American Women

Well, as a long-time activist, I've gotta disagree with that one. The utter reality is that laws are made and changed and public opinion is defined and promoted by small groups of committed or interested people. You don't have to have a majority to do anything, since the American majority is basically apathetic. Gays are hardly a majority, but their lot has improved immensely via legislation and legal actions in the past few decades and the same could be said of African-Americans. And you can't tell me that divorced men couldn't be a strong lobby -- it's certainly a large enough group, and you can talk all you want about how the feminazis have taken over, but the reality is that men still control the vast majority of money in this country, and money helps make for political change.

A "women in this country are all crap and men are just abused" approach is going to get you the nowhere that you deserve, but focused attention to specific injustices while providing a reasonable solution (and "men simply shouldn't have to pay anything" isn't going to do it) has always been and still is the prescription for change. Foaming at the mouth might make for good therapy, but it usually makes for lousy politics. (Not counting elections of course -- there's a certain percentage of mad dogs that simply must be elected for entertainment's sake.)

And I don't know the specifics of this particular state, but clear evidence of cohabitation with someone of the opposite sex has been used to reduce or eliminate alimony for many, many years. Throwing up your hands and pleading powerlessness means you're just whining.

Tell the many men who have been forced to pay for children who are NOT their own that they are whining. Example: the common law derived from (pre?) colonial England that states that if a man has acted as a child's father for a given time (EVEN if it is NOT of his blood) he must accept that mantle and support it. There are LEGIONS of men in this country who have been forced to care for children who are not theirs (through the deceit of conniving women) because of this law. A case that has made national headlines is out of Pennsylvania. Woman sleeps with a man other than her hubby, has other guy's kid, lies to hubby for YEARS and leads him to think it's his (actually TWO KIDS that are not his), years later DNA says it is NOT, but he is still compelled by biased court system that he must pay DNA be damned. Divorced fathers HAVE an informal lobby, pal, but because they are MEN, and are perceived as running the country (only the RICH do that). they are "cut down to size" by a system biased toward a group that always goes to the well of having been oppressed for the past five millenia. Men may control the vast amount of money in this country, but marriage is like a cheetah waiting for a gullible antelope to wander across the Serengeti. It will hunt it down relentlessly. If it doesn't sink its teeth into said antelope THIS time, there is always the next time.

Well, "pal", hyperbole never begets change in law by itself, and throwing up your hands and saying "poor men" doesn't either. I didn't say the complaints weren't legitimate, I said that if you just complain you're a victim and don't work to make change then it is simply whining. As far as the divorced men's lobby, perhaps it's not because they're MEN, it's because they're a lousy lobby. They certainly wouldn't be the first one of those.

I've got a brother who was driven into bankruptcy because he was forced by the courts to pay for the lawyer for a crazy wfe who tried to kill him, and who is in exactly the same situation of taking care of a kid that isn't his via biology, and who lost everything he rebuilt in his second divorce. I completely agree that men often get a raw deal (as, in other cases, do women.) But if you take, as you've just done, every suggestion and criticism as an exercise in denial of the justice of your position, then you don't understand politics and lawmaking, are just venting, and deserve to just wallow because you're not truly interested in what it takes to make change happen.

Hi RN and Joe,

I'm compelled to agree with Sinanjumaster in reference to the virtual impossibility of getting current divorce laws changed at the state level. Getting current laws changed or altered by state assemblies is very, very difficult given the issues of actually getting a bill or law through commitee, actually getting it to the floor for a vote, hoping the governor won't veto it, etc. The "inertia" not to change existing laws is immense even for popular or politically correct issues.

For some state legislator to introduce legislation to "equalize" the divorce laws would be political suicide - not to mention an exercise in futility.

In my state we have DADS (dads against divorce) and these guys will give you an ear full. Every time they try to approach a state legislator or judge, these guys run for cover. They're not about to the alienate 50% of the voters in their districts. These guys aren't stupid. You can bet that if they showed even the slightest public sympathy to a group like DADS or their agenda, their opponents in the next election would exploit this to the Nth degree.

Joe, I agree with you that we should stop do it through the American political system. However, equalizing divorce laws at the state level is a very, very special case and an exercise in futility given the realities of the situation. This is a 'cat of a different color' to say the least.

sinanjumaster,

I doubt very much that the legislators sat down and just decided to give women everything and f*ck up men's lives. It would have been a response to people who lobbied against archaic laws that left women with absolutely nothing after years of marriage and child-rearing. People lobbying for women's rights complained about the inequality, and the Government responded. Now as we all know, politicians aren't the smartest people on earth and they are also some the laziest...they have a tendency to apply "band-aid" solutions wherever possible, just to shut people up or impress the voters. So of course, they probably didn't think the legislation through. But that doesn't mean that it's set in stone. Now YOU are suffering injustices and inequality...so YOU need to complain.

Divorce law is NOT a women vs men situation. Women are hurt every day by ridiculous divorce laws, just as men are. As I've said before, my ex-husband terrorised me and my children and threatened our lives, to the point where I actually had to move town and go into hiding...BUT, because he is my son's biological father, the law gives him "equal right" to a relationship with his child. So he gets regular access (that *I* have to pay half of the travel expenses for), HALF of every Christmas day (and because there are a couple of hundred miles between me and him, it means MY half of Christmas day with my son is spent driving to drop him off), and I am forced by law to leave my little one in the care of a drunken piece of...ummm...excrement, whether I like it or not. And do you know WHY our law is that way? Because MEN were not happy with the way WOMEN were "getting everything" under our divorce laws, and they complained. So our Government changed the laws again (and of course, idiots that they are, swung it too far back the other way).

So look at the issue rationally...don't stand outside Parliament (or whatever you call it) screaming about the injustices perpetrated against men. Don't protest against the "feminist" laws. Don't even bring gender into it! The reason the system needs to be changed is because the law is UNJUST, UNFAIR and UNWORKABLE. Find men AND women who have been screwed by the divorce system, and let the Government hear how it's hurting EVERYBODY. If you fight for simple EQUALITY, rather than "gender equality", you are more likely to receive support from many different sectors of society...including women. And with the support of both sexes during the lobbying process, you may even be able to get laws that suit EVERYBODY...not one sex over the other.

That's the very problem with this justice system. The law is one sided and favors one over the other without compromise. Judges tend to reward EVERYTHING to one party (in most cases the woman). Yes there are cases in which the woman gets screwed too and loses custody of the child or doesn't get her child support to raise the kid she does win custody over and that may be because she has a lousy lawyer. I firmly believe that the ex-husband should help in the expense of raising HIS BIOLOGICAL CHILD, but I am firmly against him being forced to pay for someone else's. Sometimes the judge even tranfers the responsibility of child support from the biological father to the step father which is TOTALLY unfair. He is forced to pay for the unbiological child just because the child lived with him for so many years which is a law I totally hate and the reason I am scared to death about dating and marrying single mothers. In fact I am scared of even being married at all in the USA.
In life we always have 2 options- fight or flight. But if fighting doesn't work and you can't win, you should take flight and leave before suffering more damage and I think leaving America would be best for divorced husbands with ex-wives looking to take him to the cleaners. There are more men than you think, Joe, that tried to fight the divorce laws but are fighting a losing battle because of complacent ploticians that want to kiss up to everybody. Divorced women make up 25% of the nation's population (Being that divorce rate is 60% and that 85% of us get married at one point or another because of the pressure from our parents or the pressure of wanting kids). Not everyone has a good heart like RN. Some women are more vicious than your worst enemies after a divorce and are out to get you. Divorce also spawns hate. The ex-wife thinks she wasted time on you and then decides she should be compensated for "doing you the favor of being with you". Hell with that, just leave and screw vicious women like these because they deserve to be screwed. Just send the money she may need to raise the kid by western union so you won't be traced.

Marriage is a bullshit system. Don't get married and you won't have all these problems you are WHINING about.

I think it's sad that people are willing to avoid marriage just so they can avoid divorce. Apparently 50% of marriages end in divorce...which means that 50% last!! And of the 50% that do end, not all of those divorces are bitter. Some people just grow apart and go their separate ways.

Mind you, I would rather carve my own eyes out with a teaspoon and pour salt water into the empty sockets than get married again...so maybe I'm not the right person to be giving advice...

I agree with you 100%, Dickhead. That is why I avoided marriage to this day to avoid the problems associated with it. I was very close to it though with my Cuban ex-fiancee turned feminist. She totally changed into the oppsite of what she was when I first met her and I felt I didn't know her anymore. If I had tied the knot, she would have took me to the cleaners even if I didn't have kids. She would sue for alimony. Fortunately, she didn't think of sueing me before marriage which some women would do just for having lived with them and would charge backpay for sex. I did lose the engagement ring though which costed me $4,000. What a fool I was but $4,000 is still much less of a loss than what my uncle suufered which is losing the house and having to garnish his check (after taxes is taken out) for the mortgage and alimony (he didn't have kids with his first wife but my cousin came from his second marriage and he is still paying part of his salary for his first wife even though he is currently on his second marriage.) Actually, getting married and divorced is as expensive as owning a harem. You support all of them except you only get to sleep with one and the rest of the harem end up looking like Mimi from Drew Carey.
Whew!! I'm glad I didn't go down that bumpy road of potholes because I end up losing money in damages!

Joe,
I do NOT advocate "throwing up ones hands and giving up! Guys in such situations need to do cloak their assets (and identities if necessary) and immediately go on the defensive. Activism to reverse this bias against men in our society is a good idea, BUT it takes time. I'm willing to bet that time is a luxury that Paddy's friend does NOT HAVE. As for having a good lobbying group, American women would pounce upon such a lobby and attempt to crush it before it can gather enough steam to present a threat to them.

RN,
I can't speak for all men, much less for another man, but marriage is a momentous life event that calls for a commitment of both partners to the other. I don't need to tell you that. HOWEVER, a wise man will AVOID the ship-crushing rocks instead of sailing even NEAR THEM. Myself, I'd rather continually observe a propsective wife in her moments good and bad. That way, you can gauge her character even when she's NOT at her best. So many of my family and friends have failed or failing marriages that I'm EXTRA cautious in my selections. When you said that your government reversed the divorce laws, I nearly fell out of my chair. Changing the laws (equitably) in this country regarding said subject would be comparable to parting the Red Sea. The women's groups would NEVER allow it. You hit the nail on the head about the legislators. If a representative from a men's group approached one of these unprincipled, spineless, money-hungry vermin in private, the representative would deny ever having MET such an individual to the public. The teaspoon in the eye sockets doused with salt water made me laff! Are you trying to impress a point upon us? LOL

DH,
you have a valid point, and 1% of the time I feel that way, BUT if or when I DO get hitched, you can bet yer last dollar that I'll have so much stuff hidden (in case I become the gazelle) that my behind will be covered QUITE nicely.

SUMMARY: the system sucks; activism CAN change things, but at too slow a pace for those already in the quicksand; ALWAYS have an escape plan; ALWAYS be alert to your matrimonial (or soon-to-be) surroundings.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RN
[i]I think it's sad that people are willing to avoid marriage just so they can avoid divorce. Apparently 50% of marriages end in divorce...which means that 50% last!!

But that is definitely not the same thing as 50% being GOOD marriages. Some of the 50% last due to fear of the stuff we have been talking about, some of the 50% last due to inertia, some due to the people involved knowing that they are such neurotic losers that no one else would ever put up with them. The percentage of marriages that remain "good" after 5 or 10 years? 15 to 20% in my estimation. DH


And of the 50% that do end, not all of those divorces are bitter. Some people just grow apart and go their separate ways.


And my divorce wasn't bitter, and she didn't take me for any money, but it was still a stupid idea, and it remains a stupid concept. DH

Mind you, I would rather carve my own eyes out with a teaspoon and pour salt water into the empty sockets than get married again...so maybe I'm not the right person to be giving advice...

And I would rather rip my tonsils out with a fish hook than get married again, so maybe I AM the right person to be giving the advice that I did.

But anyway who would want to marry a

Dickhead



[/i][/QUOTE]

I agree that in many ways American society has a bias against men at the moment. I think by and large what's happened is the old male-dominant model has been thrown out because it had its flaws, and it's been replaced not by a new model, but by things designed to react against the excesses of the old model. Such draconian situations as Paddy's described are a symptom of this, though it's also true that in most cases women far poorer financially after a divorce than when they're in a marriage. (For what it's worth, however, I also do know men who have received big pieces of their wives' assets in divorce, in those rare cases where she has more money.) So what we ironically have is guys fearful of what they'll lose staying in marriages where in fact it's costing them more not only financially but emotionally... And there are as many emotionally virulent ex-men from broken relationships as there are women. The men just get it handed to them emotionally and financially, whereas the women get it emotionally and often physically.

I completely agree that societal change ends up costing those who are currently screwed by the system. We can look at all kinds of discrimination in society and see that -- heaven knows I wouldn't want to be a young black American male today (or worse, at the moment, arabic) for what's going to happen to him and how he's going to be treated simply because he is who he is. That means it's important to work on two levels -- one level of triage, hence the suggestions that have been given to Paddy's friend and others, and one that's longer-term, that involves slowly making a case and alliances and most importantly, as RN points out, finding a way to make the case about a situation, not a gender, because politically that's poison. If it comes down to having to make a "men are bad/women are bad" kind of choice, then any smart politician is going to go play golf.

I see alot of comments here about man hating feminazi's but I also see quite a few woman hating mascunazi's (my new word for the day).

Old Chinese proverb: "The nail who sticks it's head up will always get driven down".

Perhaps... but the nail might also get a few big, juicy toes ripped across it too.

If we all lived by that proverb we'd still be living in Africa, clubbing animals over the head with a large stick and sleeping in a cave.

There's a larger potential for reward by trying something risky.

What's the point of sitting around and taking no chances in life?The same applies to marriage. Sure, you may get screwed, but that's your own stupidity. When I go out in my boat I have an extra can of gas, lifejackets, fresh water, etc... so in case something goes wrong I won't lose a leg to gangrene (or the soup pot). Only a fool goes into a situation with no insurance or backup plan. Men can see the unjust divorce laws in this country yet they take no effort to plan what may happen if they themselves get divorced.

Quit crying because you were too foolish/near sighted/oblivious to see what could happen to you in the future.

Gentlemen,

I must tell you this very recent development.

She was part of this new government clinician-exchange programme. Hard as nails, and from reading the descriptions of American women here, she was a typical American women. I’d tried to “talk” to her, out of the work context and you guessed it: blank. Not one to let go, I've been chasing her for about 2 weeks now, every which way: kindness, help, conversation… you name it. Nothing. So I go for the final direct approach: I want to get to know you, take you to bed and see if it works between us (my direct quote). Her eyes sparkle, and I have a date! Believe me, this is a first for me with this sort of direct question / proposition. She is my first bedded American women. Do American women (Michigan) prefer the direct approach in general?

She isn’t interested in a relationship! Excellent, since I am not either. The next morning ended with a long session followed by a classic: lets meet when we need to... as long as it lasts! This can not be typical….???

By the way I totally agree with and fully endorse what Fedup says: start as you mean to go on. Intelligence makes you buy insurance; apply the same sense to emotional activity….. plain and simple.

Regards,

Havanaman

Hey Havanaman... welcome to the board. I've been reading your posts over in Cuba forum... good stuff. I have to say that I've never been that forward in hitting on an AW. I guess I'm scared of them screaming harrassment and getting me arrested. You have some cohones. And yes... I think there's alot of women running around just looking for sex. The problem is that this puritanical society prevents many women from acting on it.

My last post may have been full of youthful arrogance, but the fact remains that most people don't plan for after the wedding but just get caught up in the emotion/Hallmark moment.