Government Terrorism.

[_Only]

I'm horrified that people believe it's fine and dandy that the mother gets special treatment in divorce and child custody cases. Aren't the sexes supposed to be equal now in the eyes of the law?

As for alimony....it's one adult taking care of another adult. Usually the man paying the woman. Why are people okay with sexism as long as it benefits the woman?

Seems like many here arguing have strong personal convictions related to a personal experience. The main person arguing against them here is a neutral party to that, as they haven't had a personal experience in dealing with this. Whether or not that distance gives them a clearer overall view or not is debatable, but I think it's a logical idea to not let a single experience with a person and their divorcee push in front of the bigger picture.

[conspiracybeliever]

I'm horrified that people believe it's fine and dandy that the mother gets special treatment in divorce and child custody cases. Aren't the sexes supposed to be equal now in the eyes of the law?

As for alimony....it's one adult taking care of another adult. Usually the man paying the woman. Why are people okay with sexism as long as it benefits the woman?

I never received or asked for alimony but I can see it in some cases. There are still many couples who have the traditional marriage where the man works and the woman stays home and Takes care of the home. If that is the way they choose to live then yes I think she should get alimony. I know a couple that were married for about 25 years. When all the kids were adults he left... for a younger woman. They were poor in the beginning but he took classes and worked and by the end of the marriage was doing quite well. She got alimony and part of his retirement. Why would she leave the marriage with nothing? But if it's a brief marriage I don't think they should get alimony. I don't think one adult should take care of another.

Edit to say the law doesn't give a **** about anything but money. Money and numbers. You can wave your law banner all you want. It's all about money and numbers to them. I guess it depends on what income level you are looking from to think women get special treatment. Or what your definition of "special treatment" is.

Edited September 21, 2011 by conspiracybeliever

[_Only]

There are still many couples who have the traditional marriage where the man works and the woman stays home and Takes care of the home. If that is the way they choose to live then yes I think she should get alimony.

That's where I think you're way off. However a couple chooses to live is one thing. But when they split, it shouldn't be the responsibility of one to support the other financially to keep that old life going, even after they have walked away to start a new life. Each support themselves and live your new life; it is only fair. They chose to end their life as a couple.

[conspiracybeliever]

That's where I think you're way off. However a couple chooses to live is one thing. But when they split, it shouldn't be the responsibility of one to support the other financially to keep that old life going, even after they have walked away to start a new life. Each support themselves and live your new life; it is only fair. They chose to end their life as a couple.

Maybe if they chose to. In the case I was speaking of he chose to leave. Why would he leave with everything and leave her with nothing. I don't even know why I'm arguing this one because personally I don't believe in marriage at all. I think she's stupid for having lived for him in the first place. I don't trust anyone that much. But maybe you're right. Maybe women wouldn't be so stupid if they weren't given so much for having done something so stupid.

[sam12six]

Maybe if they chose to. In the case I was speaking of he chose to leave. Why would he leave with everything and leave her with nothing.

Marriage is a contract. When a couple splits, they should split any assets accrued during the marriage 50/50, regardless of which partner earned more money.

Alimony, I have a different attitude on. It's like if a friend and I decided to start a company. Whether we did well or not, we choose to dissolve the company. Now, does it make any sense that one of us owes the other part of the income from the NEXT company we get involved with?

The only exception to this concept I believe in is where one partner sacrifices for the other's career. I'm friends with a couple. He's a history teacher, and she's the chick who sucks spit out of your mouth at the dentist. Her career is a cul-de-sac. His is not. Right now, they're pooling their money so he can get his Masters (which would mean an instant, significant income increase for him). Now, if they split, she should get some money because they invested in his career instead of some other asset. I don't believe however, that she should be awarded a potentially lifetime umbilical to a percentage of his income.

I don't even know why I'm arguing this one because personally I don't believe in marriage at all. I think she's stupid for having lived for him in the first place. I don't trust anyone that much. But maybe you're right. Maybe women wouldn't be so stupid if they weren't given so much for having done something so stupid.

It's funny, I feel the same way. One of my worst nightmares is that I enter a relationship in good faith, then have her take me to court and be awarded custody of my children and a chunk of my income forever (unless she finds another sucker husband). I fear I would react badly to something like this happening.

[conspiracybeliever]

Marriage is a contract. When a couple splits, they should split any assets accrued during the marriage 50/50, regardless of which partner earned more money.

Alimony, I have a different attitude on. It's like if a friend and I decided to start a company. Whether we did well or not, we choose to dissolve the company. Now, does it make any sense that one of us owes the other part of the income from the NEXT company we get involved with?

The only exception to this concept I believe in is where one partner sacrifices for the other's career. I'm friends with a couple. He's a history teacher, and she's the chick who sucks spit out of your mouth at the dentist. Her career is a cul-de-sac. His is not. Right now, they're pooling their money so he can get his Masters (which would mean an instant, significant income increase for him). Now, if they split, she should get some money because they invested in his career instead of some other asset. I don't believe however, that she should be awarded a potentially lifetime umbilical to a percentage of his income.

It's funny, I feel the same way. One of my worst nightmares is that I enter a relationship in good faith, then have her take me to court and be awarded custody of my children and a chunk of my income forever (unless she finds another sucker husband). I fear I would react badly to something like this happening.

I know so many women that plan their whole lives from a very yound age to just get married and live off their husbands for the rest of their lives. All of the women I know do that. Women have to believe or actually they have to make everyone else believe that there is some man out there that wants nothing more than to love and take care of them. Whether they got the food stamps or the mooney they got a man! How pathetic is that? Because now they don't have to deal with life and they can still be successful. It's sad really. They're missing so much.

[sam12six]

I know so many women that plan their whole lives from a very yound age to just get married and live off their husbands for the rest of their lives. All of the women I know do that. Women have to believe or actually they have to make everyone else believe that there is some man out there that wants nothing more than to love and take care of them. Whether they got the food stamps or the mooney they got a man! How pathetic is that? Because now they don't have to deal with life and they can still be successful. It's sad really. They're missing so much.

I agree with what you're saying. I think it's that our society is in a transitional phase. The trappings of "chivalry" - the man paying for everything, opening doors for the helpless ladies, etc. existed because women were considered less.

What we have going on right now IMO, is women who want the advantages of newer attitudes (essentially being regarded as equal), while keeping the advantages of the old attitudes. I often tell my feminist-minded friends that they're going to be extremely unhappy the day men and women are considered equals because that means they'll get a broken jaw when they get in a man's face, instead of his being hampered by the traditional "protect women" mindset. They'll be considered competition and subject to cut-throat office politics from men when they aren't looked at with patronizing indulgence. Without the gynocentric bias in courts (civil, criminal, and family), they'll actually get sentences that are in line with those men receive for the same crimes.

Personally, I'm fine with either - both genders being equal and women being treated as "ladies". I just have a problem when people want to pick and choose the most advantageous aspects of the two paradigms.

[conspiracybeliever]

I agree with what you're saying. I think it's that our society is in a transitional phase. The trappings of "chivalry" - the man paying for everything, opening doors for the helpless ladies, etc. existed because women were considered less.

What we have going on right now IMO, is women who want the advantages of newer attitudes (essentially being regarded as equal), while keeping the advantages of the old attitudes. I often tell my feminist-minded friends that they're going to be extremely unhappy the day men and women are considered equals because that means they'll get a broken jaw when they get in a man's face, instead of his being hampered by the traditional "protect women" mindset. They'll be considered competition and subject to cut-throat office politics from men when they aren't looked at with patronizing indulgence. Without the gynocentric bias in courts (civil, criminal, and family), they'll actually get sentences that are in line with those men receive for the same crimes.

Personally, I'm fine with either - both genders being equal and women being treated as "ladies". I just have a problem when people want to pick and choose the most advantageous aspects of the two paradigms.

I'm fine with everything except the broken jaw segment. So you think men are all violent? Is that normal behaviour for all men? Also I think you're way off on the court thing. That all depends on which kind of a "lady" you are I guess.

[sam12six]

I'm fine with everything except the broken jaw segment. So you think men are all violent? Is that normal behaviour for all men?

I think men are all potentially violent and we learn growing up that certain actions are almost guaranteed to incite violence. If a man gets in another man's face - yelling, pointing his finger in his face, shoving him, actually telling the guy to hit him - not only does he get the violence he was inciting, nobody who witnesses the thing is surprised.

I've seen women do the exact thing maybe a hundred times and have never seen the male clock the woman. The only time I've seen it is on internet videos, so I know it happens, but is incredibly rare. Those videos that are long enough to show the aftermath invariably show a crying woman moaning in confusion, "He hit me."

I've said this many times: Take a couple sitting at a table in a restaurant full of complete strangers.

The woman slaps the man and walks out. These complete strangers who know nothing about the situation will snicker - hell, some of the will clap with a chorus of "You go girl!!"

In the identical situation, the man slaps the woman and walks out. There's a very high probability he won't make it to the door because someone in the group of strangers will jump him.

This all stems from the old chivalric concept that men protect women. In a society that treats the genders equally, women aren't to be protected from their own decisions. I think most women don't realize just how much protection the old attitude offers them.

Also I think you're way off on the court thing. That all depends on which kind of a "lady" you are I guess.

Think of any story (we've had several posted here over the years) where a female teacher has sex with a young teenager. The attitudes of everyone range from quiet disapproval to "lucky kid". The courts reflect this attitude because the sentence is generally probation and loss of a job. For a male teacher, attitudes range from "he's a sexual predator who should never walk free again" to "force him to eat his own genitals, then have a group of people beat him to death with axe handles".

The following is an article that looks at gender bias in the criminal courts. (If you don't like the website, don't blame me - google's at fault for putting it first when I searched). Read the first example and it tells the whole story.

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-54.htm

We've already been over the concept that the family courts favor women because there is an archaic assumption that the woman in the relationship would have both less money and more time to raise children than the male.

I can't find definitive studies of civil court gender bias, so I'll give you that one.

[MstrMsn]

Divorce ruins the sanctity of marriage! We should ban marriage!

Agreed!!!

Sorry, just a little bitter, my wife took off while I was in Iraq. Told me, "I missed my ex".....

[Michelle]

Agreed!!!

Sorry, just a little bitter, my wife took off while I was in Iraq. Told me, "I missed my ex".....

Ouch...sorry, dear. She didn't deserve you.

I'm grateful to my ex...if he wasn't my ex I wouldn't be with the wonderful man I'm married to today. Your time will come.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Michelle

[MstrMsn]

Ouch...sorry, dear. She didn't deserve you.

I'm grateful to my ex...if he wasn't my ex I wouldn't be with the wonderful man I'm married to today. Your time will come.

Well, I'll be happy when she returns my emails so I know where to send the divorce papers.

[_Only]

Well, I'll be happy when she returns my emails so I know where to send the divorce papers.

I say find yourself someone who cares about you, and you both can stay happily married (to other people). Would save you some money.

[conspiracybeliever]

I think men are all potentially violent and we learn growing up that certain actions are almost guaranteed to incite violence. If a man gets in another man's face - yelling, pointing his finger in his face, shoving him, actually telling the guy to hit him - not only does he get the violence he was inciting, nobody who witnesses the thing is surprised.

I've seen women do the exact thing maybe a hundred times and have never seen the male clock the woman. The only time I've seen it is on internet videos, so I know it happens, but is incredibly rare. Those videos that are long enough to show the aftermath invariably show a crying woman moaning in confusion, "He hit me."

I've said this many times: Take a couple sitting at a table in a restaurant full of complete strangers.

The woman slaps the man and walks out. These complete strangers who know nothing about the situation will snicker - hell, some of the will clap with a chorus of "You go girl!!"

In the identical situation, the man slaps the woman and walks out. There's a very high probability he won't make it to the door because someone in the group of strangers will jump him.

This all stems from the old chivalric concept that men protect women. In a society that treats the genders equally, women aren't to be protected from their own decisions. I think most women don't realize just how much protection the old attitude offers them.

Think of any story (we've had several posted here over the years) where a female teacher has sex with a young teenager. The attitudes of everyone range from quiet disapproval to "lucky kid". The courts reflect this attitude because the sentence is generally probation and loss of a job. For a male teacher, attitudes range from "he's a sexual predator who should never walk free again" to "force him to eat his own genitals, then have a group of people beat him to death with axe handles".

The following is an article that looks at gender bias in the criminal courts. (If you don't like the website, don't blame me - google's at fault for putting it first when I searched). Read the first example and it tells the whole story.

http://www.dvmen.org/dv-54.htm

We've already been over the concept that the family courts favor women because there is an archaic assumption that the woman in the relationship would have both less money and more time to raise children than the male.

I can't find definitive studies of civil court gender bias, so I'll give you that one.

Sorry but I'm not buying any of your studies. And I think if people saw any violence where it was as unequal as an average man and an average woman they would react the same way. For instance a large muscular man beating up a small weak man. I don't buy any of that crap. I go by personal experience and what I see going on around me and I've put a number of examples on this forum if you'd like to go back and look at them. The courts create their own numbers with the help of the media.

I'm curious as to what you mean by the family courts favor women because there is an archaic assumption that the woman in the relationship would have both less money and more time to raise children than the male. Why would women have less money andmore time to raise children?

[_Only]

Why would women have less money andmore time to raise children?

Huh?

You've never heard of this sexist generalization, due to how women used to stay home and raise children, while the man goes out and works?

Really?

[conspiracybeliever]

Huh?

You've never heard of this sexist generalization, due to how women used to stay home and raise children, while the man goes out and works?

Really?

I have heard that sexist generalization. I understand the stay home and raise children part. I don't understand why he stuck the less money part in. Why would custody be rewarded to a person because they have less money? What does that have to do with it?

[sam12six]

Sorry but I'm not buying any of your studies. And I think if people saw any violence where it was as unequal as an average man and an average woman they would react the same way. For instance a large muscular man beating up a small weak man. I don't buy any of that crap. I go by personal experience and what I see going on around me and I've put a number of examples on this forum if you'd like to go back and look at them. The courts create their own numbers with the help of the media.

I understand your basing things on your own experience. We all do this. You think people would act to stop a large man who was beating small man... well, I've seen it several times. Unless the small man has friends present or there is someone who feels like he has authority in the location, that beating's lasting until the larger man decides to stop. Unless the smaller guy's in a wheelchair, people will just watch.

You can believe it's crap all you want. I went to hundreds of parties in high school and college (at least half included a fight). I've seen a woman doing exactly what I described - getting in a guy's face, shoving him, daring him to hit her. When she jumped at him like she was going to hit him, he reflexively threw his hands out to keep her back. You know what happened? He was immediately buried under a roomful of guys beating the crap out of him.

I've also seen a huge guy pick a fight with a small guy (seen this one many times). You know what happened? Everyone (including the small guy's friends) stood back and watched until the bigger guy decided the beating was over. The only times I've ever seen people jump in and immediately break the fight up was when it was early and people didn't want the party to end.

Believe what you will, but I'd be willing to bet that 95% of adult males have seen women do something and thought, "Wow, she's lucky she's a woman. If a man did that, he'd be picking his teeth out of the carpet right now."

I'm curious as to what you mean by the family courts favor women because there is an archaic assumption that the woman in the relationship would have both less money and more time to raise children than the male. Why would women have less money andmore time to raise children?

I have heard that sexist generalization. I understand the stay home and raise children part. I don't understand why he stuck the less money part in. Why would custody be rewarded to a person because they have less money? What does that have to do with it?

It's two separate things predicated on the same generalization:

The female is favored in custody because the archaic stereotype says she doesn't work and has more time to devote to raising the children.

She if favored with alimony (or adult support) because it's assumed that she can't make as much money as a man.

Different issues, but both decided by family court. And obviously, there are exceptions, I'm just talking about the vast majority of cases, not all of them.

[conspiracybeliever]

I understand your basing things on your own experience. We all do this. You think people would act to stop a large man who was beating small man... well, I've seen it several times. Unless the small man has friends present or there is someone who feels like he has authority in the location, that beating's lasting until the larger man decides to stop. Unless the smaller guy's in a wheelchair, people will just watch.

You can believe it's crap all you want. I went to hundreds of parties in high school and college (at least half included a fight). I've seen a woman doing exactly what I described - getting in a guy's face, shoving him, daring him to hit her. When she jumped at him like she was going to hit him, he reflexively threw his hands out to keep her back. You know what happened? He was immediately buried under a roomful of guys beating the crap out of him.

I've also seen a huge guy pick a fight with a small guy (seen this one many times). You know what happened? Everyone (including the small guy's friends) stood back and watched until the bigger guy decided the beating was over. The only times I've ever seen people jump in and immediately break the fight up was when it was early and people didn't want the party to end.

Believe what you will, but I'd be willing to bet that 95% of adult males have seen women do something and thought, "Wow, she's lucky she's a woman. If a man did that, he'd be picking his teeth out of the carpet right now."

It's two separate things predicated on the same generalization:

The female is favored in custody because the archaic stereotype says she doesn't work and has more time to devote to raising the children.

She if favored with alimony (or adult support) because it's assumed that she can't make as much money as a man.

Different issues, but both decided by family court. And obviously, there are exceptions, I'm just talking about the vast majority of cases, not all of them.

I wouldn't trust family court any more than I trust the criminal courts. I think the decisions they make are to create problems just like criminal courts. After all, that's their business.

[FurthurBB]

I don't dispute that. I'm saying it's unfair that the noncustodial parent can be fined, garnished, and incarcerated for failing to live up to his or her part of the child's upkeep, but there's no such restriction on the custodial parent.

You say activities are built into the child support amount - will the custodial parent get locked if the child is NOT participating in extracurricular activities? Does the noncustodial parent get a refund for money never spent for the purpose it was taken from him?

That's my point here. Look at the hypothetical I set up in an earlier post. 2 parents making the same amount encounter the same hardship - From the government's POV, the custodial parent has hit tough times and needs help. The noncustodial parent hitting the same tough times is a criminal and a deadbeat not worthy of help.

Goose and gander.

I believe that when someone sues another for child support, then BOTH parents should be forced to pay it and the court should then give the custodial parent vouchers for the things child support covers.

Of course it does. If it's not something that a custodial parent should be held accountable for (like food, clothing, etc), then it's not something that noncustodial parents should be held accountable for either. Making optional things mandatory, but only for noncustodial parents is a mockery of fairness and concern for a child's welfare.

They are not mandatory. You just want to play games and I have no interest. Sorry.

[FurthurBB]

I'm horrified that people believe it's fine and dandy that the mother gets special treatment in divorce and child custody cases. Aren't the sexes supposed to be equal now in the eyes of the law?

As for alimony....it's one adult taking care of another adult. Usually the man paying the woman. Why are people okay with sexism as long as it benefits the woman?

Women have to pay alimony too, you just cannot see it.

[_Only]

Women have to pay alimony too, you just cannot see it.

Not nearly as often, even when they make more money, which is odd. But that aside, does that make the ridiculous law better to you?