Is there anything good about men?

[Mahkato]

I thought this article (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/%7Ebaumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm) was really interesting. It talks about the role of men and women in society, but not from the typical Man vs. Woman viewpoint that people with a collectivist mindset like to use.

There are a lot of points in the which deflate the politically-correct views on gender, without even a hint of sexism. Long, but worth a read. A few snippets:


When I say I am researching how culture exploits men, the first reaction is usually “How can you say culture exploits men, when men are in charge of everything?” This is a fair objection and needs to be taken seriously. It invokes the feminist critique of society. This critique started when some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men. Seeing all this, the feminists thought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. It must be great to be a man.

The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.
I’m sure you’re expecting me to talk about Larry Summers at some point, so let’s get it over with! You recall, he was the president of Harvard. As summarized in The Economist, “Mr Summers infuriated the feminist establishment by wondering out loud whether the prejudice alone could explain the shortage of women at the top of science.” After initially saying, it’s possible that maybe there aren’t as many women physics professors at Harvard because there aren’t as many women as men with that high innate ability, just one possible explanation among others, he had to apologize, retract, promise huge sums of money, and not long afterward he resigned.

What was his crime? Nobody accused him of actually discriminating against women. His misdeed was to think thoughts that are not allowed to be thought, namely that there might be more men with high ability. The only permissible explanation for the lack of top women scientists is patriarchy — that men are conspiring to keep women down. It can’t be ability. Actually, there is some evidence that men on average are a little better at math, but let’s assume Summers was talking about general intelligence. People can point to plenty of data that the average IQ of adult men is about the same as the average for women. So to suggest that men are smarter than women is wrong. No wonder some women were offended.

But that’s not what he said. He said there were more men at the top levels of ability. That could still be true despite the average being the same — if there are also more men at the bottom of the distribution, more really stupid men than women.

The first big, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciated fact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors were women? It’s not a trick question, and it’s not 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s not the question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes, every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents had multiple children. Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

I want to emphasize three main answers for how culture uses men. First, culture relies on men to create the large social structures that comprise it. Our society is made up of institutions such as universities, governments, corporations. Most of these were founded and built up by men. Again, this probably had less to do with women being oppressed or whatever and more to do with men being motivated to form large networks of shallow relationships. Men are much more interested than women in forming large groups and working in them and rising to the top in them.

[dannno]

Hmm pretty interesting..



To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

No surprises there.

[kahless]

The feminists have moved far beyond just obtaining equal rights, to a point of exceeding equal rights. For most part of history of the western world, government did not play role in family life. In recent times the radical feminist movement, of the later part of the 20th century, moved much of the western world through legislation from a society where the Partriach reigned as head of family unit, to where now the Matriarch is now the head of a family, by LAW.

Prior to the radical feminist movement dictating our social welfare policies, man and woman were equal in marriage and relationships. Now a woman has power over man with the backing of government to enslave a man through lifestyle child support (hidden alimony) and spousal support. This despite the woman in many cases making more than or equal to that of a man, having a better education and opportunities. "Ability to earn" policies sometimes enslave men in professions not of their own choosing. Thus creating a master - slave relationship with the woman and government being the masters of man.

Where once man and woman were equal in relationships, the western world has provided an incentive to end marriages and make one man slave for 18+ years to the woman (should a man have a child with a woman). This incentive has created the highest divorce and single parent household rate in the history of western civilization.

-- Kahless

[heavenlyboy34]

The feminists have moved far beyond just obtaining equal rights, to a point of exceeding equal rights. For most part of history of the western world, government did not play role in family life. In recent times the radical feminist movement, of the later part of the 20th century, moved much of the western world through legislation from a society where the Partriach reigned as head of family unit, to where now the Matriarch is now the head of a family, by LAW.

Prior to the radical feminist movement dictating our social welfare policies, man and woman were equal in marriage and relationships. Now a woman has power over man with the backing of government to enslave a man through lifestyle child support (hidden alimony) and spousal support. This despite the woman in many cases making more than or equal to that of a man, having a better education and opportunities. "Ability to earn" policies sometimes enslave men in professions not of their own choosing. Thus creating a master - slave relationship with the woman and government being the masters of man.

Where once man and woman were equal in relationships, the western world has provided an incentive to end marriages and make one man slave for 18+ years to the woman (should a man have a child with a woman). This incentive has created the highest divorce and single parent household rate in the history of western civilization.

-- Kahless
The bolded part is incorrect. Throughout Western history, we find examples of governments interfering with family life-from infanticide of "undesirables" to government sponsored eugenics studies.

[bruce leeroy]

Misandry, or hatred of men, is a rampant yet ignored part of contemporary western culture. Just look at commercials on TV, you will notice if there is a joke, its usually men at the butt of the joke. Also, look at the disparity in sentences for the same crimes between men and women. I also think that cultural misandry in the US is partly responsible for the leigons of suburban white guys wearing their pants off their ass, using "be" as a verb and various and sundry other "wannabee" behaviors

[Anti Federalist]

"Feminism", as it's understood in the modern context, is a government concoction foisted off on the American people for two roles:

To reduce the influence of parents in raising their children.

To increase the amount of labor in the workforce to drive down middle class wages and increase the tax rolls to grow government.

Government has now played that out, and has gone to "phase 2", untrammeled, uncontrolled immigration to further complete the second goal.

[Stary Hickory]

Once any kind of civil rights movement moves beyond equality under the law they become exactly what they were supposedly fighting against.

Equality under the law and nothing more. This is all anyone can ask for.

[Rael]

Men and women are both useless.

[Icymudpuppy]

Only average ones.

[Ekrub]

Any man who reads the newspapers will encounter the phrase “even women and children” a couple times a month, usually about being killed. The literal meaning of this phrase is that men’s lives have less value than other people’s lives. The idea is usually “It’s bad if people are killed, but it’s especially bad if women and children are killed.” And I think most men know that in an emergency, if there are women and children present, he will be expected to lay down his life without argument or complaint so that the others can survive. On the Titanic, the richest men had a lower survival rate (34%) than the poorest women (46%) (though that’s not how it looked in the movie). That in itself is remarkable. The rich, powerful, and successful men, the movers and shakers, supposedly the ones that the culture is all set up to favor — in a pinch, their lives were valued less than those of women with hardly any money or power or status. The too-few seats in the lifeboats went to the women who weren’t even ladies, instead of to those patriarchs.


Reminds me of a Bill Burr joke. This guy is hilarious if you haven't heard him before.

YouTube - Bill Burr - Women's Rights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OvvgPwGZOU&feature=related)

[Vessol]

men, huh, what are they good for?

absolutely nothin', say it again!

[Son of Detroit]

YouTube - Weather Girls - Its Raining Men (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGLZqDXau98)

[Anti Federalist]

^^^^^

Moe - "And I'm takin' your favorite song outta the jukebox!!"

Homer - "It's Raining Men???!!!"

Moe - "Yeah, well, not no more it's not!"

[Natalie]

Hmmm... the article posted by the OP brings up some excellent points.

I'm in a "Women in Politics" class right now. Normally I would not sign up for such a shitacious class, except it was the only Poli Sci class that fit my schedule. We've only had two classes so far, but the teacher has been saying that women are treated as second class citizens and all this baloney. I've never felt like a second class citizen because I'm female. In fact, I think it's the opposite. Being female has many advantages, imo.

[low preference guy]

Hmmm... the article posted by the OP brings up some excellent points.

I'm in a "Women in Politics" class right now. Normally I would not sign up for such a shitacious class, except it was the only Poli Sci class that fit my schedule. We've only had two classes so far, but the teacher has been saying that women are treated as second class citizens and all this baloney. I've never felt like a second class citizen because I'm female. In fact, I think it's the opposite. Being female has many advantages, imo.

If you say that in class your professor might get a heart attack.

[DamianTV]

Is there anything good about men?

Yes. Men are not Women.

[Original_Intent]

If you say that in class your professor might get a heart attack.

At the very least, expect a low grade.

[Mahkato]

Hmmm... the article posted by the OP brings up some excellent points.

I'm in a "Women in Politics" class right now. Normally I would not sign up for such a shitacious class, except it was the only Poli Sci class that fit my schedule. We've only had two classes so far, but the teacher has been saying that women are treated as second class citizens and all this baloney. I've never felt like a second class citizen because I'm female. In fact, I think it's the opposite. Being female has many advantages, imo.

Speaking of baloney, why aren't you in the kitchen, and where's my sammich?

/:D

[low preference guy]

At the very least, expect a low grade.

good thing i never took those classes, as i never considered the possibility of not telling a prof. what i think about his bullshit.

[Anti Federalist]

Speaking of baloney, why aren't you in the kitchen, and where's my sammich?

/:D

While yer at it, ball my socks too. :D

[Original_Intent]

While yer at it, ball my socks too. :D

Iron my SHIRT! :D

[rprprs]

While yer at it, ball my socks too. :D

Careful, AF, or she might turn that sentence around. :eek:

[dannno]

Careful, AF, or she might turn that senence around. :eek:

lolz..


http://www.gifbin.com/bin/062010/1277193579_kid-owned-by-punching-bag.gif


Kinda looks like Natalie (this should probably be in the stuff guys like thread :confused:)

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/6/15/8804813a-7a9b-4e88-b803-01495dce1a56.gif

[Krugerrand]

lolz..


http://www.gifbin.com/bin/062010/1277193579_kid-owned-by-punching-bag.gif


Kinda looks like Natalie (this should probably be in the stuff guys like thread :confused:)

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/6/15/8804813a-7a9b-4e88-b803-01495dce1a56.gif

Reminds me of the James Bond show w/ Bambi and Thumper.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I also think that cultural misandry in the US is partly responsible for the leigons of suburban white guys wearing their pants off their ass, using "be" as a verb and various and sundry other "wannabee" behaviors

"Be" is a verb indicating existence, temporary condition or permanent status.

[Pericles]

No, the phrase "even women and children" refers to the fundamental duty of any society to protect the ability of that society to continue to the next generation.

A substantial percentage of males can be lost, and society can continue. The loss of a substantial percentage of the women capable of bearing children, or of children themselves, lead to extinction of that society. The devastating losses of World War I, did not prevent the same countries from being able to fight World War II. One of the objectives of ancient methods of warfare was to steal and / or rape the enemy's women, thus making it very difficult for the conquered to reconstitute themselves and rebel.

[Natalie]

I don't think doing housework is oppressive. I like cooking and sewing. Cleaning, not so much, har har. But it should be all about freedom. If you want to get a job outside the home, that's great. If you want to be a housewife, that's cool too. The problem with feminists is that they have this vision of what they think a woman should want and they try and force it upon everyone else.

[Natalie]

lolz..

Kinda looks like Natalie (this should probably be in the stuff guys like thread :confused:)

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/6/15/8804813a-7a9b-4e88-b803-01495dce1a56.gif

I don't think I am capable of doing... whatever she is doing...

[Son of Detroit]

Is that Gina Carano?

[Anti Federalist]

Careful, AF, or she might turn that sentence around. :eek:

Lawlz...:D

[bruce leeroy]

"Be" is a verb indicating existence, temporary condition or permanent status.

you be nitpickin dawg!!!!

[Icymudpuppy]

you be nitpickin dawg!!!!

DEA and DOJ hiring...

[bruce leeroy]

DEA and DOJ hiring...


say whoadie, I be needin some jingle jingle in ma pockets but I aint wit workin fo da man.......snitches get stiches, ya heard!

[1000-points-of-fright]

you be nitpickin dawg!!!!

I nitpick because our arguments, no matter how logical and correct, are always undercut by poor grammar/bad behavior/minor mistakes/whacky spokespeople. We have to give "them" absolutely nothing to use against us.

[bruce leeroy]

I nitpick because our arguments, no matter how logical and correct, are always undercut by poor grammar/bad behavior/minor mistakes/whacky spokespeople. We have to give "them" absolutely nothing to use against us.

I was just jackin with the guy. But yeah, I will agree that having the ability to put thoughts in complete sentences with proper grammer, capitalization etc reflects intelligence.

[kahless]

The bolded part is incorrect. Throughout Western history, we find examples of governments interfering with family life-from infanticide of "undesirables" to government sponsored eugenics studies.

That is not an accurate comparison and besides my key phrase in that sentance is "Most part". If we want to bet picky we can narrow it down further to the United States and Commonwealth countries. The fact is over the last 15-30 years the West has become a matriarchal society through legislation. Currently 60% of the population of men in the US are married and therefore are at a disadvantage in the relationship. Instead of the couple being equal in the relationship the government provides financial incentives to the woman to separate and divorce. The incentive to do so is much greater when children are involved.

Additionally the incentive for the woman and the legal system is against joint custody since it reduces the profit incentive for the woman and the government. Therefore the man is separated from raising his children.

Just to summarize:

A. We have the government providing incentives for women to divorce.

B. We have incentives for government to have the woman separate a man from his children. Therefore harming children by forcing them into and creating a single parent households.

C. We have the government deny the man a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness by forcing him to work in a career of their choice. "Ability to earn" legislation forces a man to remain in whatever career held during marriage, no matter how unreasonable.

D. Man forced to pay master (government/woman) maintain a her lifestyle. Lifestyle child support (hidden alimony) and spousal support. This despite the woman in many cases making more than or equal to that of a man, having a better education and opportunities.

E. Man continually threated by his masters with punishment to comply with above policies even if he is unable to do so through no fault of his own (illness, job loss). Failure to comply can result in revokation of professional licenses (making his ability to earn impossible), revokation of passports (no escape from slave masters) and/or jack booted thugs taking him away, beating him and imprisoning him. Some call it modern day indentured servitude or slavey and if you are a feminist, child support.

G. Due to feminist propaganda dominating our culture, men do not unite and resort to other methods. The media turns a blind eye to the side effects. They have intentionally stopped reporting these events since it reflects negatively on the feminist agenda..

- Men unable to comply through not fault of their own either escape or forced into criminal activities to avoid jail time.

- Feminists that claim to want to prevent violence against woman however have directly created policies above that have invited it.

- Resorted to suicides at home or have done so on court house steps.

- Have resulted in violence against the government offices that implement such policy. (which puts them in a circular path of destruction since they are no longer earning to maintain the lifestyle support for the woman and are therefore subject with further imprisonment)

- Hunger strike while imprisoned for failure to maintain a lifestyle for the woman.

[Stary Hickory]

That is not an accurate comparison and besides my key phrase in that sentance is "Most part". If we want to bet picky we can narrow it down further to the United States and Commonwealth countries. The fact is over the last 15-30 years the West has become a matriarchal society through legislation. Currently 60% of the population of men in the US are married and therefore are at a disadvantage in the relationship. Instead of the couple being equal in the relationship the government provides financial incentives to the woman to separate and divorce. The incentive to do so is much greater when children are involved.

Additionally the incentive for the woman and the legal system is against joint custody since it reduces the profit incentive for the woman and the government. Therefore the man is separated from raising his children.

Just to summarize:

A. We have the government providing incentives for women to divorce.

B. We have incentives for government to have the woman separate a man from his children. Therefore harming children by forcing them into and creating a single parent households.

C. We have the government deny the man a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness by forcing him to work in a career of their choice. "Ability to earn" legislation forces a man to remain in whatever career held during marriage, no matter how unreasonable.

D. Man forced to pay master (government/woman) maintain a her lifestyle. Lifestyle child support (hidden alimony) and spousal support. This despite the woman in many cases making more than or equal to that of a man, having a better education and opportunities.

E. Man continually threated by his masters with punishment to comply with above policies even if he is unable to do so through no fault of his own (illness, job loss). Failure to comply can result in revokation of professional licenses (making his ability to earn impossible), revokation of passports (no escape from slave masters) and/or jack booted thugs taking him away, beating him and imprisoning him. Some call it modern day indentured servitude or slavey and if you are a feminist, child support.

G. Due to feminist propaganda dominating our culture, men do not unite and resort to other methods. The media turns a blind eye to the side effects. They have intentionally stopped reporting these events since it reflects negatively on the feminist agenda..

- Men unable to comply through not fault of their own either escape or forced into criminal activities to avoid jail time.

- Feminists that claim to want to prevent violence against woman however have directly created policies above that have invited it.

- Resorted to suicides at home or have done so on court house steps.

- Have resulted in violence against the government offices that implement such policy. (which puts them in a circular path of destruction since they are no longer earning to maintain the lifestyle support for the woman and are therefore subject with further imprisonment)

- Hunger strike while imprisoned for failure to maintain a lifestyle for the woman.
And people wonder why the birth rate is so low. I am still single and really don't want to get married because of all the legal BS that I would have to put up with. In the end women will have no one but themselves to blame when men become skittish about getting married. With a 50% divorce rate men have everything to lose by becoming married.

[MelissaWV]

While yer at it, ball my socks too. :D

Incidentally, I've never understood why this is desirable. I stack my socks by type. Some of the stacks have odd numbers, but if one of them manages to get lost, the numbers go even again :p Just grab two off the top, and you're guaranteed a matched pair. Rolling seems like it'd be a waste of time.

* * *

Oh and there're plenty of good things about men. There are plenty of good things about women. There are usually very few good things about people who are fighting for special "rights" above and beyond basic equality that render their given group the protection of some kind of endangered species.

[Anti Federalist]

I nitpick because our arguments, no matter how logical and correct, are always undercut by poor grammar/bad behavior/minor mistakes/whacky spokespeople. We have to give "them" absolutely nothing to use against us.

Quite right.

This is still a classic in my mind:


I thought I cleared this up last month.

Marshall Law

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41383000/jpg/_41383286_gunsmoke_ap.jpg

Martial Law

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UeCPYLLgPkY/SRx7UAtkDbI/AAAAAAAAAVI/4YH3mZ-R6KM/s400/Martial+Law.jpg

[MelissaWV]

Quite right.

This is still a classic in my mind:

Right, but this thread is about Marital Law :D

[Anti Federalist]

Incidentally, I've never understood why this is desirable. I stack my socks by type. Some of the stacks have odd numbers, but if one of them manages to get lost, the numbers go even again :p Just grab two off the top, and you're guaranteed a matched pair. Rolling seems like it'd be a waste of time.

When you have to live half your life out of a sea-bag, like I do, the reasons become evident. ;)

Cue a Danke smart ass remark in 3...2...1...

[Anti Federalist]

Right, but this thread is about Marital Law :D

Awesome...:)

[Southron]

And people wonder why the birth rate is so low. I am still single and really don't want to get married because of all the legal BS that I would have to put up with. In the end women will have no one but themselves to blame when men become skittish about getting married. With a 50% divorce rate men have everything to lose by becoming married.

No need to continue the cycle of child support. Perhaps you can find a woman vehemently opposed to divorce, but most people, men included, don't have those convictions.

[bruce leeroy]

If and when I ever get married, its going to be to a jamaican or eithiopian/kenyan woman.
but to be honest, I doubt I will ever get married

[kahless]

No need to continue the cycle of child support. Perhaps you can find a woman vehemently opposed to divorce, but most people, men included, don't have those convictions.

The problem is the incentive is always there and one can never be sure that incentive is not going to be used against you.


And people wonder why the birth rate is so low. I am still single and really don't want to get married because of all the legal BS that I would have to put up with. In the end women will have no one but themselves to blame when men become skittish about getting married. With a 50% divorce rate men have everything to lose by becoming married.

People wonder since you rarely if ever hear the media discuss what the feminists have made into a taboo topic. The last popular book I remember that discussed this was Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West". The media however just focused on trying to smear Buchanan as an anti-semite.

Even this forum that is rife with every conspiracy theory imaginable you rarely see it discussed. The feminists and media have done a great job on keeping it a taboo topic.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Right, but this thread is about Marital Law :D

Bazinga!

[Southron]

The problem is the incentive is always there and one can never be sure that incentive is not going to be used against you.


True and I guess this is a product of our culture.

I know someone who was essentially used just to father a woman's children(her biological clock was ticking) after which, she divorced him. He spent years paying child support while she remarried. She openly admitted doing this intentionally.

Be careful!

[lucius]

Here is the reality: later they will wake up all alone with no children, surrounding by their stuff, nursing a nasty but very exceptionable work addition...perfect little corporate serfs, as intended, broken humans make the best workers, warriors etc...--in this inculcated dialectic materialistic secular humanism hell...


The feminists have moved far beyond just obtaining equal rights, to a point of exceeding equal rights. For most part of history of the western world, government did not play role in family life. In recent times the radical feminist movement, of the later part of the 20th century, moved much of the western world through legislation from a society where the Partriach reigned as head of family unit, to where now the Matriarch is now the head of a family, by LAW.

Prior to the radical feminist movement dictating our social welfare policies, man and woman were equal in marriage and relationships. Now a woman has power over man with the backing of government to enslave a man through lifestyle child support (hidden alimony) and spousal support. This despite the woman in many cases making more than or equal to that of a man, having a better education and opportunities. "Ability to earn" policies sometimes enslave men in professions not of their own choosing. Thus creating a master - slave relationship with the woman and government being the masters of man.

Where once man and woman were equal in relationships, the western world has provided an incentive to end marriages and make one man slave for 18+ years to the woman (should a man have a child with a woman). This incentive has created the highest divorce and single parent household rate in the history of western civilization.

-- Kahless

[Acala]

That is not an accurate comparison and besides my key phrase in that sentance is "Most part". If we want to bet picky we can narrow it down further to the United States and Commonwealth countries. The fact is over the last 15-30 years the West has become a matriarchal society through legislation. Currently 60% of the population of men in the US are married and therefore are at a disadvantage in the relationship. Instead of the couple being equal in the relationship the government provides financial incentives to the woman to separate and divorce. The incentive to do so is much greater when children are involved.

Additionally the incentive for the woman and the legal system is against joint custody since it reduces the profit incentive for the woman and the government. Therefore the man is separated from raising his children.

Just to summarize:

A. We have the government providing incentives for women to divorce.

B. We have incentives for government to have the woman separate a man from his children. Therefore harming children by forcing them into and creating a single parent households.

C. We have the government deny the man a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness by forcing him to work in a career of their choice. "Ability to earn" legislation forces a man to remain in whatever career held during marriage, no matter how unreasonable.

D. Man forced to pay master (government/woman) maintain a her lifestyle. Lifestyle child support (hidden alimony) and spousal support. This despite the woman in many cases making more than or equal to that of a man, having a better education and opportunities.

E. Man continually threated by his masters with punishment to comply with above policies even if he is unable to do so through no fault of his own (illness, job loss). Failure to comply can result in revokation of professional licenses (making his ability to earn impossible), revokation of passports (no escape from slave masters) and/or jack booted thugs taking him away, beating him and imprisoning him. Some call it modern day indentured servitude or slavey and if you are a feminist, child support.

G. Due to feminist propaganda dominating our culture, men do not unite and resort to other methods. The media turns a blind eye to the side effects. They have intentionally stopped reporting these events since it reflects negatively on the feminist agenda..

- Men unable to comply through not fault of their own either escape or forced into criminal activities to avoid jail time.

- Feminists that claim to want to prevent violence against woman however have directly created policies above that have invited it.

- Resorted to suicides at home or have done so on court house steps.

- Have resulted in violence against the government offices that implement such policy. (which puts them in a circular path of destruction since they are no longer earning to maintain the lifestyle support for the woman and are therefore subject with further imprisonment)

- Hunger strike while imprisoned for failure to maintain a lifestyle for the woman.

Some of this depends on the particular state. In Arizona, where I have intimate knowledge of the laws pertaining to divorce, joint custody of children is presumed unless some proof of unfitness is made. And child support is apportioned so that if the mother makes more than the father, she pays more. I can't say that the child support system was unfair. Spousal support, on the other hand, is a mess.

But the entire system, which treats divorce like it is some kind of unusual event that must be resolved in court, is idiotic. Government should not be involved in marriage in the first place. If people want to enter into domestic partnership contracts, fine, let the courts enforce them. Otherwise, when you break up, you break up and what you bought is yours, what you earned is yours, and what you borrowed you owe. The end.

[MelissaWV]

Here is the reality: later they will wake up all alone with no children, surrounding by their stuff, nursing a nasty but very exceptionable work addition...perfect little corporate serfs, as intended, broken humans make the best workers, warriors etc...--in this inculcated dialectic materialistic secular humanism hell...

Or I could wake up with no children, surrounded by my stuff (and reminders of my accomplishments), having retired at an earlier age than one might think, perfectly capable of visiting friends or relatives who aren't my children, pondering whether or not I'll make something awesome, work at something ongoing, or trade some of my purchasing power for a new experience (or a really great one I want to have again).

Somehow, things teeter between extremes and with a great number of stereotypes. Not every woman is a gold-digging leech. If you suspect yours might become so, by all means get a really great prenuptual agreement, and resign yourself to accomplishing very little, lest she get the better of you in spite of the contract once you go to court during your inevitable divorce. Not every guy is a cheating abusive asshole. If you suspect yours might become so, then live in fear and suspicion of his every action, nagging and accusing every time the opportunity presents itself, making both of your lives (and the lives of those around you) entirely miserable in the process. Life is full of unpleasant experiences, and there is plenty of blame to go around. You can waste a great deal of your finite time on earth doling out that blame and excusing yourself from what happens, or you can move along to the next thing :) One option sounds infinitely more appealing to me than the other.

[Acala]

Or I could wake up with no children, surrounded by my stuff (and reminders of my accomplishments), having retired at an earlier age than one might think, perfectly capable of visiting friends or relatives who aren't my children, pondering whether or not I'll make something awesome, work at something ongoing, or trade some of my purchasing power for a new experience (or a really great one I want to have again).

Somehow, things teeter between extremes and with a great number of stereotypes. Not every woman is a gold-digging leech. If you suspect yours might become so, by all means get a really great prenuptual agreement, and resign yourself to accomplishing very little, lest she get the better of you in spite of the contract once you go to court during your inevitable divorce. Not every guy is a cheating abusive asshole. If you suspect yours might become so, then live in fear and suspicion of his every action, nagging and accusing every time the opportunity presents itself, making both of your lives (and the lives of those around you) entirely miserable in the process. Life is full of unpleasant experiences, and there is plenty of blame to go around. You can waste a great deal of your finite time on earth doling out that blame and excusing yourself from what happens, or you can move along to the next thing :) One option sounds infinitely more appealing to me than the other.

Agreed. Depending on someone else for your happiness is a bad idea. It also makes you a less-than-optimal companion. Learn to be happy on your own. Then maybe you find a partner that makes pleasant company. Maybe not. Doesn't matter if you can be happy either way.

[lucius]

Here is the best scenario that I have found for just me: first each partner must have the ability to love each other at a very high level, based in friendship, concern for the other, communication etc... Then a decision is made, a judgment, to love that other individual no matter what (still keeping realistic boundaries in place). I personally will now kill or die for my mate--indicative of my level of commitment.

So, early I realized that I needed an older culture, not this new age inculcations of the 'round eyes' and got 'rice fever' while overseas. Where the woman submits to my will, but my will is based in the utmost concern for her. I lead and protect her. She manages me, the home life and money quite adeptly.

The relationship that I now am in is the best one of my whole life: I found my soul mate (many years ago and now crossed paths again, actually she was waiting for me).

We are both pirates, believe that rules are for controlling little people, take what we can/want. Examine our lives deeply. We both see the common enemy of humanity--bankers and their machinations. She gives to me without being asked, just through her awareness of me. Amazing in-dept planner, intricate logistics become very mundane for her, best business manager I have ever had the honor to work with. She takes care of herself and me quite well. She fucks, doesn't make love...all so perfect. I could go on and on...

Once again, what people do with their property is their business. But if you can go through life with that very special person, one can be come extremely strong and truly realize that the most powerful force in life is love and it will gravitate to all aspects of one's life.

Oh, as long as I am on the soap box, if you have not been bankrupt three times in your life--you have not lived... Use other peoples' money because you can...take the risk, feel alive...because it will all be over in a blink of the eye.

I think there is much wisdom and introspection within you...


Or I could wake up with no children, surrounded by my stuff (and reminders of my accomplishments), having retired at an earlier age than one might think, perfectly capable of visiting friends or relatives who aren't my children, pondering whether or not I'll make something awesome, work at something ongoing, or trade some of my purchasing power for a new experience (or a really great one I want to have again).

Somehow, things teeter between extremes and with a great number of stereotypes. Not every woman is a gold-digging leech. If you suspect yours might become so, by all means get a really great prenuptual agreement, and resign yourself to accomplishing very little, lest she get the better of you in spite of the contract once you go to court during your inevitable divorce. Not every guy is a cheating abusive asshole. If you suspect yours might become so, then live in fear and suspicion of his every action, nagging and accusing every time the opportunity presents itself, making both of your lives (and the lives of those around you) entirely miserable in the process. Life is full of unpleasant experiences, and there is plenty of blame to go around. You can waste a great deal of your finite time on earth doling out that blame and excusing yourself from what happens, or you can move along to the next thing :) One option sounds infinitely more appealing to me than the other.