up "better off" than men after a divorce.
firstly, a little sex ed lesson....women can not have babies on their own. no, seriously, it's true! men do not stand idly by while their significant other gets pregnant. there are consequences for having sex for both parties...if you are not mature enough to realise that, then you have no business having sex in the first place. even when all precautions are taken, there is still a risk of pregnancy. and if you're scared that she may be lying to you about the pill and trying to "trap" you into having a family...take some responsibility for yourself and use a condom!
ummm i was going to write rep001hing abuse here for his suggestions in child support section, but have decided i couldn't do it rationally. this man obviously has no children, therefore he will never understand how very different a child is to a family car. (and if he does have children, then i hope for their sake he has no further contact with them). he will not understand the expense involved with raising a child, nor the continuous maintenence they require, like housework...you know alex, i could think of much better ways to spend my time than cooking dinner and cleaning up mud off the floor, but as the primary caregiver of children, that is my responsibility. to suggest that i do it because it is "more important to me than it is to a man", is truly ludicrous. any "househusband" or single father will be more than happy to confirm that for me.
i am truly fed up with hearing men claim that children are a woman's problem, and that men are the poor innocent victims of the court system that end up paying for "someone else's property" in child support. if you don't want kids, keep your dick in your pants. if you insist on dipping your wick, then you should have to take some damn responsibility for your own actions. regardless of who they live with, kids have two biological parents. it may be easy enough for men to walk away from their physical responsibilities as a father (which so many of them do), but they are still his children. child support goes towards making sure the children are fed, clothed and educated...and any good father would be more than happy to do that.
Geez, RN, and here I was picturing you in that nice maid's outfit, getting all how and bothered not because of the outfit or the company, but because you were actually getting the opportunity to dust and do dishes. And now you're saying I gotta pay for that too? :D
I'm happy to wear the maid's outfit for you free of charge honey...but if you want me to actually clean anything, it's gonna cost you fantasy rates!!
(Oh my god.. did I actually say "dip your wick" in my post??)
hi, everybody ! i expected a lot of shit on my head, but instead i got some reasonable arguments. let's discuss them :
to joe_zop :
thank you for your post.
your arguments :
1. in real life women earn less, then men ( althoug in theory they are equal ), so marriage in a way compensates this gap.
it's not only men and women that don't earn equally, whites and blacks also earn not equally, tall and beautiful people statistically earn more, that short and ugly. we don't have laws to compensate this. we don't have a law "if a white man and a black man play tennis together they have mutual financial obligations". why if a man and a woman have sex together, they do have them ?
what if we have this absurd law about tennis ? people will be afraid to play tennis. before playing with somebody they will learn his financial background first and then decide, to play or not. would it be good for tennis game ? - no. are marriage laws good for sex ? - ... same thing.
2. i know plenty of my friends who live and die for their kids.
i also know a friend that keep tie connection with his daugther after separation and helps a lot. more, then mother. he does not need any law for this !
so who need this law ? the law is a tool to forse to pay men, that have no connection with their former wifes or children. they don't love them - it happens, it's life. why should they pay for something they don't like ? - because it's difficult for single mother to raise a child. but this is another problem ! let's recognize, that raising a child is in fact full time job, that is nessessary for benefit not only of his parents, but to whole society, so society should pay for this job. and then kill marriage law completely. doesn't matter - single, married, even for normal family with both parents working, they in fact do second job raising their children. let's redistribute taxes, but not charge cheated fathers. men will be less afraid to have children. i, personaly, would prefer to pay more taxes, but to be sure, that no lawer will ever put his nose into my private sexual life.
the current price for marriage law is too high, it mixes love with money and so kills love. and love is more important then money ! - this is the point. no single mother has died with the child from hunger yet ( god save ! ), but how many happy lives are raped by by mixing love and business. financial situation of single mothers is not the only important problem in this world !
there are many complaints about american women - they are selfish, treat men like shit - that's partially result of marriage law, that introduce business relationship into family. cancel the law, and women will eventually learn, that sex is for love, and business is on their working place, not at home.
3. - ( my conception is ) - that the interests of the adult are paramount, and the interests of the child are not
not quite this way. but let's not forget - every child is child until 17, then he lives 3-4 times longer as adult. and half of children are also boys. did anybody ask them, boys, do they want this law ? maybe they'll prefer less toys in childhood, but more normal sexual life as adults ?
when they say : family law is maid to keep interests of children - it's lie. this law is made not for children. it's for their mothers.
4. - i *do* know a couple of women who pay child support.
so what ? that's exception, but the rule is that men pay.
5. - i've seen says that divorce still tends to make men richer and women poorer
it's, probably, true. it's another proof that marriage tends to make women richer and men poorer.
still i read that 90% of divorces in usa are initiated by women now. i don't know how credible is this data ( also it seems to be true ), i just read it somewhere in internet. it's interesting to find official data, if you know a good web-site, please, let me know. i'd also like to find credible statistics about :
- how many marriages happen a year
- how many divorces happen a year
how much money annualy are sued out by divorces :
- by women from men
- by men from women
how often courts give children :
- to mothers
- to fathers
i guess this statistics could be quite elogent.
to bootylover, prokofiev :
- why so much words against marriage? just stay away from it.
- think first and don't get married.
i try to stay away. the problem is that women press on men - go get married or go to hell, i'l find another, more agreeble guy. just like prostitutes - no money, no funny. i'd like to take this tool ( marriage ) off their hands.
to rn :
- family law has nothing to do with sex. ... i personally agree with you that marriage is a state/church sanctioned form of prostitution...strictly by the definition of goods received for sexual services
good. you agree.
- if you don't want kids, keep your dick in your pants. if you insist on dipping your wick, ( yes, you said this ! alex. ) then you should have to take some damn responsibility for your own actions.
this conception is totally wrong ! to have children and to make a mistake about this - is not a crime, that men shold pay for. this idea kills normal sexual relationship between men and women - and normal relationships are more important, then money !
please, see also my answers to joe_zop.
Everybody has there own views about family finance, but the most common view is that somebody else should pay. I know lots of people that have kids, but I can't think of any parents who wish they did not have their children. They sure complain about the costs and the many forms of effort involved with raising kids, but none would give up their kids.
I will tell everybody reading this that I do not want to pay my electric bill. I do not have a good excuse, I just do not want to pay. I will pay it though because I really don't like sitting in the dark. Lots of guys try to get out of paying child support. They offer every excuse imaginable but the bottom line is ,,,they just don't want to pay.
I hear people complain about taxes thinking that they are paying somebody elses way through life without ever considering that most of the things they take for granted would not happen without the system as it is. A simple fact of life is that if we want to play the game, we all have to pay our share of the bills.
I have never been told I look like Brad Pitt but I have been able to maintain a relationship even at points in my life when I was barely making enough money to get to my next paycheck. I don't claim any special ability in bed, but most of the women I have been with seemed more than willing to be intimate. I honestly think that we blame American women for our troubles because otherwise we would have to look in the mirror for the real problems.
I am far from perfect, so if I can do it, anybody can......Life is what you make it.
random : I do not want to pay my electric bill.
You pay electric bill for house where you live only. If you leave the house, you don't pay the bill any more.