yea they don't. if they did, we wouldn't have so much fighting over them.

i'm not going to make any money anyway so hopefully no one will try to drag me down plus, i'm the woman and that helps. i mean it is bad, but it does haha. i am also not planning on getting a divorce. it does suck that it is something everyone HAS to consider if getting married. the odds just aren't very favorable these days

especially if money is the number one cause of divorce. maybe getting married in a depression is a bad idea. i don't know.

EEEEK MARRIAGE

3/19/2009 5:31:13 PM

I'm not trying to bad mouth women or anything. but it's so sad that more women don't see it from the point of view that you just stated....


Hell, I want a prenup. And it's not because I plan on getting divorced....I just want to make sure the wealth that I work for stays with MY family. I would understand the same pov from the woman.

And if a divorce happens, the woman isn't part of MY family anymore, haha

3/19/2009 5:35:36 PM

that is how i feel. it is a morbid thought i guess, but it just seems like "better safe than sorry."

i mean if i make 50,000 a year that is still money i made. it isn't millions but i want to make sure it is protected i guess. i feel like i'm also a fan of a joint bank account and separate bank accounts. i don't really know the implications of that, i only know a little bit that we touched on in family law (sucks), and it isn't something i've given that much thought to, but it seems like a good idea.

[Edited on March 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2009 5:38:43 PM

well, I'm going to need you to give this more thought before we get married. I want you to be informed

3/19/2009 5:42:03 PM

For many, many years, women couldn't even really get a divorce. Her parents sold her into marriage and then she had to live with the guy and pop out his babies for the rest of her life, even if he was an abusive bastard who didn't take care of her or the children

Very rarely, women could get free of their husbands, but they didn't get to keep the kids or get any money. Shamed and with no hope of a job, they often moved in with family members who treated them like burdens for their rest of their lives.

Conditions have improved, but I'm still put off by any man who is overly concerned with protecting "his" money. I mean, you hear horror stories about guys living in their cars cause their wages are garnished to the hilt for alimony and child support. But if anybody is suffering the most, it's still single moms and their children.

3/19/2009 6:01:18 PM

^ agreed

3/19/2009 6:03:39 PM

eh...

situation by situation basis would be best in my opinion...

nowadays, there is a HUGE bias to give custody of the kids to the woman in a divorce (for what logical reason, I do not know). But paying child support is different from paying alimony, or any other 'closing fees' in a divorce. If this situation presented itself to me, I would have no problem paying for my child, as this is still part of my family. My ex wife, however, is not....I shouldn't have to pay her way as well.
I wouldn't expect my ex wife to pay for my ish if the situations were reversed.
also, nowadays, there is nothing stopping women for working like in the past. I'm not feeling that reasoning of women's suffrage in the past as to why any man owes their wife when they CAN get divorced...



[Edited on March 19, 2009 at 6:56 PM. Reason : I'm totally going to get theDuke866 to suspend anyone that disagrees with me]

3/19/2009 6:55:20 PM

^ i agree with part of that as well. but if you believe that there is nothing stopping women from working (legally, you are correct) then you are in serious denial. so many career women are ultimately forced to choose between family and work. because our notions of the traditional roles of men and women haven't disappeared. so YAY women can work. but they are still expected to rear the children, care for the home, AND take care of the husband, too.

not to mention women not getting jobs if they mention having children (yes it actually happens). the strain it puts on a working woman to have to choose between work and kids. and the fact that women are still paid less than men. i agree with the biased toward women, though.

and with roles changing, the bias is often unfair as there are many men who DO play the part of a stay at home dad, help with the kids, etc, etc. but i just think that it isn't all skittles and rainbows as you described

[Edited on March 19, 2009 at 7:00 PM. Reason : oh this has nothing to do really with "owing" something to the woman in divorce. just my opinion!]

3/19/2009 7:00:06 PM

That has nothing to do with this topic. She has no kids, is a former investor, and was only married to the guy for 7 years, and not satisfied with the 43mil offer on the table.

3/19/2009 7:02:14 PM

^ DUH AND I PUT THAT IN MY POST

geez louise

but we branched out our conversation into another topic. which, omg, seems to routinely happen on here. so THERE.

IF you had been following along on this page you would know




[Edited on March 19, 2009 at 7:04 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2009 7:03:31 PM

Quote :

"still expected to rear the children, care for the home, AND take care of the husband"

[NO]

3/19/2009 7:03:56 PM

Oh, and she in not hot, to add insult to injury.

3/19/2009 7:04:25 PM

^^ yes. but i don't even know why i respond to you anyway

^ i know haha. all that $$$ for skincare etc ain't going anywhere. she should quit while ahead!

3/19/2009 7:05:25 PM

Not saying it's a perfect world at all. I'm aware of the problems that women face in that aspect. I just have a hard time seeing how a court can fairly say that's my problem now, instead of employers, society, etc...

***disconnect from reality for a second....this is just a joke***

Woman: You're a man. You should be the breadwinner, and provide for me...and don't forget to be a gentleman

Man: Deal. But since you're a woman, and I'm providing for you, you need to lick my balls everytime I say so.

Woman: This is the 20th century. I don't have to lick your balls. Lick your own goddamn balls

Man: I don't think this is fair. I'm divorcing you

Woman: Fine...but I'm taking half of your shit

***reconnect***

man, I hated my sophomore year english teacher. she made us spend half of the semester reading conduct literature from early america...

3/19/2009 7:09:25 PM

^^I don't get it

Bitches are always whining about the traditional roles for men and women that men have learned to take care of their own damn selves. If you like your traditional bitch role so much and think women need to fill it then thats just your role. Every relationship is different.

KNOW YOUR ROLE BITCH

[Edited on March 19, 2009 at 7:10 PM. Reason : ^]

3/19/2009 7:09:52 PM

Woman act all hard like they are the shit, but when shit hits the fan, they want the courts to get involved when they should be able to work it out with the man themselves.

3/19/2009 7:16:15 PM

anyway, I've said too much. It's time for me to retire from this thread before I'm exposed as the misogynist that I truly am

3/19/2009 7:17:42 PM

^^^ i don't even understand what you just said.

^^ some of the domestic stuff is really bad, too. not even close to domestic violence. but with the divorce stuff, a lot of it isn't done in court, fyi. so i guess that is one plus??? haha. i could never do family law. too crazy/sad/too much negotiating over petty stuff when like, the people that actually matter (kids) get no say.

but some of the domestic violence stuff is retarded. not to belittle domestic violence. but, wow.

[Edited on March 19, 2009 at 7:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2009 7:18:16 PM

I would not expect you to haha.

3/19/2009 7:19:15 PM

EMCE
seedless I hope ya don't get married. but then maybe you are gay and will just have a domestic partner.

3/19/2009 7:50:26 PM

I'd love to marry your face to my asshole.

3/19/2009 7:52:32 PM

3/19/2009 8:02:22 PM

Bottom line:

Countess should be happy to get what she's postnupped for. If that's not enough for her, she can get a job consulting or some shit.

Sidebar bottom line:

get a fucking prenup. it doesn't mean you don't love your SO. it just means you are preparing for anything. I for one have assets that are willed to me that MUST stay in the family, and for that reason, I will def have a prenup- no questions asked.

3/19/2009 8:22:04 PM

women

3/19/2009 8:38:29 PM

you people

3/19/2009 8:38:56 PM

not much thought here huh

lol

3/20/2009 8:48:41 AM

basically if you got money, don't get married. problem solved

3/20/2009 8:55:02 AM

Quote :

"she can get a job consulting or some shit."

what the fuck is she gonna consult on? how to be a gold digging whore?

3/20/2009 8:56:15 AM

Quote :

"But if anybody is suffering the most, it's still single moms and their children."

Are you actually being serious with that statement? When compared to a man living in his car in 32 degree weather and having no access to his own funds because his wife is 'accustomed to a certain lifestyle' and is living in their old home, has a monthly allowance that is in addition to child support, and gets part of his retirement fund the wife is the one who has the most suffering? Thats such a misandric point of view its not even entertaining.

The situation obviously varies from family to family, but in a middle class and up situation its typically not the woman and kids who suffers the most.

Quote :

"I wouldn't expect my ex wife to pay for my ish if the situations were reversed."

signed. Thats because i have self respect and believe in doing for myself. This is a belief women purportedly hold, but it primarily exists in rhetoric and not serious and difficult situations which evolve and require quick and decisive action.

Quote :

"so many career women are ultimately forced to choose between family and work. because our notions of the traditional roles of men and women haven't disappeared."

you also can't ignore the notable percentage of college educated women who held careers and then decide they wish to stay home because they enjoy it. This a phenomenon that happens with frequency. Its not that a compelling force exists that renders their career paths unobtainable in the overwhelming percentage of circumstances, but a choice they have made because they find comfort in it. I'm not saying that it isn't a worthy cause, but if a divorce comes into play I can understand the time spent at home should be compensated for, even though it was a choice, but stating you deserve x due to your accustomed lifestyle is preposterous and is an excuse that should be rendered obsolete in this day and age.

Quote :

"and the fact that women are still paid less than men"

for the record, this is near 87 cents to the dollar and quickly eroding and is done for reasons i can't entirely say are unjust. Most notably because:

1. despite years with the company men tend to work there longer. if someone has 3 kids they're gone for over a year, thats one years worth of salary increase lost (suggest 5%).

2. men typically are more likely to ask for a raise from their employer when times are hard as opposed to women who are less confrontational. Men also do more bargaining during initial hire. (lets assign a total of 5% for this as well)

3. men typically work longer hours. i'll admit this is in part due to women leaving in order to achieve what they feel to be their womanly tasks of dinner preparation and taking care of the kids. but these men are being rewarded more for their extra effort and if we're suggesting that a system should be based on a pure meritocracy then there is nothing wrong with that. (lets give 3% for this)

4. men are a better investment, because they are more likely to stay as they are committed to completing what is their perceived role of family provider. women quit for various reasons ranging from child rearing to the family no longer 'needs' a second income. If you're more likely to get your investment out of a person you'll hire them more often. (i'm not sure what % would be associated with this)

There are additional reasons but as one can clearly see the deficit in pay is quickly accounted for when looked at with reason. if women were really and equal investment in work load to men and employers could get away with paying them 15% less then then employers would overwhelmingly hire women. Equal productivity for less pay means a greater profit.

3/20/2009 10:09:44 AM

^ damn that was a good read

3/20/2009 10:13:30 AM

43mill is less than a years salary for him, i think he can swing anything less than a year's pay....

though her stated weekly expenses are a bit extreme.

3/20/2009 10:49:27 AM

IRSeriousCat talks serious truth.

3/20/2009 12:23:31 PM

win the Superbowl drive off in a Hyundai

3/20/2009 12:31:17 PM

well excuse me for having a vagina and working hard

i quit

men, take care of me now. thanks.

3/20/2009 12:33:07 PM

Quote :

"well excuse me for having a vagina and working hard i quit men, take care of me now. thanks."

I made no such claims which implied the direction in the comments that you made.

Sardonic comments that merely trivialize comprehensive responses as opposed addressing them earnestly only provide more credibility to the initial statements and does no justice in conveying the positions and merits of what is a presumably discrepant view point.

3/20/2009 1:18:01 PM

Quote :

"43mill is less than a years salary for him, i think he can swing anything less than a year's pay...."

He should be allowed to have 1 years pay of pussy from her then

i don't get it, if roles were reversed id say the same shit, he wouldnt deserve that much shit because it is hers

3/20/2009 1:30:03 PM

^^ don't be so serious, seriouscat

i get what you are saying. i'm just saying, it sucks. what about women who work long hours and who aren't interested in popping kids out??? this is going to be exactly what you don't want to hear, and i know it is annoying to hear and all men hate it, but i just don't think that men will really ever FULLY appreciate the struggles that SOME (SOME SOME SOME emphasis on SOME) women go through.

not all women. some. i honestly feel like some people do not realize the types of things that still occur in the business environment. and hopefully that will phase out. but you get these old ass men that sit down in a meeting across a table from you and won't even SPEAK or LOOK at the woman. they will only address her male partner.

and while the issues you point out are valid, i'm still being prejudged. people will look at me, because i am a woman, and think "oh not as good of an investment because she will want kids and eventually leave." so i still say, unfair.

and ps. what credibility did my sardonic comment provide to your statements? hmmm? i think that they were at least relevant in conveying that i can't control biology. it isn't my fault i'm a woman.

pps. if anything i would think that males might want to jump on the sex discrimination bandwagon. now is the time. let your wife have the baby, then stay at home. WAIT a lot of jobs don't allow maternity/family leave for males. and we've already discussed child custody issues.

3/20/2009 1:55:01 PM

Quote :

"people will look at me, because i am a woman, and think "oh not as good of an investment because she will want kids and eventually leave." so i still say, unfair."

good point. this is also a very large reason why many employers ask ALL employees "Where do you see yourself in 5 to 10 years?" at my last job, we interviewed a woman who only planned on working until she got pregnant, which she claimed would be within a year of her getting hired with us. yes, she said that in an interview. that, amongst other reasons, prevented her from getting the job.

sure, some women have it rough. however, there are plenty that kick ass at their jobs and get paid well to do it. yet there are still women out there who feel that they should have everything taken care of for them, regardless of their personal situation (let me reference that Technician article by that self indulgent cunt who felt that all guys should give up their bus seats to girls, carry their books, and offer to help them, regardless of whether the guy even knows who the girl is).

so ladies, when you feel that you are being discounted or undervalued, think of the women who fit the stereotype to which you are being mocked. sure, you personally may be a valuable, commendable, and contributing member of society, but your freeloading self serving sisters are ruining your image.

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM. Reason : details]

3/20/2009 2:32:10 PM

^ oh i completely agree

i hate biatches like that. don't get me wrong, i'm not like one of those people that refuses to let a guy open a door or pay for a meal, but i also don't want to be a stay at home mom. or looped into THAT "woman" category. i mean if i wanted that, it would have probbbbably been in my financial interests, not to go to grad school.

although with the current economy, maybe i should just throw in the towel and marry up

oh and in regards to that woman, i mean that is a little more understandable. but what if i'm interviewing for a job i want to be at for 20, 30, whatever amount of years and i say in 10 years that i'd like to have had a kid but i want to also work. i might get kicked out of the club, too i get maternity leave is annoying for employers, but i mean it seems slightly unfair to have to choose. i don't know if i want kids though, so i'm not too scared yet. i just see it happening to other women and it freaks me out (women who want to work and have a kid, not who want to work til they have a kid)

[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2009 2:35:54 PM

in today's economy, "up" isn't quite as far as it used to be. join the rest of us in grad school

we had a woman on staff get pregnant, and she worked right up to a couple days before she had the kid. she took just under 3 months of maternity leave and then came right back kicking ass at what she was doing before. so it definitely can be done and done well. it's all in how much motivation you have. well, that and whether you can afford to deal with childcare.


[Edited on March 20, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : details +2]

3/20/2009 2:38:37 PM

well yea, haha. $$$ is key. i was planning on making the money and making my husband stay home?!

any takers? haha

3/20/2009 2:44:19 PM

^ if we live at the beach, you've got a deal

3/20/2009 2:45:51 PM

Its two sides of the same coin. I won't fail to acknowledge that there are men out there who don't understand the struggles of some women, but women don't really understand the struggles of a man either. in fact, women will even fail to acknowledge or consider the struggles men have at all. Collectively women assume that being a man is a world of privilege where display of respect are immediately granted as opposed to earned, and this couldn't be further from the truth. There is a failure to acknowledge that in some regards the privileges men have are collectively earned through responsibilities and struggles they endure on a day to day basis, as well as the standards to which they are held. So while I openly admit men can't fully understand the struggles of a woman, women can't fully understand their own struggles until they can fully put them into perspective by equally and openly evaluating the struggles and responsibilities associated with being a man rather than gauging it as an unjust class of privilege.

Quote :

"not all women. some. i honestly feel like some people do not realize the types of things that still occur in the business environment. and hopefully that will phase out. but you get these old ass men that sit down in a meeting across a table from you and won't even SPEAK or LOOK at the woman. they will only address her male partner."

I agree with you that this is wrong, but has nothing to do with the subject at hand of women deserving set amounts of money for lifestyle stability nor the burdens imposed on the separate male/female entities following divorce. If you wish to hold a different conversation based on the overall issues that involve discrimination or disrespect I would be glad to do so and would stand beside you.

Quote :

"and while the issues you point out are valid, i'm still being prejudged. people will look at me, because i am a woman, and think "oh not as good of an investment because she will want kids and eventually leave." so i still say, unfair."

Suggesting that is unfair is totally understandable, but that doesn't mean that the system isn't reasonable and functional. Not all things functional are fair. For example, car insurance. Men are typically charged higher rates for car insurance because, despite the lower number of minor accidents in which they are involved, they are seen as more aggressive and thus more likely to get in more expensive accidents. i.e. totaling a car switching lanes rather than backing into the mailbox. While not all men are components of this risk they are part of a collective which predicates the likelihood of such events, and as a result all bear the burden of higher insurance. While it may not be fair to all, that doesn't negate that it makes a safe bet for the party making the investment.

Quote :

"and ps. what credibility did my sardonic comment provide to your statements? hmmm? i think that they were at least relevant in conveying that i can't control biology. it isn't my fault i'm a woman."

the issue at hand there was I wasn't making a comment about your biology, which is why a large component of my statement was the issue of choice which acts as the root of actions. The frequency within which these actions, which are rooted in choice, occur is what leads to the resultant disparity. Its not a matter of your gender, which you can't control, its a matter of collective actions, which individually each woman can control.

Quote :

"pps. if anything i would think that males might want to jump on the sex discrimination bandwagon. now is the time. let your wife have the baby, then stay at home. WAIT a lot of jobs don't allow maternity/family leave for males. and we've already discussed child custody issues."

Considering it a bandwagon jump is why it doesn't work and current attempts to remedy the system are ineffective. Its all good and well to bring awareness to a cause but having complete disregard of the contributing factors that are within the control of all parties involved hinders that process. Discrimination is negative, but if its based in fact or with good support it may not necessarily be wrong. There are reasons why men don't get kids more often than not and that is because as a collective, despite the altruistic motives, they are spending more time at work than their female counterpart. This is something within their control, but they choose not to do it. When considering the welfare of a child a judge must consider who will more likely be there for the nurturing environment of the child, and in that case its often the woman. Women need to openly and honestly evaluate the actions they themselves participate in which help extend the act of discrimination.

3/20/2009 2:53:52 PM

Quote :

"but in a middle class and up situation its typically not the woman and kids who suffers the most."

actually alot of the rich women I know got screwed cause they didn't want to upset their husbands who they still loved. And really got shit screwed in the end. and the guys were not hurting at all with all thier new mistresses.
Yeah stories about guys living in thier cars sucks! but I have yet to meet a rich person that this has happened too. They just have better lawyers than that.

I can think of some instances of upper middle class/lower rich where the woman got the car and the kids. they all had to move into the grandmothers, she got a low paying job cuase she had no job experiences and the father had nothing to do with the kids. maybee sometimes they would take thier kids to walmart to buy clothes and stuff
meanwhile one I know whould take his new step daughter once a month to nyc and paris to buy new clothes -the kids really got the shaft.

and meanwhile the fathers where off with thier new wifes/mistresses building new mansions/taking trips around the world. none of them ever live in a f***ing car!

I think you gotta be pretty awefull to make someone live in a car. In divorces each party gets half usually. if you are living in a car- then you didn't have s*** to half in the first place.

3/20/2009 2:56:11 PM

asterisks


SERIOUS BUSINESS

3/20/2009 3:01:10 PM

you know someone who was living in a car G.O.D

3/20/2009 3:02:34 PM

^^ i'm going to read that later. i do understand your points. i'm not an idiot (or a total one, at least ) but i will read and respond later. i gots ta go.

3/20/2009 3:03:00 PM

Arab13 is right.
I don't know about his divorce much or his child support, I think it was years ago.

I do know that this has more to do with him losing his job

This sucks. I like Mike. He's a good guy.

3/20/2009 3:08:04 PM

because there are a lot more uppermiddle class and rich people in the USA huh g.o.d

3/20/2009 3:08:05 PM

nope.

just clarifying about rich divorces, wich seems to pertain to Mr. George David's divorce, that is the topic of the thread.

3/20/2009 3:10:42 PM