Do men today simply have more to lose in the case of a divorce?
In the case of the divorce, the mother is likely to get custody of the children, which means she's likely to get the house, which means the father -- if he earned more than her -- will have to support her with alimony and child support, and if he didn't significantly earn more than her, he'll still have to pay child support (and only have visitation rights or have the kids 4 days a month.) It could also happen that he wasn't earning that much but was still the sole breadwinner of the family, in which case, his child support payments will be through the roof, not leaving him much to live on.
With 50% of marriages failing (and women filing for 75% of divorces) is marriage, today, a raw deal for men? Do we as a society need a new model for bringing children into this world? Perhaps contracts along the lines of "we'll conceive this child and we'll both be parents to it for the next 18 years." This way both the man and the woman can be parents, and the child will get two parents, without there being the trouble of marriage.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out that the favorable circumstances for divorce from a spouse who earns more than you prompts people to more quickly file divorce papers. Now, we know that on average men earn more in wages than women, for many different reasons- so it makes a bit of sense that more women file for divorce than men. If you were thinking of divorce, but your spouse earned less than you, and so it would cost you money to divorce them, then you might decide not to. If, on the other hand, they made all the money, then you could divorce them and keep everything you have now.
I'm very much against the practice of awarding a percentage of a spouse's income to the other spouse in case of divorce, or the practice of awarding an amount to pay for the "lifestyle to which the spouse is accustomed." This comes out in some cases to millions of dollars a year, which doesn't make a ton of sense to me- if you divorce someone, you shouldn't get to keep all your privileges, and forsake all your commitments- and certainly this shouldn't happen for only one side of the marriage.
At the same time, it's more complicated than just that, because in many marriages the wife or sometimes husband has spent many years raising a family, and the marriage was in some sense based on the idea that one spouse would earn money for both. A divorce leaves one partner without much means to earn a living, and the other with all the means. Even so, I don't think 50% is the solution to that problem, most especially if the amount of money in question was already barely enough to support the family.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
But women totally bear the majority of the risk and responsibility of marriage and kids. To start with, pregnancy can kill you or wreck your health. I've seen so many of my female friends who got divorced raise their kids alone. The fathers write a check every so often, and get to have the kids for fun things like weekends, but the whole burden, financial, emotional, diurnal, goes on the mom.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out that the favorable circumstances for divorce from a spouse who earns more than you prompts people to more quickly file divorce papers. Now, we know that on average men earn more in wages than women, for many different reasons- so it makes a bit of sense that more women file for divorce than men. If you were thinking of divorce, but your spouse earned less than you, and so it would cost you money to divorce them, then you might decide not to. If, on the other hand, they made all the money, then you could divorce them and keep everything you have now.
Yes, but don't you think the fact that the mother is likely to get custody of the child is also a factor? A man who becomes dissatisfied in a marriage that has produced kids has a very strong disincentive against initiating divorce -- he'll lose the kids.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Child support only lasts to age 18, and there is no alimony anymore so basically the contract is up then anyway.
Is there really no alimony anymore? I guess that would be the case when the partners aren't far apart in what they bring to the table financially. But suppose a man who earns a 100k gets divorced, and his ex-wife never worked. He won't be forced to pay alimony?
quote: But women totally bear the majority of the risk and responsibility of marriage and kids. To start with, pregnancy can kill you or wreck your health. I've seen so many of my female friends who got divorced raise their kids alone. The fathers write a check every so often, and get to have the kids for fun things like weekends, but the whole burden, financial, emotional, diurnal, goes on the mom.
These men have their capacity to be fathers determined by women who might very well hate them. And "write a check every once in a while"? Child Support requires a substantial amount of money from a man's earnings. If he doesn't earn much, the guy is royally screwed.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Is marriage a raw deal because in the case of divorce you might get screwed? Um...no...DIVORCE is a raw deal. So don't marry someone you're likely to divorce!
Look, people fling that 50% number around as if it's some kind of omen for their own marriage. Oh no, I might not want to get married because it's even odds it won't work out.
Not true. First of all, FIRST marriages do not fail 50% of the time. First marriages fail something like 1/3 of the time (can't remember the exact statistic.) Second marriages fail something like 60% of the time, third marriages more, 4th marriages even more...and so on.
Not only that, but marriages are significantly more likely to fail when people get married too young. There is a much higher rate of divorce in people who get married younger than 25 or 26.
So basically what I'm saying is that if you want to get married you do the thing right. You wait until you're a little older and more mature. You find someone who takes commitment seriously. You find someone who knows how to have a relationship.
In fact , it amazes me how few people know how to have a relationship. People who don't understand that love is a verb and requires hard work.
Don't marry just anyone. Marry the woman you're going to spend the rest of your life with and the odds are significantly on your side.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Casting aside the utter ridiculousness of the author's tone, he just doesn't have his facts right.
"After a divorce, a woman’s cost of living can increase dramatically, hence the reason why court-ordered alimony and child support payments most often go to women; even so, experts report that the average woman experiences a 45% decrease in her standard of living after going through a divorce. Meanwhile, the average man experiences a 15% improvement in his standard of living (Long Island University’s National Center for Women & Retirement Research)."
As for getting the children, I do think the courts have a ways to go to make things more equitable. But I also think the marriages themselves contribute to where the kids go. If the woman was the one who did 80% of the childcare before the divorce, it makes sense to give her primary care post divorce. Like it or not, an even split of the kids is often not doable and not in the kids best interest. I would echo Christine here and say your best bet is marrying wisely and if you want to encourage financial equity post split provide equity within the marriage so that both sides have the ability to provide for themselves and the kids.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: But women totally bear the majority of the risk and responsibility of marriage and kids.
That's a surprisingly sexist thing for you to say. This is sometimes the case, and it is sometimes *not* the case. I don't believe we should structure our laws to accommodate a sexist view of marriage. Women are surprised when some men don't want to get married? They shouldn't be.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to find out that the favorable circumstances for divorce from a spouse who earns more than you prompts people to more quickly file divorce papers. Now, we know that on average men earn more in wages than women, for many different reasons- so it makes a bit of sense that more women file for divorce than men. If you were thinking of divorce, but your spouse earned less than you, and so it would cost you money to divorce them, then you might decide not to. If, on the other hand, they made all the money, then you could divorce them and keep everything you have now.
Yes, but don't you think the fact that the mother is likely to get custody of the child is also a factor? A man who becomes dissatisfied in a marriage that has produced kids has a very strong disincentive against initiating divorce -- he'll lose the kids.
Absolutely, but not all marriages involve children, and many divorces result in shared custody. The kids are generally a disincentive for divorce for both men and women.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
theresa- thanks for that statistic. After reading the OP, I thought, dang it, I now I need to go find that info (I have heard that statistic before).
Right now, I am not working. My husband and I both looked for a job, he found one that paid our bills and so I ended up with the stay at home job (if I had found a good job, he planned to stay home). But the thing is, I am losing earning potential- not just money I could make now, but years of experience, connections, etc. I tutor part time for a company so that I have references and not an empty resume, but I am still losing professional development time. So, if my husband and I were to divorce, I think it is not unreasonable for me to get something out of it more than just child support. I think each case needs to be evaluated on a case my case basis though. My sister works full time with a very nice career. She has no kids and her husband does not do housework or anything useful, but he is lazy and doesn't want to work- she wants him to. She did have to relocate for work (to Canada) and he went with her. At the time he was unemployed, so hard to argue he lost much in the relocation. So, in that case, I really don't feel much like he should get alimony. As far as courts awarding alimony, my mother in law was a SAHM for most of her life. My father in law made over 100k when they divorced. She received no alimony- just child support. To be fair to him though, he did a lot of stuff that was not court ordered because his relationship with his sons is really important and he thought that leaving their mother devastated would hurt that relationship.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Men benefit hugely by marriage. They earn more while married, they live longer, and they get more in the divorce if they get divorced. After a divorce, men get wealthier and women are often impoverished.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Therese51282 has it right. This author is simply way off base. His claims just don't match the data.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Men benefit hugely by marriage. They earn more while married, they live longer, and they get more in the divorce if they get divorced. After a divorce, men get wealthier and women are often impoverished.
You don't think this is overly simplistic?
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I don't think it is. Marriage is a vastly better deal for men than it is for women, by all sorts of metrics. Divorce is a whole 'nother thing entirely.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Men benefit hugely by marriage. They earn more while married, they live longer, and they get more in the divorce if they get divorced. After a divorce, men get wealthier and women are often impoverished.
Your statement "men benefit hugely by marriage" seems to be based on applying life quality correlations experienced by people who more readily married as things actually caused by marriage.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Men benefit hugely by marriage. They earn more while married, they live longer, and they get more in the divorce if they get divorced. After a divorce, men get wealthier and women are often impoverished.
Your statement "men benefit hugely by marriage" seems to be based on applying life quality correlations experienced by people who more readily married as things actually caused by marriage.
Actually, and I can't speak for exactly what katharina meant, but studies have found that married men lead longer, healthier lives than their single counterparts.
What's more, while women tend to get the short end of the stick from divorce in terms of economic quality of life, divorced women tend to be much better off emotionally than divorced men. (Though it is hard on both.)
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
The fact that married men might tend to earn more and live longer could be merely correlative. Maybe women are ditching the sort of guys who aren't capable of substantial life time earnings.
quote: Marriage is a vastly better deal for men than it is for women, by all sorts of metrics. Divorce is a whole 'nother thing entirely.
Is this why it's men who are always the most excited about getting married?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The fact that married men might tend to earn more and live longer could be merely correlative.
The statistics I have seen indicate otherwise.
Also, in most states, women are unlikely to get sole or even primary custody in the majority of cases. Most family court judges prefer to award joint custody, unless there has been negligence or abuse by one of the parents. Even if the mother gets primary custody, that does NOT translate into getting the house -- especially not in a community property state!
The sad fact is that financially, divorce is rough on both parents. The income that used to cover one home now has to cover two, the kids need extra clothes (because of the backing-and-forthing), and quite a few other things end up more expensive for two households. (Insurance, may need another vehicle, and the list goes on.)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think Clive is saying that the qualities which make a man live longer are those which make him more likely to marry (and stay married). In order to get married, the man must be able to convince a woman to marry him, as well as be of a temperament that he wants to marry. A controlled study of this is pretty difficult since you can't just randomly assign people to the married group vs unmarried group. Men who look like they will be poor or unhealthy in the future might be unable to find women willing to marry them and stay single.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Is this why it's men who are always the most excited about getting married?
I'd say that overall, stereotypes notwithstanding, men are about as interested in getting married as women. What they're not as interested in is the wedding.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Is this why it's men who are always the most excited about getting married?
I'd say that overall, stereotypes notwithstanding, men are about as interested in getting married as women. What they're not as interested in is the wedding.
Still an important part of the whole decision to get married though, don't you think? I'd go further and say that men are not as interested in any number of the trappings of marriage, ie: weddings, anniversaries, his and hers towels, couples dinners, redecoration, etc. There are a number of concessions men are traditionally expected to make in their lifestyles and habits that accommodate their partner's needs. These don't have exact analogues on the female side, though women make other adjustments that are more or less difficult depending on the particular marriage.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There are a number of concessions men are traditionally expected to make in their lifestyles and habits that accommodate their partner's needs. These don't have exact analogues on the female side, though women make other adjustments that are more or less difficult depending on the particular marriage.
I don't think that, in general, either side needs to make more concessions than the other side.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think divvying up his and her responsibilities, and keeping score about who did what when, is a good way to embitter your relationship.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Prenups people! Always sign a prenup!
Also though work should go into making marriage harder though not necessarily more expensive.
Like say a transitionary program where you need to be dating for 3 years and living together for at least 1.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The fact that married men might tend to earn more and live longer could be merely correlative. Maybe women are ditching the sort of guys who aren't capable of substantial life time earnings.
quote: Marriage is a vastly better deal for men than it is for women, by all sorts of metrics. Divorce is a whole 'nother thing entirely.
Is this why it's men who are always the most excited about getting married?
Not to mention that if you look at how income and standard of living correlate to age and number of years in a career it is natural that the income and standards increase.
They would regardless of marital status. Since men tend to get married later than women, that along could skew the data.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I don't object to prenups on principal but I certainly don't think all marriages need them. I got married when I was 23 and my husband was 22. We had both just finished degrees and were starting our lives together in a new city with our first real jobs. What on earth did we need a prenup for? We had no assets and no debt other than some minimal student loans. Everything we earn in life is going to be earned in a partnership so regardless of which of us goes on to earn more financially, it seems fair to split our assets if we ever got a divorce down the middle. as for requiring X amount of dating and living together I think that's silly. Studies don't back up living together bringing down the divorce rate and they also don't suggests that the longer a couple dates the more likely they are to stay together. Everyone is different. Couples should decide when to commit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think Clive is saying that the qualities which make a man live longer are those which make him more likely to marry (and stay married). In order to get married, the man must be able to convince a woman to marry him, as well as be of a temperament that he wants to marry. A controlled study of this is pretty difficult since you can't just randomly assign people to the married group vs unmarried group. Men who look like they will be poor or unhealthy in the future might be unable to find women willing to marry them and stay single.
But that's not how the studies (at least the ones I was referring to) were done. They started with married men, and watched what happened to those whose wives died or divorced them as compared to those who stayed married. Similarly with women.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
How did they make sure they were only measuring the removal of a marriage benefit, and not just the additional stress of going through a divorce and adjusting to a different lifestyle?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The studies looked at several years afterwards. And if it were just stress, the women would do worse single too.
They don't. At least not as much as men do.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think Clive is saying that the qualities which make a man live longer are those which make him more likely to marry (and stay married). In order to get married, the man must be able to convince a woman to marry him, as well as be of a temperament that he wants to marry. A controlled study of this is pretty difficult since you can't just randomly assign people to the married group vs unmarried group. Men who look like they will be poor or unhealthy in the future might be unable to find women willing to marry them and stay single.
But that's not how the studies (at least the ones I was referring to) were done. They started with married men, and watched what happened to those whose wives died or divorced them as compared to those who stayed married. Similarly with women.
Perhaps men who are unable to make the marriage work are lacking in abilities which help them succeed at work. Dead wives, well, that is harder to justify with that logic, but still might be something there.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The majority of these men were post-retirement. Work is probably not the key issue.
Nor does it explain health problems.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Out of curiosity, did they control for presence of/custody of children? I would think that would be a confounding factor here.
--j_k
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
IIRC, children were out of the picture. As I said, post-retirement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
boy I'd sure like to see these studies
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Many many studies have been done on the subject. Just google marriage and men's health and you will find several dozen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I could do that but I would like to specifically see the studies that people here are basing their claims and interpretations upon.
in effect I would like to see some sources cited.
Posted by Ace of Spades (Member # 2256) on :
Women will often bug men to eat better, get enough sleep, dress for the weather, lay off the the drugs and excessive alcohol, and avoid dangerous physical risks. They are also often more tied in to the social network, and help men keep from becoming loners. Regular sex is also good for the prostate. All of these things are probably contributors to why married men live longer. Just some thoughts.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
I'm with you, Christine.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:There are a number of concessions men are traditionally expected to make in their lifestyles and habits that accommodate their partner's needs. These don't have exact analogues on the female side, though women make other adjustments that are more or less difficult depending on the particular marriage.
I don't think that, in general, either side needs to make more concessions than the other side.
I agree as well and also with what Scott said.
My current qualification is that I'm about to get married. This Saturday my fiancé and I reorganized and stocked his apartment's kitchen. Sure, my dishes are going in and his old bachelor ones are gone, but then, you could say that I'm the one that is moving two hours north to another state and away from her family. Those are examples of adjustments that we both decided to make for the good of the relationship. It's not really about the changes and the concessions (how many there may be for either person there is no telling and it shouldn't really matter anyhow) for us but about coming together to create and start our life together. A lot of give and take is required from both partners, and a lot of how that affects the both of you depends greatly on your attitude. That brings me back round to what Christine had to say about relationships.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
On the original article, a lot of times, when someone is writing about how terrible something else is, you can often get a glimpse of some of their personal problems. This guy, he's hitting you ever the head with them.
I agree he definitely shouldn't get married. I've little doubt he'd find it the hell he imagines it will be. That's more about him, though, than about marriage or men and women in general.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: On the original article, a lot of times, when someone is writing about how terrible something else is, you can often get a glimpse of some of their personal problems. This guy, he's hitting you ever the head with them.
I agree he definitely shouldn't get married. I've little doubt he'd find it the hell he imagines it will be. That's more about him, though, than about marriage or men and women in general.
QFT
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Do you know what stats I'm searching endlessly for and cannot find? Stats on the likelihood of a couple marrying with a prenup divorcing versus those without.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Unless said stats took the content of the prenups into account, it wouldn't tell you much.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
They'd tell her what she wants to know. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think divvying up his and her responsibilities, and keeping score about who did what when, is a good way to embitter your relationship.
Agreed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: They'd tell her what she wants to know.
Doubtful. I expect they might tell her what she thinks she wants to know, which is not the same thing.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
A blog from a someone who has staked her professional career on claims that being single is healthier.
Yeah, I'm gonna need a BIG ole chunk of salt for that one.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: A blog from a someone who has staked her professional career on claims that being single is healthier.
Yeah, I'm gonna need a BIG ole chunk of salt for that one.
So the author is either lying or she is wrong.
Let's see: She made claims which can objectively be proven to be true or false: to wit, studies that purport to show people who get married live longer ignore people who got married and divorced, and that people who remain single live as long as married people. Are you aware of anyone disputing her take on these claims? Why does the fact that she has a blog about being single discredit her to you?
She seems like more than a competent academic and, as such, someone who wouldn't so carelessly wreck her reputation by making objectively false claims about popular studies. Maybe you just don't like comforting myths getting debunked.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: studies that purport to show people who get married live longer ignore people who got married and divorced
No, they treat them as being currently single, which she says means ignoring that they were married.
Spin is a beautiful thing.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: studies that purport to show people who get married live longer ignore people who got married and divorced
No, they treat them as being currently single,
And ignore the fact that they were ever married.
quote: which she says means ignoring that they were married.
...which is exactly what they did.
The key point:
quote:Now let me tell you the results of what is probably the longest-running study of longevity ever conducted. It is the Terman Life-Cycle Study, started in 1921. The 1,528 men and women, who were 11-years old when the study started, have been followed for as long as they lived. Two groups of people lived the longest: those who got married and stayed married, and those who stayed single. People who divorced, or who divorced and remarried, had shorter lives. What mattered was consistency, not marriage. The results were the same for the men and the women.
If you took these findings and lumped single people (never married) with the divorced, of course you would get an average shorter live for this group compared to people who stayed married. This is exactly what the RAND study did.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ignoring people who got married and divorced is not the same things as ignoring the fact that they got married and divorced.
In the first, you exclude divorcees from your study. In the second, you treat them as singles.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: This is exactly what the RAND study did.
No, it's not.
Have you read the study?
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Married for 17 years. Amicable divorce in 1982. Part of their divorce included a statement that there'd never be any request for alimony.. I would assume that 27 years later there's no child support to worry about either.
But, she isn't doing so hot financially anymore, so she sued him for alimony and WON! So in spite of the fact that he's retired and on a fixed income, he's suddenly on the hook for $1600 a month to her.
Um.... holy halakalea?
I know in my case, child support ends in 10 more years when my youngest turns 18. After that there will be no contact between me and my ex. Only possible exceptions I can think of would be weddings, and even there it'd simply be we'd both be present at them.
If 17 years after that she sued me for alimony, I frankly don't know what I'd do. This frankly just seems like armed robbery to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That really is about ten different kinds of crazy.
And those examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Magson: Part of their divorce included a statement that there'd never be any request for alimony.
But, she isn't doing so hot financially anymore, so she sued him for alimony and WON!
That's bizarre. It's not clear to me on what basis the court overturned the previous divorce decree, but I agree that should NOT happen.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:The “domestic violence” we hear so much about is essentially just another aspect of the divorce game. When a woman leaves her husband, she is routinely advised to accuse him of “abuse,” whether of herself or the children. No evidence is necessary; the husband is hauled off to prison and forbidden most types of contact with his family. Courts themselves sponsor seminars on how to fabricate accusations, and there are no penalties for perjury.
Baskerville notes that the literature on “domestic violence” evinces no concern with prosecuting men directly for violent acts. Indeed, were men beating their wives, there would be no need for a special category of violence labeled “domestic”; they could simply be prosecuted for battery under the same laws that apply to other cases. The complaint of “domestic violence” activists is almost exclusively that “abusers” might retain custody or visitation rights for their children. They speak ominously of the “batterers” making “threats of kidnapping.” This simply means that involuntarily divorced fathers want their children back.
It is important to note that terms such as abuse, violence, and battery do not, in the surreal world of feminism and divorce law, have their traditional English meanings. As early as 1979, feminists were writing of men who battered their wives “by ignoring [them] and by working late.” Today, women are instructed that abuse includes “name-calling,” “giving you negative looks,” “ignoring your opinions,” and (most revealingly, in my view) “refusing to let you have money.” The U.S. Department of Justice has declared that “undermining an individual’s sense of self-worth” is domestic violence and hence a federal crime.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The Occidental Quarterly? Consider your source before an unsourced editorial makes you decide that there's no such thing as spousal abuse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Incidentally, the whole site is blocked at work because of "Racism and Hate."
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
The Occidental Quarterly is a hate rag but that doesn't mean the article in question isn't good. Is he wrong about what terms like "battery" and "abuse" and "violence" can mean?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Can" or "usually do"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The Occidental Quarterly is a hate rag
More like a White Pride rag, seriously. They're nuts.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: "Can" or "usually do"?
I haven't sat in enough family court cases to know for sure. Have you? The fact that a woman has the right to accuse her husband of "domestic violence" because he didn't give her money or gave her mean looks is upsetting enough.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You need a better source for that than an unsourced editorial from a racist, hate-filled yellow rag.
Can you find a link from a more credible source, or, even better, a link to a judgment or two that relied on that definition of abuse?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:The fact that a woman has the right to accuse her husband of "domestic violence" because he didn't give her money or gave her mean looks is upsetting enough.
That's the "fact" that they're calling into question though.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Anyone has a right to accuse anyone of anything. How is this distressing?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I can see where some of the claims of giving mean looks is abusive comes from. If you read lists of red flags for abuse, those are listed. They are not in themselves abusive, but warning signs of future abuse. And while it may seem petty to blame a man for not giving money, if you have known housewives who live that way, limiting money is a HUGE control issue. A women without access to money (and in many cases not allowed to work) has a very difficult time leaving her husband. She can not take career development courses, and depending on how strict the "allowance" is, she may not even be able to shop for her own clothes or get her hair cut (I know someone who had those rules). A women without money is completely dependent and she knows it. And for the women I knew who couldn't even get a hair cut, after several years of the strict financial control, physical abuse did occur, and on a regular basis.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: Anyone has a right to accuse anyone of anything. How is this distressing?
Well, one aspect of domestic abuse accusations is that women are given the broad benefit of the doubt in many ways, and this is of course itself an opportunity for abuse of the system. On one hand, the system has to be that way because actual abusers bully their victims into being powerless to even defend themselves, and so the system has to be very willing and able to prosecute abusive men with little proof (or at least haul them off to jail for a day, no questions asked), but on the other hand the majority of men are left vulnerable to unfounded accusations from which they may be powerless to defend themselves.
The notion that you actually *do* have a right to accuse anyone of anything is in fact distressing, because you actually don't have that right- most especially if you are aware that your accusations are false.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: "Can" or "usually do"?
I haven't sat in enough family court cases to know for sure.
So you're erring on the side of assuming the most negative possible scenario?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)