HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Look at my final divorce settlement:

[CanuckAmok]

From a collective net worth of over $700,000 (Canadian), including two properties (one owned outright, and one with tons of equity):


Subtract my legal fees, administrative disbursements, buying fourteen lunches for two trial attorneys over seven days, etc...








Keep scrolling...





















Just a little further...


















$726.40.



















Two simple statements, and then you'll hear no more about this from me:

1) Misogynists aren't born, they're made. An unfail court system doesn't help. I'm certainly not condoning violence against women (or anyone, for that matter), but you can certainly see where the seeds of resentment begin to burst.

2) Q: What do you call a hundred-thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A: A good start.



PS...I'm spending my $726.40 on hookers and blow. Well, one extremely discounted hooker, and some white powder that might be blow, but is probably Carpet Fresh.

[Stephanie]

1. Whatever

Your little joke about "violence against women" doesn't earn you any sympathy around here. Try the freeper site.

[knowbody0]

4. thanks stephanie

[Robb]

11. So you think misogynists are born?

:eyes:

[Stephanie]

19. Oh, so it's okay to hate women, if you think you have a reason?

[Robb]

40. It's O.K. to hate anybody.

[LoZoccolo]

129. So it's OK to ask a pointed and unrelated question...

...in response to one you don't want to answer?

[Stephanie]

138. What? He says he can understand why men hate women -

I have heard racists say similar things - haven't you?

[Rabrrrrrr]

140. I can understand why some people hate ice cream

Does that understanding make me a bad person? Should I kill myself?

[Stephanie]

146. Re-write that line and substitute "mexicans" for ice cream

[Rabrrrrrr]

162. rewrite that line and substitute "leather" for "mexicans"

and you'll hopefully begin to understand how stupid it is to berate and insult someone's humanity for the completely innocent and morally-neutral act of "understanding".

Understanding is the beginning of wisdom.

You, however, are not understanding.

[Stephanie]

169. No, I'm not understanding why it's okay to say -

"Misogynists aren't born, they're made." Comparing women to ice cream and leather is not helping me understand it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

177. Misogynists ARE made

all hatred is learned behavior.

If you think misogynists are born, than you have no right to condemn them - they are acting exactly like they were created to be. If misogynists are born, and if homosexuals are born (which I DO believe), then misogynists have all the inborn natural right to free expression of their misogyny that homosexuals have.

Personally, I don't think misogynists are born, except for the small percent of people who are born with brain damage of one sort or another that leads to naturally created forms of mental illness.

But, I wasn't talking about that at all, because you weren't - you keep condemning the act of understanding itself. And I keep trying to tell you that the act of understanding someone else is not an evil act. It's a morally and ethically neutral act at worst, morally good and ethically good at best. Understanding is the beginning of wisdom, and the beginning of compassion.

[Stephanie]

184. And I keep asking you if the same rules apply to different races

or only to women? So if someone is a racist, you would tell me to understand WHY they are a racist? Is that it? And then what?

[LoZoccolo]

188. I would, yeah.

Sociologists and psychologists study people to try to understand why they do what they do all the time, including why they are racist. I don't see how this is bad.

[VelmaD]

195. Somehow I doubt in his anger and pain...

that the OP is talking about a serious sociological study of misogyny.

[LoZoccolo]

199. No.

He doesn't need to. Anyone here should know by now that some people start to hate other people when they have bad experiences with them.

[Rabrrrrrr]

193. Okay, since you insist on bouncing around what you want people

to answer - first it's the misogyny, then it's the racism, then it's the okay to hate women....no matter what someone answers, you come up with something else...but anyway, I'll play along, since it's fun to see what new direction you are going to take a response.

Here's how it goes - understanding does not imply acceptance, nor does it imply excusing, or condoning, nor agreement.

So, if someone says "I can understand why someone hates Mexicans", it's the same as saying "I can understand why someone hates leather" or "women" or "ice cream" or "having their testicales put in a vise" or "burning their skin with acid."

Understanding is just that: understanding. It is how we connect with other people.

Don't you have any desire to understand why people are the way they are? If someone is a racist, then, yes, I want to understand why! Because I care about people. Perhaps through understanding why they are racist, I can help them get over it. But, even in the worst case, at least I understand and know why! At least I connected with that person!

The only other option I can see is that one decides never to try to understand anyeone with whom they disagree and simply villify them as worthless scum.

And I thought liberals were all about empathy, compassion, and understanding.

[uppityperson]

240. Are you saying misogynists are born that way?

If they are born that way, it is just nature. They can't help themselves because this is how they were born. This is just how they are. Is this what you are saying? We are saying that people are not born with hatred but must learn it.

We are NOT saying it is ok to be misogynistic, just that it is learned behavior, not born behavior.

[LoZoccolo]

164. I can understand why people hate Mexicans.

You are terribly, terribly confused, or playing self-righteous games in an effort to show off. The assertion that misogynists are made and not born is not a statement of what deserves support and what does not, what is right and what is wrong, what someone should do and what someone should not do, what one is sympathetic to and what one is not sympathetic to. It is simply a description of the way. things. are.

And yes, I can understand why people hate Mexicans, because they will usually pretty frankly tell you why if you ask them. Usually it's something about jobs and cheap labor. It's as simple as understanding why someone steals something - because they want it.

If anyone alerts this post, they obviously don't get it.

[Stephanie]

171. Please read the OP

It's okay to hate women because courts favor them, in his opinion, and men get ripped off. How is this different from people telling you they hate Mexicans for whatever reason? Racism and sexism are hand in hand and we should realize it.

[LoZoccolo]

176. Nope.

Not what he said.

I would say that a certain segment of conservatives who act against their own interests are made and not born as well. Maybe it has something to do with knee-jerk liberals battering them with all the stuff they read into what they say and do rather than doing what it takes to make things better in this world.

[Rabrrrrrr]

185. You are either refusing to read what he said in the OP

or you are misreading it entirely and putting words in his mouth.

He never said it's okay to hate women at all; he certainly didn't say it was okay to hate women because of the courts, and how men get ripped off.

He merely stated that he can understand why some men become misogynists after a court ordeal like he had.

I don't see how, in any sane or rational thought system, one can make the leap from "I can see why some men turn misogynist" to "it's okay to hate all women".

That's the kind of leap of someone who can't get over their emotional response to a stimulus - and a stimulus which was never there to begin with.

[Stephanie]

189. Maybe you don't have the perspective to see what I'm seeing - try this:

1) Racists aren't born, they're made. An unfair court system doesn't help. I'm certainly not condoning violence against blacks (or anyone, for that matter), but you can certainly see where the seeds of resentment begin to burst.

[LoZoccolo]

194. Sure he does.

It's just knee-jerk.

This is actually a demonstration of what we're talking about. We understand what you're thinking, even though we don't agree with it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

202. Alright - I would agree with that

just like I can see and understand the seeds of resentment that led African Americans, in the 50s and 60s, to start protesting for civil rights.

So it's okay to understand the motives of people we agree with, but not at all okay to try to understand the motives of people we don't agree with?

If you can't empathize, there can be no relationship; with no relationship, there will be no bettering of humanity.

[VelmaD]

207. Do you honestly think...

the OP was advocating having empathy for people we don't agree with? Really?

[Rabrrrrrr]

211. I don't remember him saying he is advocating having empathy

for people we don't agree with - not specifically, because he wasn't talking theoretical issues of morality and ethics.

I DO, however, remember him saying that he can see why some men become misogynists, with an implicit (as I read it) condemnation of that misogyny.

[Stephanie]

218. oh good lord!

WHAT "implicit condemnation?"

[Rabrrrrrr]

230. hmmmm.....let's see...........maybe it was this line:

I'm certainly not condoning violence against women (or anyone, for that matter)

Now, I know that certain of you on this thread (and I can't remember if you were one of them) want to condemn for that statement because it's the same as saying "I don't mean to be rude", but that's just knee-jerk bullshit.

Perhaps he could have worded it better, but that sure seems to me an implicit condemnation of violence.

You see, Stephanie, as I say over and over and over, understanding someone does not make you evil. It makes you a good human being. I, too, do not condone violence against anyone, but I, too, have the emotional maturity to understand why some people hate. I don't agree with them, but I am adult enough to at least try to understand them. I'm not willing to let abusers and doers of violent acts go unpunished, but I am spiritually aware and mature enough to at least try to understand them.

[Stephanie]

235. Okay, I get your point, and you're right

I don't understand it. I don't understand why someone would commit violent acts against women, and I don't understand people who say they understand it.

[VelmaD]

224. I'm not talking about him...I'm talking about you...

and what you have made your part of this thread about. You keep going on and on about the importance of empathy and I don't disagree with that POV, but I'm saying that that is not what the OP was talking about when he said he understand where hatred of women could come from. It was not a ringing endorsement of empathy coming on the heels of his discussion of his divorce settlement.

[Rabrrrrrr]

232. what is empathy if not understanding?

em·pa·thy
n.

1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. See Synonyms at pity.

2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

[VelmaD]

238. Yet you seem remarkably unable (or unwilling)...

to understand the pov of the people you disagree with on this thread.

You made reference to my comment about "I don't mean to be offensive but" up thread and claimed it was knee-jerk and reactionary. That's not very empathetic of you. *tsk tsk*

on edit: answer or not, and this point I've pretty much decided that you are being intentionally obtuse and I'm going to hang out in the part of the thread where people are actually having a meaningful conversation

[Rabrrrrrr]

244. I can be empathetic with someone and still think they are wrong

I can understand why someone might commit murder, but it's a pretty good bet I will also condemn them for it. I can understand why someone might hate women, or minorities, or majorities, or whatever the class du jour is, but I will never think it's okay to do so, and will call people on the rug for it.

[RevCheesehead]

251. How about this?

I can understand why Osama bin Laden hates America. Really.

I can understand why Fred Phelps hates gays. I have my suspicions as to why he does (that he might not be aware of), but I understand where he's coming from.

I can understand why "pro-life" people are so vehemently pro-life, and so passionate about their belief. Really, I do understand.

I understand why Terry Schiavo's parents were so desperate to save her. Believe me, I really understand that perspective.

Am I condoning the behavior of these people? Absolutely not. But my striving to understand what makes them tick gives me the basic stuff I need to build bridges, or look for common ground. If all I did was completely shut out these people, I would be no better than those who say "my way or the highway."

I choose to understand, or to at least try.

[Stephanie]

208. What?

I don't know what you're talking about at this point. It's late. Good night.

[Rabrrrrrr]

214. Yes, it's VERY obvious you don't know what I'm talking about

nor what the OP was talking about.

Sad, really.

Perhaps tomorrow, when you re-read this thread, you will come to an understanding, and realize that coming to an understanding (which does not equal acceptance, excusing, or condoning) is not an immoral or evil act.

[Stephanie]

222. No, I don't, because it doesn't make any SENSE

The OP condemns WOMEN, says that it's understandable why men would hate women, because men get screwed by the courts. Did I get that part right? Now you are telling me that I am not an empathetic individual, because I am not sympathizing with the poor fellow who thinks it's reasonable to hate women. Did I get it right?

[Rabrrrrrr]

237. Wow, so now you have him **condeming** ALL women!!

I think I addressed the bullshit of that accusation elsewhere.

I'm saying you are wrong because you keep mischaracterizing him - he said merely that he understands why some men become misogynist. YOU - YOU - are the one who has decided that he is condeming women, that he is saying it's okay to condemn women, and that he is saying it is reasonable to hate women. None of which he said.

saying "I can see why some men hate women" is NOT AT ALL AND NOWHERE NEAR THE SAME as saying "I think it's reasonable to hate women".

[Stephanie]

247. Okay, then you tell me what this means >

1) Misogynists aren't born, they're made. An unfail court system doesn't help. I'm certainly not condoning violence against women (or anyone, for that matter), but you can certainly see where the seeds of resentment begin to burst.

[Stephanie]

249. How does this feel? >

Rabrrrrrr haters aren't born, they're made. An unfail court system doesn't help. I'm certainly not condoning violence against Rabrrrrrr (or anyone, for that matter), but you can certainly see where the seeds of resentment begin to burst.

[Rabrrrrrr]

257. It makes me feel like you are not very serious,

that you have no interest in trying to understand what I and others are saying, and that I am, sadly, wasting my time.

Right now, that's how I feel. And feelings are neither right nor wrong.

My THINKING might be wrong about you, but my FEELING is not wrong.

[Stephanie]

260. Really?

So you absolutely refuse to identify with the WOMEN who are vilified in the OP. Thatt's not SERIOUS. Why not? Because no one would actually ever say such a thing about you? But what if they did?

[Rabrrrrrr]

266. I have never said anything pertaining to either identifying

or not identifying with the women in the OP.

The fact that you continue to refuse to directly address things I say continues to make me feel that you are not serious.

So, now that you've gone down about your eighth railroad track of avoiding any actual content-having discussion, I'll address yet another of your questions: if someone said that about me, I'd be curious why,and I would ask.

[Rabrrrrrr]

250. I think the easier path for both of us is for you to tell us

how you feel that that statement means the OP is saying that it's okay and reasonable to hate all women.

I've already parsed that for you elsewhere. Let's give you a go at it.

[Stephanie]

258. I have told you about a dozen times

He justifies hating, and committing violence against, women. Not all women. Not that he says he would do it himself. But he says he can understand why some men might do it. I don't think that's okay. Okay? That is a classic wife-beater attitude. She made me do it. Aw, women! Can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em! It's not okay. I'm not going to say it's okay. No matter how many times you ask me to.



1) Misogynists aren't born, they're made. An unfail court system doesn't help. I'm certainly not condoning violence against women (or anyone, for that matter), but you can certainly see where the seeds of resentment begin to burst.

[Rabrrrrrr]

262. LOL!! Jesus Christ, I have never asked you to say it's okay.

WOULD YOU READ MY POSTS PLEASE?! Could you act like an adult, please?

how many times do I have to say it? Understanding is not the same as accepting! How many times do I have to say it? I don't condone violence, either! It is NOT okay! The OP also said it is NOT okay!

For fuck's sake, grow up.

As you said: he understands why some men might do it. That's all - understanding.

I WISH THAT YOU WOULD EXPLAIN, LIKE I ASKED, HOW YOU CAN GO FROM THAT TO THINKING THAT HE IS SAYING VIOLENCE IS OKAY!

[Stephanie]

265. Read your own post.

And cut out the patronizing crap. Good night.

[VelmaD]

267. Could you maybe try to be a little less condescending...

Just because you disagree with her perception of the original post doesn't make you're perception more valid.

[Rabrrrrrr]

272. Well, I'm sorry, but when someone consistently and insistently

misreads and miscontrues what someone said, no matter how many times others have pointed out the error of that misreading, then at some point, it devolves into condescension. Not the best method for me to use, I know, but it becomes very frustrating. It is like arguing with a child, and I responded in exasperation, and guilty as charged, it was a rather immature way to respond.

And in this case, I am quite convinced that my perception of the original post IS the more accurate perception, based on my reading of it, many times (just to be sure) and further elucidation by the original poster.

No matter how much someone might wish it said something, doesn't mean that it does.

[LoZoccolo]

268. I wouldn't feed this any more, man.

They keep it coming because you keep asking them to believe you. It really doesn't matter if two people on a message board who you'll never meet will admit they understood what you were saying ten posts ago or not. And by now everyone else can see you've laid down the case and they just kept making accusations, the case against them is all there already.

[Rabrrrrrr]

273. And I agree

I am happy to debate with someone who is willing to, you know, listen.

It does become tiring.

[uppityperson]

150. mis-icecreamist?

you are bad too because you can understand why someone might feel someway. How dare you not just over react and jump all over someone. ah ahhh ahhhha ahhh ahhhh :sarcasm:

I don't think that person can understand.

[Rabrrrrrr]

221. Yes, my understanding makes me an evil person

oooooooh sooooooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevillllllllll


:7

[dolo amber]

13. I clearly missed this "joke"

I did see a statement from someone about whose situation you probably know very little who is obviously hurting though. Empathy over self righteousness is a good thing sometimes. :hi:

[Stephanie]

15. Yeah, it's okay to hate women because a legal decision didn't go your way

Can I blame it on another race if I lose a case to them? What race are you?

[Magrittes Pipe]

18. Self-delete.

.

[Stephanie]

31. WTF?

Who are you?

[Magrittes Pipe]

55. Sorry, I'll retract that one.

I think your attacks are way over the line. But I'll delete that post.

[Stephanie]

60. Yeah, okay, fine, Explain why this is okay and I'll be happy to apologize:

"1) Misogynists aren't born, they're made. An unfail court system doesn't help. I'm certainly not condoning violence against women (or anyone, for that matter), but you can certainly see where the seeds of resentment begin to burst."

[Magrittes Pipe]

76. If a man pretty much stole everything you owned, would you not be pissed?

Or, for that matter, if a woman pretty much stole everything you owned?

Look: I wouldn't have posted this thread. I know more of the particulars of the situation than you do, and it in ENTIRELY within CA's right to harbor a great deal of resentment toward his ex-wife. Because there are particulars I wouldn't want to disclose, and I would know that my venting would kick up a shitstorm, I probably wouldn't have said anything.

Yes. He is suggesting that such events could, in some people, start or reinforce misogynistic leanings. In some people it can. Shit, it can drive some people right over the edge.

You don't need to think it's okay, nor do you need to apologize. But my belief is that you really should attack the argument rather than the man. Keep it impersonal -- which is why I deleted that comment; as it's nothing to do with you, it's your tactics I don't like.

[Robb]

82. I'm jealous

"it's nothing to do with you, it's your tactics I don't like."

I wish I was better at that. Hat off to you. :thumbsup:

[Stephanie]

85. So if I lost a divorce case to a black man, and I posted racist comments

afterwards, you think that would be okay? It would be justifiable, because I was upset?

[Magrittes Pipe]

92. You're stretching a bit.

Perhaps just a little bit, but I believe the difference is important.

The OP said: "Misogynists aren't born, they're made. An unfail court system doesn't help. I'm certainly not condoning violence against women (or anyone, for that matter), but you can certainly see where the seeds of resentment begin to burst."

Any sociology course will tell you the same thing, but will do so in more couched language. What he DIDN'T say is "I hate all women." If he did, I would not be defending him; nor would I defend you if you said "I hate all black men" after losing a divorce case to an African-American.

I know that you may see this distinction as immaterial. I do not.

[Stephanie]

96. You're right, I see it as immaterial

He says he can see why men would begin to feel a desire to commit violence against women (am I correct here?), and I ask you, what if he had said that, after a perceived injustice, he he began to see where resentment would lead to violence against members of a different race. Is that different?

[Magrittes Pipe]

100. He said that he could see where some could come to the place...

...where they could learn to hate women. He specifically stated that he does not condone violence; and he never said the he was in that place yet.

But if a woman gets repeatedly fucked over by the men in her life, I can't say I don't understand that she might start hating men. I would disagree with it, I would say that there *are* good men out there, but I wouldn't automatically discount everything she went through.

[VelmaD]

107. Ok...let's try to reach a point of understanding...

'cause I'm not enjoying this flamewar either. This is the problem I think some of us are having. Throwing in "I'm not condoning violence against women but"...seems a little too much like people who start sentences with "I don't mean to be offensive but" and then say something truly awful. I figure you know what I'm talking about and I'm hoping it helps you understand where at least I am coming from.

[Lars39]

114. Yes,

and in the same neighborhood as "she made me mad"...:(

[Magrittes Pipe]

117. I see where you're coming from.

And again, if I had posted this at all, I probably would have worded it differently. That said, I don't think the pile-on is necessary. As I said earlier (and failed myself at times, I'll admit), it's better to attack the argument than the person.

[VelmaD]

133. Go down to the very first post from me...

in this thread and I think you might be surprised that I didn't attack the OP. I'm not sure I've attacked him yet rather than his argument. I don't approve of the personal attacks by either side and frankly alerted on this thread when it only had about 10 posts just to let the mods know to watch it because I saw this coming.

[Magrittes Pipe]

137. Well, yeah, of course this was coming.

And I'm not surprised, as I saw your first post, and knew it wasn't an attack.

[Stephanie]

108. You didn't answer my question.

Would it be okay if he made the same comments, but against a different race instead of against women?

[Magrittes Pipe]

That's not what you said.

You said "if I lost a divorce case to a black man, and I posted racist comments afterwards, you think that would be okay?" It wasn't about him. It's a general thing. I didn't see his comments as misogynistic at their core. Obviously, you disagree with this. If I saw misogyny, I would have alerted, just as if I had seen racism.

On this note, I bid good night. At least I can say I'm glad we were able to have a discussion about this rather than just lobbing insults back-and-forth all night.

[CanuckAmok]

113. No, Stephanie...

Hatred and violence are two different things entirely.

[Stephanie]

122. I'm not talking about the difference between hatred and violence

I'm asking whether these type of comments against women are acceptable, and whether you would accept the same type of comments against a different race.

[Rabrrrrrr]

136. So, tell us again - no, for the first time - why empathy is evil?

I can understand/see why some men hate women. I can understand/see why some men say they will never get married again. I can understand/see why some people hate people of other colors. I can understand/see why some women are afraid to be alone with men, or afraid to walk alone at night. I can understand/see why some people commit murder. I can understand/see why some women carry mace for the express reasons "in case a man tries to attack me" - not "in case SOMEONE attacks me", but specifically "in case a MAN tries to attack me." I can understand/see why some people will never go to a doctor again, or a dentist, or a priest, or a lawyer, or call a plumber again.

Doesn't mean I condone any of it. Doesn't mean I excuse any of it.

It just means that I've joined the human race and I'm able to understand/see, or at empathize, with other people.

I think that's the point that you are having such a hard time with - understanding/seeing is not the same as agreeing, condoning, or excusing.

[Pithlet]

106. The distinction is material.

He's worded his post in such a way to get away with posting things he would otherwise rightly be condemned for.

I'm sorry, but basically he said he can understand where misogynists come from. I do sympathize with anyone who gets ripped off in a divorce settlement. But, the flaming of those who took exception to the way he worded his post is out of line.

[Magrittes Pipe]

124. Yes. Their flaming of him is out of line.

And I took responsibility for, and deleted, a post of mine that I saw as out of line.

[GirlinContempt]

20. He didn't say he hates women

he said he's resentful that they are often favoured in settlements like this, and that he can see how misogynists learn their misogyny

[Magrittes Pipe]

22. You're tilting at windmills.

Some people aren't interested in discussion. :eyes:

[GirlinContempt]

27. Or thought.

Or reading.
*sigh*

[VelmaD]

26. I said it downthread and it bears repeating...

misogynists existed well before there were divorces or divorce settlements that favored women. It's a bullshit assertion on it's face.

[GirlinContempt]

35. I also don't think

he said that its the only reason for misogyny.
The way I personally took it was he could see how this would be a contributing factor toward misogyny. That doesn't mean the ONLY one, or that it's RIGHT, or that he hates all women, or anything of the sort, unless he says that, as far as I'm concerned. When he does, I'll retract my defense.

[lenidog]

28. I don't recall him ever saying he hated women

Unless I missed something in translation.

[Stephanie]

36. Please translate "misogynist"

thanks

[GirlinContempt]

37. Please re-read the post

thanks

[lenidog]

53. Good try but you swung and miss

He never called himself a misogynist. He said that he could why such feelings could be born but he never said he was a misogynist. Maybe he made a poor choice in words but he never inferred he was a misogynist.

[Pithlet]

91. That is no better.

Really. And before I also get called heartless, I don't know the details behind this divorce to make a judgment either way. I can only go by what I've seen the OP post, here in this thread and in the past. I can't say anymore without breaking DU rules.

[asthmaticeog]

42. Stifle it, stephanie.

The guy got royally fucked and he's earned the right to vent a little. Leave the sermon out of this, C.A.'s not womankind's problem. Save the fight for *real* misogynists.

[VelmaD]

50. You know, it's gets a little tired...

hearing men tell women what "real" misogyny is and what we ought to concern ourselves with.

[asthmaticeog]

59. Wanna know what gets tiresome?

Being told by women witrh axes to grind that complaining about a specific woman is the same as slandering the whole sex. That's what gets motherfucking tiresome, Velma.

[VelmaD]

63. I have a news flash for you...

I don't have a particular axe to grind related to this specific situation. And the OP made it about ALL women when he started talking about misogyny and ho wit might be understandable...the hatred of women in general - not hatred of a specific woman.

Oh, and it's pretty mother-fucking tiresome to have every complaint by women blown off as "an axe to grind".

[Pithlet]

69. "ax to grind"

Don't you love that one? I never get tired of that old accusation.

[asthmaticeog]

86. W/R/T misogyny,

he said he *understood* how people came to feel it, not that he felt it himself. If you had no particular axe to grind, why'd you join in on the pile-on?

Say, what if his ex-wife were the DUer, posting about how she'd just left her husband with a microscopic amount of his belongings?

[VelmaD]

95. As in this thread it would depend on how she worded her post

If she was laughing about taking him to the cleaners or making fun of him or saying things that disparaged all men I would take her to task.

If she just posted exactly what you wrote...I'd want to know the particulars before I said much of anything. Which would have been response to this post if it hadn't been for that comment about misogyny. It smacked a bit too much of saying "it's ok to hate women". Sorry you can't seem to put yourself in other's shoes and see where we could see it that way.

[CanuckAmok]

127. No, it's not okay to hate women.

But many men do. And often it's because of they way men are treated in situations like mine.

Actually, strictly legally speaking is is okay to hate women, or anyone you want to hate. It's just not okay to act on that hatred in violent or slanderous ways.

Earlier in this thread, you said that it's a wonder women haven't murdered us (men) in our sleep. I take that with a grain of salt, Velma, because I have read many of your poats and quite like you, but what you said was rather hateful, and was a generalist statement of violence against a gender. I certainly don't hold it against you, nor do I know even remotely enough about you to try and understand why you would say that.... but as long as you don't actually go around strangling men in their sleep, I'm more than eager to read what you have to say on the matter.

[VelmaD]

143. It's one of my favorite debate techniques rearing it's ugly head.

I was taking the argument you made, that men when faced with a system that discriminates against them as men might start to hate women...and take it out to an almost ridiculous extreme to spur thought and conversation. If men come to hate women because divorce courts may treat them inequitably...how do you think we feel about a world-wide system of religion, politics, and tradition that tells us every day we aren't equal to men and treats us inequitably?

If I didn't explain myself well I'm more than willing to keep talking. I usually really like what you post too. :)

[Pithlet]

64. I know

It's ridiculous. DU was the last place I expected crap like that. I'm used to it, now, but I'm still disgusted.

[DS1]

66. I don't know the whole story

but if the OP is legit, then FUCKING A he did.

[PassingFair]

54. I forgave him for the misogyny statement...

but he totally lost me with the "hookers and blow" business.
Hope it's just your disappointment and hurt speaking there, Canuk.
Women aren't disposable (though apparently your income was).

[CanuckAmok]

130. Nah... not into working gals.

I'm looking for a cornfed, non-Maciavellian heroine type.

[DS1]

61. I think what he was trying to say was that some people

can be manipulative bitches or assholes.

/transgenderized version

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

110. Pot... Kettle

[Stephanie]

134. Please explain -

what on earth you mean.

[Magrittes Pipe]

16. Empathy over self righteousness?

Clearly she knows too much about "the freeper site" to know anything about that. :eyes:

[Stephanie]

21. Would you like to explain that?

[VelmaD]

29. Seems pretty straight-forward to me...

he just called you a freeper in violation of the DU rules.

[Magrittes Pipe]

38. She called CanuckAmok a freeper in violation of DU rules.

They apply to me, but not to her?

And besides, I was clearly doing so as a rhetorical device. She did so as a personal attack.

[philosophie_en_rose]

80. No. She said he should go there.

She didn't say that he was a paying member. :(


This thread is out of control. Canuck Amock is obviously hurting. I find his statements concerning and a little disgusting, but he's in an irrational situation that doesn't breed reasonable beliefs. (Which I think was his point, but I don't want to put words in his mouth).

Stephanie is offended that women are blamed for what some idiots assume is a bias against men. Misogynists aren't born, but they are supported by comments blaming "grasping women" for reducing men to "hookers and blow." Very offensive comments, if taken at gospel or an excuse for ANY prejudice or harm.

:shrug:

[Stephanie]

41. for what?

because I object to his characterization of WOMEN?

[Magrittes Pipe]

49. She misinterpreted.

As have you. There's no shame in it. But you shouldn't attack people when you don't know the whole story.

[Magrittes Pipe]

34. Sure. You said "[t]ry the freeper site."

In other words, you accused CanuckAmok of being a freeper. This is a direct violation of the rules. You have issued personal attacks against him, as well as dolo amber. Another violation of the rules.

You are taking a situation about which you know nothing and using it as a bully pulpit to degrade others. The OP was about a specific situation, not about all women. Perhaps some words were chosen that I wouldn't have chosen, but that doesn't give you the right to paint someone you don't know going through something of which you don't know anything close to the whole story with such a broad brush.

[DS1]

67. "Try the FReeper site"

The ultimate argument of someone that's lost said argument. It's tired and worn out, and I propose it's grounds for immediate and remorseless bannination.

[Rabrrrrrr]

88. For once, I agree with you

Oh wait, no, for the millionth time I agree with you.

"try the freeper site" - meaning "I refuse to actually try to understand what you wrote, and why you wrote it, I just saw my hotbutton word and so immediately responded from the bottom of my brain stem, which I tend to use most of the time, in order to grind my axe and scream my pet issue to the world so you all know how righteous I am, and you're a freeper".

[DS1]

102. BWAAHAH

I saw the title of your reply first, and thought "deleted for possible clique-friendly content" and then looked left and saw your name and thought :wtf: and clicked on your reply.

[CanuckAmok]

24. You miss my point completely:

I stated clearly that I don't condone violence at all.

What I am saying is that I have seen, first hand, a system which does not treat people equally on the basis of their gender. Divorce is a highly emotional situation, in which there are few support networks for men (and I can't even imagine what it must be like for fathers trying to win custody...we were childless). When one is pushed to extremes with no support and no outlet, hatred grows. I don't condone it, I just better understand it than I did two years ago.

[VelmaD]

33. Consider that women face a system...

that doesn't treat them equally because of their gender in nearly every other aspect of life and then consider that we haven't killed you all in your sleep. :)

[GirlinContempt]

65. Injustice anywhere

is a threat to justice everywhere.
-MLK Jr

Just cause we get the shit end of the stick doesn't mean we should turn it around on the men as soon as we get the opportunity.

[VelmaD]

79. I'm not sure how one can argue that "we"...

control the court system. If "we" did I don't think we'd be so worried about it overturning Roe. This is the system that men built. And as a poster pointed out down thread, This situation notwithstanding, it's usually women whose standard of living goes down after a divorce.

[RetroLounge]

44. Actually, he seems to be getting some sympathy

I didn't see a joke. I saw a guy in pain.

now tell us about the Freeper site now?

:eyes:

RL

[Ladyhawk]

132. No kidding. Dude, I didn't take your money. I've never cheated anyone.

The first black man I ever met sexually molested me. Does that give me a right to hate black men? Hell, no. Extrapolating from one experience to a general hatred = BIGOTRY. Get it?

[Stephanie]

144. OKAY THIS POST explains what I've been trying to say

thank you.

[Ladyhawk]

160. You're welcome. n/t

[GirlinContempt]

145. He didn't say he hated women.

[Stephanie]

148. Please define "misogyny"

thanks

[Ladyhawk]

157. He didn't? I thought he said he was becoming a misogynist.

I'll re-read it...maybe I jumped the gun.

[Ladyhawk]

167. Are you sure? When he said that misogynists are made, not born,

after showing us the "settlement" he got in his divorce, I assumed he was talking about how he felt. It sure sounded that way to me. If he doesn't hate women, why did he mention misogyny right after he told us about getting shafted by his ex-wife?

If I'm misunderstanding, I apologize, but this seems a lot like mentioning 9-11 and Saddam in juxtaposition with one another. That was meant to imply Saddam was involved in 9-11. CanuckAmok mentioning his bitter divorce and misogyny in nearly the same breath makes me think he's becoming a misogynist. :shrug:

[leftofthedial]

243. what part of

"I'm certainly not condoning violence against women (or anyone, for that matter)" do yo object to?

You are overreacting.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. It's fuckin' bullshit

I don't know how it works in Canada, but I know that in the states the guy can really, really get totally fucked over the coals. Not only lose everything to the woman (and half of it to the lawyers), but also lose a significant portion of their pay for the rest of their lives.

Not always, of course, and I know some kneejerk idiot is gonna reem me out for speaking for the truth without bothering to read the whole post, but it does happen, and it happens more than what one would expect from just general mistakes. I know some guys who have gotten totally screwed over like you did, for no good reason at all other than that the court felt the need to shift all assets to the woman.

Divorce court is one of the few, or perhaps the only, place in America where the men are totally discriminated against.

Also really hard, in general, for the men to get custody of children.

[Stephanie]

12. So I guess you agree with this comment?

"Misogynists aren't born, they're made."

Maybe you should get out of the lounge occasionally. It's a brave new world out there, where women are equal to men.

[Robb]

23. Misandry, too n/t

Thank heavens you've come to tell us of the outside world.

[VelmaD]

39. Wow...I'm stunned...

I never knew that declaring that men and women are equal qualified as misandry. :eyes:

[Robb]

46. Lacking proportional response

s'all I'm sayin'.

[lenidog]

43. It is good that she is here

I would totally be lost with out her knowledge of the outside world.

[Rabrrrrrr]

So I guess you agree with this comment:

I know some kneejerk idiot is gonna reem me out for speaking for the truth without bothering to read the whole post

Had you read the whole post, you'd realize I didn't touch on the issue of misogyny at all. Not a bit. Nope. Didn't use the word at all, didn't allude to it, didn't even use code words for it.

Perhaps it's time to get off the high horse and your pet issue, and join the discussion at hand, and consider responding to comments that were actually made and points that were actually given.

I also didn't speak out against genocide, infanticide, germ warfare, or steel tarrifs. Why not reem me out for failing to speak out against those?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

175. And, dammit... you forgot POLAND!

you idiot!

[Rabrrrrrr]

206. I suck as a human being! I understand why you posted that, too,

which makes me even more evil!

Understanding is evil! EVIL!!!!!!!!!

Just like all the rightwingers told us after 9-11, we don't need to understand why they attacked us.

[CanuckAmok]

58. I'm familiar with the real world...

... the world where I picked up the $26,000 tab for my ex's MA in feminist literary criticism.

You don't know doodle about my ex, so I'll give you the benifit of the doubt, but to know her is to know a fair-weather feminist of epic proportions.

I don't hate women, but I have to say at this fragile point in my life, I sure as hell don't trust them, either.

What I'm saying is, right or wrong, if a group is unfairly marginalised and discriminated against, they resist by whatever means are available. Sadly, for some men, their only option (as they see it) is hatred and violence. I'm not one of those men, but I understand how people in that situation can be driven to such anger. Understanding and acceptance are two completely different wombats.

Nobody wins...it's not about winning.

And, Stephanie, if you think it's appropriate for public institutions such as the courts to discriminate agains someone on the basis of their gender, then you are sexist.

[philosophie_en_rose]

99. Why should you trust?

It's fine not to trust and to be hurt. But there is no excuse for domestic violence. Ever. Regardless of whether you are one of those men, it is not okay to justify or to empathize with abusers. (Male or female)

If you got screwed, then I'm really sorry for you. Your ex seems like a total jerk. You're wrong about the courts favoring women. They favor the person with the most money.

Take a poll, my friend. Of all the divorced people in the world, I would bet you $81 billion dollars (US:)) that the person with the most funds win. Your ex had the most resources and nothing to lose for being a jackass. Thus, she won.

I have friends who were divorced, lost their children, healthcare, homes, and even friends. It was because they couldn't afford attorneys. (Who cost like two months pay to retain in my area).

[Rabrrrrrr]

111. Understanding does not imply excusing.

Understanding is the beginning of empathy.

But then you also said that it's not okay to empathize with abusers, so perhaps my point is moot to you.

I think we MUST empathize with abusers, as we must empathize with all criminals. Not that we shouldn't punish the hell out of 'em, but without empathy there is no humanity for either the abuser or the one who has no empathy for them (excepting the victims; I'll give the victims a "bye" on the empathy thing).

I also agree there is no excuse for domestic violence. But, sometimes, I can *understand* why it happens.

[uppityperson]

73. I agree that misogynists are made, not born

I don't think people are born with hatred of any group, but learn it. I am NOT saying that it is ok to hate any group, but that it is learned, not inborn behavior.

[Rabrrrrrr]

93. And like I say repeatedly here "understanding does not imply agreement"

a lot of people have a hard time, for some reason, getting their minds around the idea that one can say "I understand why people do such and such" without meaning "I approve of such and such".

I know, it takes the mind of an adult to handle that, but it's true - understanding does not imply agreement.

Let's say that one more time: understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement understanding does not imply agreement

[dolo amber]

103. "understanding does not imply agreement"

Whaaa? I'm a girl, I don't get it... :dunce:

[Rabrrrrrr]

120. LOL! Dolo Amber, you understand everything!

I don't believe you at all. And if you don't get it, it isn't because you're a girl.

:-)

[RevolutionaryActs]

155. What you said.

:)

[GirlinContempt]

3. Skip the blow

go straight for the coke

[CanuckAmok]

32. LOL!

First outright laugh I've had in weeks!

[GirlinContempt]

47. Glad I could be of assistance

;)
Come to Winnipeg, I'll make you laugh or DIE TRYING
*ahem*
Right.

[lenidog]

5. BLOODY HELL!

So you are being serious that all you have left is $726.40 from your assets?

Are you sure that your divorce lawyer wasn't sleeping with your ex?

[dolo amber]

8. Damn

I'm sorry, CA. :( :hug:

on edit: Damn, I'm sorry I replied to the wrong post. :silly:

[Dogmudgeon]

6. But men ALWAYS make out like bandits in divorces!

Haven't you heard the news? You're probably a multi-millionaire now, only you don't know it.

The causes of emnity between the sexes are complex; but rip-offs facilitated by moralizing liars are usually pretty simple.

You Ex deserves maybe a little anger, but it's the apparatus of "family law" that merits the the tender mercy of the millions of people and families it has destroyed.

--p!

[Ellen Forradalom]

7. Hey Canuck

Once burned, twice shy, and all that, but get some professional help before you turn into a hardened misogynist. Seriously. It's no good. You married a crazy bitch, but let's not paint a whole gender with such a broad brush. I'm divorced myself and I never took any man for a ride financially.

Also, how do seeds burst?

[CanuckAmok]

97. I am...

All things must pass.

And for the record, seeds burst when microwaved.

[VelmaD]

9. I'm sorry you got hosed and I want to be nice to you, but...

you don't make it easy. Misogyny isn't born in divorce court. It was around long before divorces became something people did.

[CanuckAmok]

109. But to be clear:

I understand misogyny to be defined as a "hatred" of women.

Hatred and violeence are two comletely different things; I stated that I understand the hatred, in the same way, to use Stephanie's analogy, that I can understand someone being hateful of "X" minority. Hating "X" minority doesn't mean you're going to go and beat "X" minority member with a tire-iron.

And why hasn't anyone taken me to task on my hatred of lawyers?

[VelmaD]

126. I figure your hatred of lawyers...

is a whole nother flamewar we can have some other time. :)

I really do feel badly about what happened to you, btw. It sucks when anyone gets shafted in a divorce like this. It sucks, but don't let it make you hate anyone other than the people who did it to you. That would be sad.

Oh, and are you honestly telling me you don't believe hate and violence walk hand in hand?

[CanuckAmok]

141. This is getting pretty academic, but...

I believe that while one probably neeeds hatred in order to cause violence, one does not necessarily require violence to manifest one's hatred.

Example: I really, really hate coconut. However, I have het to blow up the Mounds factory.

[VelmaD]

156. Hee...ok that was too funny

And you just engaged in a much better version of taking an argument to the ridiculous example than I did with "killing men in their sleep".

I guess the issue is with the amount of violence against women around the world it's hard not to worry about that kind of hatred turning into violence. Same for violance against other marginalized groups. But I do understand your distinction.

[uppityperson]

139. OK, you are bad. You hate lawyers. You are bad.

Lawyers serve a purpose and how can you say you just hate them all you bad person you. How can you hate any group just because you got screwed by one of them you are bad. Did I tell you you are bad? You misoatternyist you. You are bad.

Congratulations on finalyzing your divorce. It doesn't have to be this way but too often is.

ps. you are bad. spank.

[RevCheesehead]

151. maybe because we're all in agreement here?

:spank: My bad. Sorry, any lawyers out there. But you have to admit, it's a good point.

CA, I'm really sorry that things turned out that way. I always thought that DU was big enough to offer empathy and a shoulder to another DU'er in need. I guess that's not always true. :(

Just for the record - I took no offense at all to your OP, and the last time I checked, I was a woman. (yup - still am)

Divorce sucks.

[Magrittes Pipe]

10. $700,000 Canadian....

What's that, like 20 bucks? I'll spot you, brother.

[Maddy McCall]

14. I guess she contributed nothing to the amassed fortune you "lost?"

Have fun with the whores. :eyes:

[CanuckAmok]

101. why, yes.

Her taxable legitimate income over the four years opf our marriage was approximately 12% of mine. One of the reasons her award is so high is because of the preconceived notion that she will earn less than I will. She earned 12% of my income because she was in school (which I paid for), and because, quite frankly, she didn't want to work.

She now earns 135% of my income, based on our 2004 tax returns. Plus she has an "under-the-table" income she disclosed in court... but I'm bound to not disclose.

[JVS]

17. Wow, you got fucked over! How much did she get?

[Arugula Latte]

25. Haven't studies shown

(and no I don't have a link) that it is women who often get the short end of the stick in divorce?

I personally know cases wherein the husband rose to the top of his profession with his wife helping to put him through school, raise kids, etc., etc., , raked in mucho dinero, and left the wife barely scraping by.

[Robb]

51. Even an equal stick is often too short

Women wind up with the kids and house more often -- meaning getting stuck with a mortgage and child expenses.

Not a fair system. The only ones who win are indeed the lawyers. :(

[asthmaticeog]

30. Holy shit.

I'm really sorry, CanuckAmok. You'd indicated before that you were getting the shit end of the stick, but one percent? If we should ever meet IRL, I'm buying the refreshments, my friend.

:hug:

[RevCheesehead]

45. ....

well, this should be interesting... :popcorn:

[lenidog]

48. Pull up a seat

The brawl is just beginning

[RevCheesehead]

62. 'Zactly.

Want some popcorn? :popcorn:

[lenidog]

68. Don't mind if I do

;-) :popcorn:

[Hugin]

70. Thanks...

Don't mind if I do.

:popcorn:

(Aside: I really don't know how this is going
to end... I've gotten royally flamed for using
the wrong pronoun.)

Looks like I'll need my Nuclear Option sunglasses.

[JVS]

57. This thread is explosive!

[RevCheesehead]

77. yeah -

just like diarrhea, sometimes. :)

popcorn? :popcorn:

[JVS]

Sure, I'll take some corn. My allusion just went over like a lead balloon

in another thread. You'd probably know the joke http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3344376

[FreedomFry]

52. Next time ... (and hopefully there won't be one) ...

... mediate. My divorce was pretty inequitable, too, but you have one thing in your favor. You're a man, which means that even though you don't have a lot now, your income is probably greater, and goes farther each month, than hers. Over the years, your chances of earning more, and having more disposable income, is far greater than hers. That's a fact.

But the main thing is, when we got a divorce, we went through a mediator, not an attorney. The mediator got a total of $750 and, even though I came out with far less than he did (my choice), the mediator did a great job.

[DS1]

56. At first I was going to agree with you, but then I realized that

I don't know even 1% of the story. Did someone cheat on the other, or was it purely irreconcilable differences?

If it's the latter, then you have a right to pissed. I'd be fucking fuming. If it's something you did then oh well. You didn't state that in the thread. If you've stated why in other threads I've missed them.

So I'll hold judgement. But if it's just because you two can't get along, then damn you got fucked hard, and I can completely understand your hatred towards the system. Not women, the system, the women just know how to play the system better than you.

:hide:

[CanuckAmok]

78. Well, since you asked...

She cheated, and her boyfiend (who is married with kids) is a VP of a corporation, and bankrolled her divorced action.

I tried mediation, but she wouldn't do it. She was in an "all or nothing"mindset, since she had nothing to lose (since the BF was covering the bill).

[Hugin]

84. Wow...

You have my sympathy. She was out to hurt you and she did.

[BikeWriter]

119. That really, really sucks.

[AlienGirl]

71. If it makes you feel any better...

My ex left me while I was deathly ill, took my kids, and he now makes almost ten times as much money as I do; and I will never see a red cent from him. With great reluctance he agreed to cover my health insurance through 2006 with COBRA and not request child support payments. And I'm female.

Who gets screwed just depends on who's more willing to be an asshole, and who is more worried about embarrassing personal facts coming out in court.

Tucker

[GirlinContempt]

74. Ouch!

:( Thats HORRIBLE
:hug:

[AlienGirl]

83. At least as of today it's OVER. n/t

[CanuckAmok]

147. Really? Today?!

Mine too! I signed the final document ("complete unilateral discharge of future action") today!

Congrats, buddy!

[AlienGirl]

158. Me too! Judge granted the divorce this morning!

:toast:

[CanuckAmok]

87. Ouch!

Yes, that's the bottom line...whoever is willing to wallow longer in the muck.

My lawyer kept insisting on taking "the moral high-road". I often wondered why such a wide highway had so few cars (mostly Yugos) on it; now I know.

Sorry about your loss, Tucker... as I said before, we're childless, so the long-term consequences are negligible. I can't imaging having kids in the mix, and the prospect of a lifetime of some sort of contact with an ex. I never have to see mine again, which is nearly worth the $600,000+!!!!

[Hugin]

94. What goes around comes around...

If she was willing to do this to you and her BF was
willing to finance it... What's to keep them from doing
it to each other down the road?

Just move on and hope you're in the grapevine when they
find out exactly what they mean to each other.

[AlienGirl]

104. I might have fought harder if there weren't kids involved

I would feel bad dragging out *his* dirty laundry and having the kids potentially know things that would make them think less of their dad. He apparently had no such compunction and let me know that everything I've ever said or done was fair game. He also was not above using veiled threats of trying to limit my visitation rights if I asked for any alimony. Oh, and he "embellished" quite a bit in the reports he wrote about why I was a bad parent and a possible danger to the kids. AND he had a restraining order out to keep me away from the house and the kids when I weighed 80 lbs, was heavily doped up with morphine, couldn't talk or hear due to swelling from radiation treatments, and couldn't stand up very long without feeling exhausted. His reason? My depression made me a threat to the kids and to him. What was I gonna do, collapse on top of them? This left me a total of 2 days to pack everything from the house we'd lived in for three years so he could move 2000 miles away. He is still mad that I (in my morphine-induced stupor) didn't pack all of *his* sentimental stuff for him, and lost his wedding ring.

Tucker

[Hugin]

118. You also have my full sympathy...

I'm always so sad to hear stories of things people
who once cared about each other do...

You be well, okay?

[dolo amber]

89. That's really it, Tucker

I know people of both genders who've been fucked over by their exes. It really does come down to who is both more willing and able to be a flaming asshole.

But any soapbox in a storm, I guess... :eyes:

[mongo]

105. Amen to that

Who gets screwed just depends on who's more willing to be an asshole, and who is more worried about embarrassing personal facts coming out in court.

[rug]

72. I'm curious.

What did your lawyers eat for lunch?

[Hugin]

75. Must've been market price... What ever it was.

[CanuckAmok]

90. Mostly roast-beef sandwiches.

Every day of the trial (seven days), we ate at a nearby diner which is owned by one of my lawyers. He also owns a cattle wranch, and the contents of the sandwiches were raised by him and his wife. There's some sort of analogy in there somewhere, but I've had two many martinis to draw any clever conclusions at this point. Maybe later.

[uppityperson]

81. Congratulations on the divorce

Money and things are only money and things. Sanity and health are worth much more. I got screwed in mine and I'm female, I know it is hard to take, but still congratulations.

[mark414]

98. goddamn man

you got fucked. i had a friend go through a similar sort of thing, only in regards to child custody and support...

the mother of his kids is a lazy, shiftless psycho with a rich boyfriend (and no job)...but my buddy's child support covers her rent, bills, and food for a month...and she gets everything else from her boyfriend.

he gets the kids one weekend a month.

[BikeWriter]

112. Sheeit, I've bought several houses for women, too, but you got the shaft!

[Radical Activist]

115. Honestly I don't understand the logic anymore.

In today's world more women go to college than men. If a woman sacrifices a job to stay at home and care for children it is most likely because she chose that, not because she was forced to. If a mans spends 10 years slaving away to support her desire to not work, shouldn't he get some of that money back? Shouldn't he be compensated for that expense instead of paying more?

[Pithlet]

123. This is a real gem

Gee, I can understand why shrill feminists get the way they do, after reading that.

[Radical Activist]

128. And yet

you didn't respond.

[Pithlet]

131. That was a response

Your English teachers are crying in their beer right now.

[Radical Activist]

135. hmm...It wasn't an argument then.

Fine, if you want to play with semantics. You offered no counterpoint.

[Pithlet]

142. Okay

I'll offer the counterpoint. Your post basically insinuated that a woman who stays at home with the kids isn't contributing to the household in any way financially. That the man should be able to recoup some of those losses from having to be the sole bread winner. The economic benefits to the man of having someone stay at home free of charge and take care of the kids are enormous. No divorce settlement can ever come close to repaying that. I was deeply offended by that highly sexist notion, so I responded sarcastically. So I guess I wasn't clear.

[Radical Activist]

161. There's a reason that

gay men have the highest disposable income of any socioeconomic group.

Granted a woman who chooses not to enter the paid workforce still contributes economically to the family, but the real question is, how does that compare to a woman who does enter the workforce? How much of a financial loss is realized when a woman chooses to be a full time parent rather than pursuing a professional career? Obviously, that varies with each family.

[Pithlet]

166. I took issue

With your statement that men should be able to recoup financially in a divorce because their wife chose to stay at home. The tone of your post seemed to imply that women are putting out their men by making that choice, and therefore the settlement should reflect that.

I'm not sure what you were implying about the statement about gay men, so I'll leave that one alone.

[AlienGirl]

170. Forget the genders for a moment

When the partner who would earn less income stays home, unless their likely income is well above $30000/year the savings are worth it.

Unless you believe only the independently wealthy should be allowed to have kids (there is an argument to be made there), a partner who stays home with kids should be allowed to make up for some of the time at work lost thereby. The one who has stayed home has not only given up the salary they could earn, they have *also* given up the opportunity to advance in their career.

Example:

My post-separation salary (I was out of the workforce for ten years): $7896/yr
Ex's post-separation salary: $72000/year

Tucker

[Radical Activist]

180. Because we don't live

in 1950's America, a spouse who chooses not to enter the workforce made a conscious decision to sacrifice that pay. And the spouse who works at a professional job makes a conscious decision to accept a lower standard of living than what they could have had with two incomes. They both make sacrifices.

I don't seriously expect any court to compensate a man for supporting his wife who chose to be a full time mother. I just don't think it makes sense to punish a man financially because his wife got to live the life she wanted. I'm not sure the rules that applied to my parents generation should be applied in the same way to mine.

[Pithlet]

187. Thanks for proving my point

They BOTH made the decision. And now you want to tell the spouse that stayed home with the kids that they should be punished for taking part in that mutual decision?

Your whole contention that the spouse that stayed home is somehow leeching off the one that worked outside of the home is exactly where you are wrong. Because that is not how it works.

[Lars39]

190. Who says the standard of living is lower?

Many times the wife is able to raise the standard of living in ways that cannot be measured monetarily.

[Left Is Write]

197. Our standard of living is higher now than it was when we both worked.

[Radical Activist]

198. I used standard of living

as a term which refers to economic lifesytle.

If you're suggesting that a couple may have a better quality of life if one spouse is a full time parent, even though they make less money, then I won't argue with that.

[VelmaD]

192. Do you live in the real world...

where women often make much less than their partners and families often flat out cannot afford day care for their children even on 2 salaries? Because women have historically been discriminated against in pay we're the ones who end up making the sacrifice to stay home with children because a family can't afford to lose the man's higher pay. I'm not saying that's the case in all families...but statistically it is the norm.

[Radical Activist]

209. And that should be judged on a case by case basis.

I get the impression though, that the assumption is that a woman is always disadvantaged professionally and so the man automatically pays for that in the divorce trial. Obviously you're right about discrimination, and even though it still happens today in many forms I think things are a little different for my generation than they were 50 years ago.

[VelmaD]

227. Actually in terms of the wage gap...

between women and men...there's not much difference from a generation or even two ago.

[Radical Activist]

236. Well that's pretty sad.

That's why I marched with some unions friends of mine in a rally for equal pay for women, but I thought the gap had shrunk to something like 80 cents for every dollar a man makes.

[VelmaD]

242. Last I heard it was still around 70 cents...

and worse than that if you were a black or Latina woman.

[AlienGirl]

153. How about this counterpoint:

By choosing to do the childcare and home upkeep tasks for free, one spouse is saving the couple a lot of money compared to what it would cost to hire others to do it for them. S/he is also allowing the other to focus on career more instead of having to take time off when the kids are sick or daycare isn't available--it's hard to put in an 80-hour week if you have kids unless you live with someone who can watch the kids.

Tucker

[Pithlet]

159. Exactly

:thumbsup:

[Radical Activist]

163. The comparison isn't

between the cost of a woman doing it for free and hiring someone to do the same work. The comparison is between the wages she would have made had she pursued a career. In other words, if she had a decent career making $40,000 or more and they hired a nanny/housekeepers etc, a couple would still come out ahead financially than had she never entered the workforce.

And since this isn't 1950's America, we're still talking about a husband subsidizing his wife's desire to pursue full time motherhood by her own choice.

[Pithlet]

173. He's NOT subsidizing it.

That is where you're wrong. First of all, it isn't HER choice. It's THEIR choice. And, your second fallacy is that a nanny provides the same kind of care that a full time mother does. Your third fallacy is treating women as appendages to the husband. A wife's value is not how much money she brings in. It is intrinsic to her. It has nothing to do with her financial situation. The name for women you judge based solely on money is prostitute. If you want to judge women solely based on money, you want a hooker, not a wife. And if a man treats his wife as if she only matters based on her income, then that man deserves to have every last red cent taken from them in the divorce.

[Radical Activist]

186. If its their choice

then she consented to it. I don't think I made any of the other points you refer to.

[Pithlet]

200. Well, yeah, you did.

You are the one who is putting a price on the value of the spouse who chose to stay home. You're saying that they didn't contribute as much because they don't have a direct form of income from outside of the home. That somehow that partnership was unequal, and therefore should be considered in the settlement. *snark alert* Unless it is opposite day here at the Lounge, and you really meant otherwise.

She consented to it. AND SO DID HE! That means he consented to ALL of it.

[Radical Activist]

213. Putting a price

on the value of someone staying home is what happens in divorce court.

I put a very high value on anyone who choses to be a full time parent, but divorces are about money aren't they?

[Pithlet]

239. Even if that is true

Your point is still wrong. If the divorces are all about money, then the courts have already decided that the value of a woman staying home and raising kids is significant. So, unless you're going to give in to the fantasy that the big bad feminists are in complete control of the family courts, then this is already a matter of settled law. Whatever you may think, society has decided that your point is wrong. Society disagrees with you that the spouse with the income is supporting the one who is staying home with the kids.

[Radical Activist]

245. By asking for alimony

a woman is asking the court to put a dollar value on her work as a full time parent.

And you should say that family courts disagree with me, not society, unless you have some polling data about views on that.

And I still don't believe I ever claimed the value of a full time parent is insignificant. I simply claimed that a couple suffers a financial loss when only one person is working, which seems pretty obvious.

[Pithlet]

259. Well

You did not just simply claim that there was a financial loss. You claimed that the man suffered a financial loss because the woman decided to be a stay at home mom. That is not the same thing. Couples suffer financial losses all the time. When they decide to go on a vacation instead of investing that money, they have suffered a financial loss. When they decide to stay in their home town instead of taking better pay elswhere, they have suffered a financial loss. But they make those decisions as a couple. They live with the consequences of those decisions as a couple. No one goes to a divorce court and says "We would have been 100,000 dollars richer if we had invested the money we spent on our honeymoon, and the honeymoon was my husband's idea, so I should get the extra 100,000". That was precisely what you were arguing men should be able to do to stay at home moms. Never mind how insulting it is to stay at home moms to put such a small value on what they do. It just doesn't make any logical sense, unless you insist on looking at women as parasites on the men.

Family courts are society. If society thought that courts were making the wrong decisions, they would change the laws.

[AlienGirl]

174. No, you're wrong

The comparison is between her salary, had she entered the workforce, MINUS THE COSTS OF CHILD CARE AND HOUSE UPKEEP.

Tucker

[Radical Activist]

191. Right, that's what I'm trying to say.

Assuming a woman has a college degree and the ability to work in a professional job, her salary minus the cost of child care and house upkeep would still put a couple ahead financially.

[AlienGirl]

201. Big assumption. n/t

[Radical Activist]

215. Well, like I said

in another post, my reality as a young person in a generation where more women than men go to college is different from the reality for my parents generation, for whom I would agree with what others are posting.

[barackmyworld]

205. I have seen the costs listed way higher than that

$140k or something along those lines is the price a stay at home mom should be paid. I don't remember the source though, maybe someone else does?

[Radical Activist]

225. Yet, you as a grad

from an Ivy League school will probably have more income potential than someone like me who went to the state party school. So, if we got married (heehee) and I work because you would rather be a full time parent, why should I be punished for that in a divorce? It should be judged on a case by case basis instead of automatically favoring the woman. It doesn't seem fair.

And I certainly don't question the high value of a woman who chooses to be a full time parent. I know how much my Mom wishes she had been able to do that, and I wish she could have too, instead of working full time to support me and my brother.

[Stephanie]

154. Sure - and he shoudl give up the children

After all, he didn't raise them.

[Radical Activist]

165. That's often what happens

from what I've read.

[Left Is Write]

182. For many couples, the decision for one of them to stay home

is a joint decision. They make this decision because it's important to them that their children be cared for by one of them.

To characterize this family decision as a man spending "10 years slaving away to support her desire to not work" is incredibly insulting.

I have been home with my children since 1998. My husband and I both agreed that that was how we wanted to raise our children: with their mother at home with them. There was no desire on my part "to not work." I worked from the time I was eighteen, at some points two jobs, to support myself and later my first child, and put myself through school. I left the workforce at age 32, but I have hardly been idle.

My husband would also be insulted at the idea that he's breaking his back to support a wife who simply doesn't want to work. The idea is a baseless stereotype that casts women in the role of bon-bon eating soap opera watcher.

[Radical Activist]

261. my comment about not working

was clearly about entering the professional workforce. I didn't suggest, nor do I believe, that being a full time parent is easy or equates to loafing.

So back to my point, if its a joint decision, then why should a man be punished financially in a divorce for his wife wanting to be a full time parent? She knew what the costs and benefits would be from the beginning.

[LoZoccolo]

116. MODS - WHEN THIS THREAD GETS LOCKED...

...and I know it will due to the efforts of the side I disagree with throwing around shrill accusations, please lock it and not delete it, so that I can refer to to if I get tempted to get married.

I keep seeing marraige as a trade-off. I figure if I get married and have kids, I'm less likely to be isolated enough to have a stroke and spend four or five days on the floor paralyzed while I starve to death in my apartment with no one knowing. A horrific scene, to be sure, but one that can seem more worth it with the proper reference materials, such as this thread.

[lenidog]

121. I think its a miracle that it hasn't been locked yet

The mods must be out having fun tonite.

[Ophelia Rising]

255. You know.....

I was thinking something along those same lines this whole time! Except I was thinking more about dying from choking or something and having no one find my body for days.....again.....worth the risk I think.....

[LoZoccolo]

264. I really have almost no paternal instinct.

Not much that surfaces, at least. So one of the only reasons I think of to have kids is so that someone can take care of me when I'm old, which you really can't count on because they might get pissed at you and never talk to you, or just throw you in a home, or play pull-the-plug-slice-the-pie if you have too much money.

[RevolutionaryActs]

125. That's awful.

I'm so sorry.

And I'm sorry your thread turned into a flamewar. :(

:hug:

[CanuckAmok]

168. I dunno...I'm seeing interesting points from both "sides"

It's pretty civil, all things considered.

I guess what I was trying to say in the OP, was that in my case, I was royally screwed, and in my case, I was married to a woman. I suppose that's just circumstantial, but in my case that was the way it was.

In most cases of divorce, it's a gender war, when all it should really be, legally speaking, is an action between two parties. Both sides of the war play the gender card (and in my case, I had a male lawyer, and my ex had a female lawyer), and in my experience, my ex used the preconceived model of female oppression as a justification for advancing her case, even though she is one of the least oppressed females I have ever known (highly educated, very intelligent, upper-middle-class, physically attractive, financially independent).

More to the point, I think I was trying to illustrate how in a divorce, nobody really wins bu the lawyers. I speculate my ex (or her BF0 probably spent $150,000+ on her claim, plus time lost from work, emotional distress, 15 months of our lives, etc). A mediation would have been far more cost-effective, as it wouldn't have had the emotiuonal price-tag, and I would have walked away for $120,000.

[RevolutionaryActs]

179. I'm sure there are good points on both sides, there have to be.

There are a lot of intelligent people having discussions.

[CanuckAmok]

204. An interesting point though (and I hope Velma and Stepahanie read this)...

And this is way academic and somewhat off-topic, but bear with me:

I know a little ablut academic feminism, having read a few of the essential tomes, and putting a "feminist" through grad school. Often a parallel is drawn between racism and sexism.

However, it's been argued for decades that beyond the obvious phycical dissimilarities, there are precious few differences between people of different ethnicities. Yoy will find the same basic behavioural traits in lost Amazonian tribes that you can find in a Wall Street broker or a Japanese airline pilot.

But men and women are universally different, in the way we communicate, mate, process information, and manipulate tools. This has been proven in study after study. And one doesn't need to be an academic to see the differences.

So I tend to discount the parallels betwen racism and sexism... the fundamental diferences between men and women are bound to trigger our huan atavistic xenophobia. We're never going to agree...the best we can hope for is an understanding.

[VelmaD]

217. And there are other studies that show otherwise...

that the differences among members of the same gender on a variety of scales are as large or larger than the difference between the gender group averages.

And there is no way to tell if "differences" between the genders are innate or learned. Though given that not every society has the same established gender roles and norms I think that argues quite strongly for learned.

[Pithlet]

231. Show me the studies

Because as the recent Larry Summers incident should have shown you, is that those alleged studies are crap. Just as one counterpoint, in Europe, women achieve professorships in hard science disciplines at a slightly greater rate than men. But in the United States, the fact that women receive professorships in hard science disciplines at a lower rate than men is trumpeted as evidence of women's innate inferiority to men in hard sciences. You will find that all of your alleged studies do something like that: they do not control for economics or societal structure when making these pronouncements. There are no essential differences between men and women. Whatever physiological differences there are are only at the extreme edges and do not apply in any meaningful sense to the median man or woman. Arguing that they are inherent differences that matter is simply an excuse for discriminating against women where such discrimination is not borne out by the facts.

Despite whatever differences may or may not exist, it doesn't change the fact that men and women are to be accorded the same respect.

As far as your situation, I'm sorry that you went through such a difficult divorce. I went through one myself, and nothing I say in this thread is meant as a judgment against you personally, or your situation.

[CanuckAmok]

246. "Arguing that they are inherent differences that matter is simply an..."

"...excuse for discriminating against women where such discrimination is not borne out by the facts."

No, that's not entirely true. The studies, like all academic research, are presented merely for interpretation. How one interprets such information is not the respionsibility of the researcher.

If, for example (and borrowing a classic and somewhat dubious example), women are proven to be more accomplished at playing "Tetris", it is open to interpretation whether the skills to be superior at Tetris are inate to housekeeping, or to complex mechanical engineering. It's also open to interpretation whether "Tetris" skills are a benefit to society, or just a charming distraction.

It's all in how you view the differences, but you can't deny they exist. We wouldn't be having this conversaton if they didn't.

[VelmaD]

253. You still haven't addressed the point that often...

these "differences" are reported as innate when there's no way of knowing that. We are raised in a world that treats boys and girls different from the moment they are born. Girl babies are talked to more. Boy babies are bounced around more. It affects their brains at key early stages of development. There are difference that WE make.

And still, there are so many men and women that are different from the gender norms. And there are intra-gender differences that are greater than inter-gender ones. And there are still societies that have completely different gender norms, roles, and expectations that fly in the face of what is considered innate differences in the West.

[Pithlet]

254. I think you missed my point

There is no credible evidence that there is any significant difference between men and women, except in the most extreme cases. You do not build a society around extreme cases. For example, it is very unlikely that a woman could be a physical specimen that would allow her to play professional football. But, we don't then say that we don't spend money on women's college sports because women can't be the most extreme of athletes. For that matter, we don't say women can't try out for the football team. If there is a woman who can play as an offensive lineman, she should be allowed to.

Any argument that pretends that there are differences significant enough to make societal differences upon - against either sex - is just plan crap, to put it bluntly. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. When we're talking about men and women, whatever differences there may be, as far as society is concerned, make no difference.

[The Straight Story]

149. Just wondering - was it a male judge?

If so, I think anger may be misplaced....

[orleans]

152. take a deep breath

and another.
i'm sorry to hear about all of this--i'm sure it was/is very difficult for you.

(i'd resent whoever did that to me as well)

and after you give yourself some grieving time i'm sure you'll open the window to a brighter day and see the opportunity for new beginnings.

in the meantime.....:hug: :grouphug: :hug: :grouphug: :hug: :grouphug: :hug: :grouphug: :hug: :grouphug: :hug:

[CanuckAmok]

172. Oh, yeah.... no problemo.

And you forgot:

:toast: :beer: :toast: :beer: :toast: :beer: :toast: :beer:

[kcr]

178. Dude

What the hell did you do? Seriously, man, I am expected to beleive that the Big Bad Evil Court System in the Thrall of Nasty Feministes cut your net worth by 99%???

C'mon -- I call bullshit. Either your number are crap, you had done something to justify a judge doing that, or your lawyer is robbing you blind.

[Jack_Dawson]

183. Courts hate men

you don't know this? Seriously?

[VelmaD]

203. Uh...last time I checked...

most rapists got off scot free and getting a man brought up on charges of domestic abuse was still really difficult in a lot of places.

If men are treated badly in certain instances by the courts...well, y'all are primarily responsible for creating the current system. You have been in charge for quite a while.

[Jack_Dawson]

210. Send me the "rapists get off scot free" link

I think I missed that one. And everyone knows in FAMILY COURT men are below sea level.

[Lars39]

212. Spousal rape is still legal in TN.

[Jack_Dawson]

229. Nothing about the South amazes me

but do you have a link?

[Lars39]

233. Yes...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=179x1195

[VelmaD]

234. Are you honestly unaware...

of the stats on rape prosecution or are you just being sarcastic? If you're honestly asking for clarification then I'll find you a link tomorrow after I've had some sleep. But most people who pay any attention at all know that the stats on rape being brought to trial are low and the conviction rate is even lower.

[bloom]

216. That's a good point...

While one person in one case could have a situation that looks bad - when you look at the the world (or the US - the country I live in) as a whole - it's pretty laughable for any man to act like "men are victims" of women.



It actually makes me want to puke.



If things are significantly different in Canada - it would be another reason to move.

[CanuckAmok]

219. Interestingly:

There had never been a single incident of domestic abuse in my marriage. I swar that on the parton saint of DU (who, I believe, is JimmyJazz).

However, my ex labelled that there was, and asked for a civil restraining order (I don't know if there's a similar statute in the US...in BC it means no contact for the duration of the proceedings, and no criminal record registry). My lawyer's advice was basically, "she's a woman, she's tabled it, and no judge, despite the lack of evidence, is going to risk not granting the order, only to have you beat her head in with a tire-iron six months from now. Don't contest the order, because you'll lose". Essentially, I, as a non-violent spouse, have to suffer the consequences of (admittedly and regretably) countless abusive spouses before me. That's not fair. It's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" discrimination. I do, however, admit it's based on precedent.

[VelmaD]

248. That is a sad commentary on the state of the world

When did relations between men and women get so bad that we had to assume that every divorce was a potential assault waiting to happen? Or hell, every marriage or relationship or whatever for that matter? *sigh*

[CanuckAmok]

252. Well, if you're asking me...

my answer is the legal system encourages it. D'you know who really cleaned up in my divorce? The lawyers.

Like I said earlier, if we had mediated, we could have come out far wealthier (collectively but as individuals) than we did. My ex probably paid her lawyer $120,000, and mine made about $40,000 (yes, I know, you get what you pay for!). That's $160,000 we could have otherwise shared.

[VelmaD]

263. oops...posted a response in the wrong place...

this one was supposed to be about how silly it is to cost yourself money just to cost your ex some too :eyes:

[CanuckAmok]

270. OH YEAH?! WELL...

...uh...agreed.

[uppityperson]

256. There is this statute and tendency in the USA too

at least where I've been. File for a restraining order, the judge gives it because just in case the allegations are true, CYA sort of stuff. And allegations of child abuse happen in divorce insanity filings also and must be taken seriously, just in case. It just sucks.

[kcr]

220. Oh Give Me a Fucking Break

That is such a load of horseshit. No, actually, horeshit would be ashamed to be associated with such a self-pitying, fact-free, whiny piece of self-pity.

Some facts, my friend, are in order here:

Women face an average 30% decline in their standard of living after a divorce.

80 billion dollars of child support went unpaid in 2001 -- almost all of it due form men

In California, 69% of the cases involving men who had police reports filed for battery agaisnt their wife or children where given sole custody of their children.

I could go on, but the point should be clear.

[ofrfxsk]

241. Thank you

That is all.

:)

[Jack_Dawson]

181. Committmentphobes Are Made...

by reading stories like yours. Stick w/ girlfriends seems to be the message here. Marriage terrifies me and stories like yours certainly don't help. Yikes I don't blame you for feeling what you're feeling. And don't worry about all the bleeding heart kneejerks on this site who put words in your mouth...I get what you're saying.

JD

[JVS]

196. Is there a patron saint for ex-wives getting inoperable brain cancer?

Because if there is, you've got some praying to do. :-)

[CanuckAmok]

223. St. Cathode of RayTube

But I don't wish death upon her. Even after all this.

Scurvy and varicose veins will suffice.

[JVS]

226. And grapefruit sized hemorrhoids

Don't forget those!

[CanuckAmok]

228. Oh, yeah...that's a given.

n/t

[VelmaD]

269. Well this has been fun...

it's good to have these threads from time to time. It lets you know who you can have a civilized conversation with and who you can't. It's late here and I have a busy day of doing absolutely nothing scheduled for tomorrow...I'm headed to bed. Y'all have fun. :hi:

[CanuckAmok]

271. Sure...of to strangle some men, huh?

We're (men) on to you, "Velma"...if that is your real name...

[Moderator]

274. This thread has become a flamefest

Locking.