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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
The Occidental Quarterly? Consider your source before an unsourced editorial makes you decide that there's no such thing as spousal abuse.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
