Marriage/Divorce for Men in the US in 2004? [Archive]

krome

02-29-2004, 08:59 AM

A few generations ago, a man here had to marry a woman to get s*x (let's be blunt here) and a lifetime partnership. Well, more women put out more BEFORE marriage than AFTER marriage these days, so that table has completely turned now, lol! I hear married men complaining ALL THE TIME that their s*x lives steadily nosedived after they exchanged their vows. So, why get married? I think more and more guys (and gals too) are scratching their heads wondering that these days???

There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be the wife who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that the man was a decent husband. The reality of the situation is that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men. (http://www.mattweeks.com/strike.htm)

The new trend that has taken hold of the court system is what as known as the "no fault" divorce, in which the filing party needs only to cite their general discontent with the marriage in order to be granted a hearing. Women initiate these unilateral divorces-on-demand 3 times as often as men.
--------------
When children are involved, the divorcing parent is overwhelmingly likely to be the mother. Scholarly studies by Sanford Braver, Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, and others estimate that between 67 and 75 percent of such divorces are instigated by the mother. Feminists and divorce attorneys report that the number is closer to 90 percent. Few of these divorces involve grounds like desertion, adultery, or violence. "Growing apart" or "not feeling loved or appreciated" are the usual explanations. (http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/politics_of_family_destruction.htm)

Since the advent of no-fault divorce, a multibillion-dollar industry has grown up around the divorce courts: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counselors, social workers, and bureaucratic police. All these people have a professional and financial stake in divorce. In fact, despite pieties to the contrary, public officials at all levels of government—including elected leaders in both parties—now have a vested interest in increasing the number of single-parent homes. (http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/politics_of_family_destruction.htm)

These days, marital vows should really be changed to ‘...until I grow tired of you,’ or ‘...for a period of five years unless I decide otherwise,’ (http://users.rcn.com/baskerville/politics_of_family_destruction.htm) :biggrin:

But if that's the case, then why even bother and put all your finances and parental rights at stake in the process?

Given a choice between not marrying one's lady friend -- assuming no risk whatsoever and still having the historical benefits of marriage (sex, companionship, etc.) available to them, or marrying the woman and having a 50-50 chance of their lives being utterly destroyed should the woman so much as be "unhappy" with the marriage, the decision is a no-brainer. (http://www.mattweeks.com/strike.htm)
--------------
I think the fairytale is over, guys. A lot of marriages/divorces are promoted these days by the lucrative marriage industry and greedy divorce lawyers. It's simply just too big a business now. But fact is, it makes very little sense for American men to marry women anymore. You have everything to lose. Stayin' single forever may not be much better, but it may be the lesser of 2 evils. Or marry a foreign hotty like Tiger Woods! :biggrin:

Anyways, men are avoiding the "marriage trap" more than ever these days:

Why are men reluctant to marry? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94415,00.html)

The Rutgers report — admittedly based on a small sample — found ten prevalent reasons. The first three:

— They can get sex without marriage;
— They can enjoy "a wife" through cohabitation; and,
— They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks.
--------------
Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point since the rate was measured. (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/3604644.htm)

"The median age of first marriage for men has reached 27, the oldest age in our nation's history," (http://www.mattweeks.com/strike.htm)

These articles are hot-off-the-presses and speak about the actual reality TODAY. Frankly, I just finished reading all these articles myself and am shell-shocked and scared, to say the least. I had an inkling, but never realized how bad it's really become. Fact is, a whole divorce industry has sprung up in the last generation that not only makes is EASIER to get a divorce, but HIGHLY PROFITABLE (for some).

So guys, I strongly consider you to thoroughly read through all these articles detailing all the legal ramifications of marriage before you ever decide to take the plunge. Sure, hope for the best, but always prepare for the worst... You've now been warned. (http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php) :eek:

lethal

02-29-2004, 12:42 PM

If men are more reluctant to marry because they are afraid of the financial implications of a divorce, do they weigh the financial and tax benefits of marriage as well?

Faithless

02-29-2004, 03:54 PM

If men are more reluctant to marry because they are afraid of the financial implications of a divorce, do they weigh the financial and tax benefits of marriage as well?
I guess, but I wasn't about to consult a tax adviser just to see if it was worth it to marry. :rolleyes:

Mr.Lum

02-29-2004, 04:08 PM

Kuchana

02-29-2004, 04:13 PM

women get too much out of divorce if you ask me.

Id be reluictant to marry because women are dangerouse in that way. like, you could buy the house, car everything, and then if she divorces, its all hers.

Not true. It depends on which state you're living at where the divorce occurs. For example, in California, everything is split in half between the wife and husband but say for example in Virginia, you only take with you what you brought into the marriage.

Mr.Lum

02-29-2004, 04:22 PM

ChinaLama

03-02-2004, 05:33 PM

i strongly oppose divorce unless it's because of abuse, infidelity, or some other really strong reason (sorry, "we're not in love anymore" doesn't count as a strong reason to me). I sometimes wonder if the divorce laws should be changed so that the divorce initiator has to pay the alimony, etc. On the other hand, I sort of understand why no fault divorce laws exist; I think it's to help people get out of abusive relationships without putting a burden of proof on them.

krome

03-30-2004, 07:12 AM

"according to the American Association of Blood Banks (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/conway1.html) (see their Annual Report Summary 2001 (http://www.aabb.org/About_the_AABB/Stds_and_Accred/ptannrpt01.pdf)) 29.6% of men named on birth certificates cannot be the fathers of the children named. Now, if you, Mom and the milkman are all Type O, the test can tell you nothing, but if you are Type O, Mom is Type A and the baby is Type AB, it's time to check the calendar for the dates of that business trip you took about nine months ago..." :eek:

American vs non-American women - cultural differences? (http://www.nomarriage.com/faq.html#personal)

kitty

03-30-2004, 09:02 AM

in CT, I see people getting divorced and the man not getting shit. its wrong. 50/50, I strongly disagree with if you have the woman not working and not bringing anything in. oor the husband. you should get what you gave. women get too much w/ that.

unless you're one of the judges, the lawyers, or the one of the two people getting the divorce, you don't know the particulars.

I don't think women always get everything -- the most i've heard is a 50/50 split.

is this thread trying to blame the 'moral degradation' of women as the reason for declining marriage rates?

>:^|

03-30-2004, 01:04 PM

After a divorce, a woman's standard of living typically declines, while the man's improves.

Don't want to get married because you don't want to make the commitment? You will make somebody very happy.

krome

03-30-2004, 01:45 PM

After a marriage, a woman's standard of living usually increases, while the man's drops. After divorce, theirs likely both drop, although hers would still be above her pre-marriage standard - but his likely below.

Unless she marries a poorer man (rare, on-average), a woman has everything to gain in both a marriage and a divorce. So, it's a win-win situation - hence you have no problem "comitting." Why would you?

This situation is completely-reversed for a man, though.
---------
The Politics of Family Destruction (http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2002/feature2.htm)

The politics of divorce begins in family court, a relatively new and little-examined institution. Family courts are usually closed to the public and their proceedings are usually unrecorded. Yet they reach further into private lives than any other arm of government. Though lowest in the hierarchy, they are "the most powerful branch of the judiciary," according to Judge Robert Page of the New Jersey family court. "The power of family court judges is almost unlimited," Page writes.

Secret courts have long been recognized as an invitation to chicanery. "Where there is no publicity, there is no justice," wrote British philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham. "It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial." Judges claim the secrecy protects family privacy, though in fact it seems to provide a cloak to violate family privacy and other protections with impunity.

During the segment, an eight-year-old girl wails and begs to know when her father will be able to see her or call her. The answer, because of a "lifetime" restraining order, is never. Even accidental contact in public places is punished with arrest.

Throughout the United States and abroad, child support enforcement has been plagued with corruption.

In October 1998 the Los Angeles Times investigated fraud and due process violations in the L.A. child support enforcement system. Deputy District Attorney Jackie Myers had left office in 1996 because, he said, "I felt we were being told to do unethical, very unethical things." In December 1999, Insight reported on the case of a father left by the district attorney’s office with $200 a month to care for a family of four. One month, the district attorney "took all but $1 of his $1,200 paycheck."
---------
And people wonder why this country keeps spiralling down the shytter... :biggrin:

Kuchana

03-30-2004, 01:55 PM

Yeah but if a woman stays single after she gets a divorce that will suck literally. Take for example my soon to be ex-step-mom. Maybe it depends on the woman but her standard of living will go down considerably but not as bad it was before she married my dad.

I'm not too familiar with the corrupt power of the Family Court but I would think wouldn't it be for the betterment of society? Especially considering the deadbeat dads .

kitty

03-30-2004, 02:14 PM

After a marriage, a woman's standard of living usually increases, while the man's drops. After divorce, theirs likely both drop, although hers would still be above her pre-marriage standard - but his likely below.

Colour me confused -- isn't this basically making the sexist assumption that women don't/can't make as much money as men and all women are marrying men who are more wealthy...?

Not to mention that you don't give any sort of evidence backing this statement that you're making.

krome

03-30-2004, 02:19 PM

Maybe it depends on the woman but her standard of living will go down considerably but not as bad it was before she married my dad.

I'm not too familiar with the corrupt power of the Family Court but I would think wouldn't it be for the betterment of society? Especially considering the deadbeat dads .
That was my whole point - if marriage is 2 steps fwd for a woman and divorce is 1 step back - then she is still 1 net step ahead with each marriage/divorce.

Whereas for men, marriage tends to be 2 steps back and divorce another 2 steps back - leaving him 4 back with each marriage/divorce.

Hence, if you do the simple math, it's obvious why U.S. women should WANT to get married/divorced and men SHOULD remain very gun-shy.
--------------------
And, if you actually read the full article - you would also note how "deadbeat" dads are vastly over-exagerrated by our media and unfairly given a very bad rap.

Those accused of failing to pay child support—"deadbeat dads"—are now the subject of a national demonology. Yet a federally funded study by Sanford Braver, published as Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, found government "estimates" of nonpayment are produced not from any official statistics but entirely from surveys of custodial parents. Braver concluded that "the single most important factor relating to nonpayment" is unemployment.

Braver is not alone. Columnist Kathleen Parker has concluded that "the ‘deadbeat dad’ is an egregious exaggeration, a caricature of a few desperate men who for various reasons—sometimes pretty good ones—fail to hand over their paycheck, assuming they have one." Deborah Simmons of the Washington Times likewise found "scant evidence that crackdowns...serve any purpose other than to increase the bank accounts of those special-interest groups pushing enforcement."

Child support enforcement is now a massive industry, where revolving doors, financial transfers, and other channels connect family courts with legislators, interlocking executive agencies on the federal, state, and local level, with private contractors.
Colour me confused -- isn't this basically making the sexist assumption that women don't/can't make as much money as men and all women are marrying men who are more wealthy...?
Yes, well, women are s*xist then - because statistically, women do tend to marry richer men. Poor women marry richer men and rich women marry even richer men. I don't think we even need a link for this because it is fairly common knowledge - but correct me with some stats if I'm wrong.

Fact is, deep down inside, "most" women want a superior, not truly an equal. (http://modelminority.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=6199&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=) "Superior" = mate, "equal" = friend. That's why y'all typically choose taller guys - that is VERY symbolic - on many levels..

For example, here's some fairly honest comments from another site where girls are freely replying to "what turns them on:"

brains, brains, and more brains - i like to pale in comparison to my men... otherwise, how could they earn my respect?

For fantasy fodder: lips! It's all about the lips!!! Sensuality and great kissing guaranteed, strong arms and fine hands, big fat dose of arrogance, directness, and a lot of Boy-ness. RRRRRrrrrrr.

And I like feeling protected. I don't want a big muscular man (infact i ain't a big fan of muscles), but I just want someone that will protect me and make me feel safe.

-I want someone who's smarter than I am (in different ways though) someone I can learn from. Someone I would be proud to bring home to my socialite family.

I like a guy with a certain air of arrogance. I'm really not sure why on this one, but I think it's coz it usually means that they are low maintenance and not a soppy shit - that bores me. Maybe arrogance is the wrong word - heck you guys probably get what I mean!

<Yeah, we get EXACTLY what you mean - you like arrogant men - no need to PC back-peddle here!>

>:^|

03-30-2004, 02:35 PM

I don't think people here necessarily have to worry about getting married. :wink:

kitty

03-30-2004, 03:23 PM

krome

03-30-2004, 03:39 PM

krome, that wasn't a study -- that was modelminority. I was asking for some proof that shows that women consciously marry men who make more money than them, for the sake of taking their money as is being implied in this thread.
Actually, those quotes were from another site, not MM.

Lol, a "gold-digger" study? You really think that exists out there?

I never said most women get married/divorced JUST for the money. More like it's a fringe benefit that works in their favor - and they can feel secure in the knowledge that they have nothing to lose. In contrast to men.

Now honestly, I think only the most desperate of women would resort to such measures - an admittedly small minority. But it doesn't change the fact that marriages/divorces are still legally stacked heavily in favor of women financially and child custody-wise - and they know that.

Hence, it's a win-win no-brainer for women. Whereas, financially, it's a lose-lose for men.

lethal

03-30-2004, 03:46 PM

Reminder: play nice, everyone.

OK, krome, since you are the one presenting the fact initially, the burden of proof would rest on you, so you should be the one to present the evidence/study that women who marry tend to benefit financially, even if it may seem self-evident to you. After that, then it would be up to the other side to present rebutting evidence.

Now, my thoughts...for anyone who has taken "community property" or "trusts and estates" in law school, it would seem that as unromantic as it sounds, any person (well attorney) who enters into a marriage without a pre-nup would have to be financially suicidal, male or female.

Aside from that, even though the median marriage age has risen in recent years in the US, hasn't it risen worldwide due to industrilazation and more career minded women? Sex was fairly easy to obtain in the 60s and 70s, arguably easier than it is today, but marriage rates still continued to decline.

Family courts greatly favor the woman in a divorce. In something like 90% of the cases, the woman receives full custody of the child and the father must pay child support regardless of circumstances. This is from experience working in a family court. Yes, there are some deadbeat dads who are several thousand dollars in arrears in child support, but with the systems now in place (wage garnishment, income tax refund garnishment, fines, jail), the problem is not as bad as it was 5 years ago. That is a positive step.

However, divorce is an ugly thing. While I would not advocate a return to divorces for cause only (that would lead to so many problems that initially led to the concept of no-fault divorce), family courts really have to be better funded and less backlogged. That's a first step toward a solution.

Do men think they're screwed by divorce? Sure. Do women feel that they deserve more? Sure. Contested divorce is a lose-lose proposition financially for both sides. No matter who wins, they both have to pay the lawyers and fight over possessions. It isn't an inexpensive proposition. Add to that the tax penalty that single people have over married folks, it really doesn't pay to get divorced from a finacial standpoint. However, people who a divorce just need/want to move on with their lives, money be damned.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-30-2004, 04:10 PM

Colour me confused -- isn't this basically making the sexist assumption that women don't/can't make as much money as men and all women are marrying men who are more wealthy...?

Not to mention that you don't give any sort of evidence backing this statement that you're making.

I personally don't see anything inherently sexist about Krome's assumption. On average, women don't make as much money as men, and on average women marry men who are richer than they are. Regardless of a woman's ulterior motives for "wanting a rich man" or whatever, the chances that the guy she chooses to marry is going to make more money than her are pretty high I would assume, due to the truth and probability inferred from the first assumption. I'm fairly certain that these two assumptions can be supported with statistics. This is completely different from saying that women do not deserve to be paid equal wages, or are incapable of providing the services or contribution deserving of the amount of pay a man of the same caliber or position receives. Additionally, the wage disparity is obviously and clearly used as firepower by proponents of the feminist movement.

Oblivious

03-30-2004, 04:21 PM

can someone make this thread invisible to 537? :biggrin:

kitty

03-30-2004, 04:26 PM

shy

03-30-2004, 04:57 PM

women get too much out of divorce if you ask me.

Id be reluictant to marry because women are dangerouse in that way. like, you could buy the house, car everything, and then if she divorces, its all hers.

the stats may be true but please... like men can't do the same? when it comes to divorce, it can go both ways. plus, the stats aren't really a good indicator of what the true reasons are behind the decision for divorce. some women may not have just cause, others might. when they say that the husband might have not done anything wrong, that doesn't negate the fact that the relationship isn't working out (w/out blaming one or the other). it just so happens that perhaps these women decided to take the initiative in ending the marriage that is loveless.

but to state that women are 'dangerous that way?' geez... like that just doesn't insult at least half of the population on this board.

*rolls eyes*

unless you're one of the judges, the lawyers, or the one of the two people getting the divorce, you don't know the particulars.

I don't think women always get everything -- the most i've heard is a 50/50 split.

is this thread trying to blame the 'moral degradation' of women as the reason for declining marriage rates?

i agee w/ kitty girl.

mr. lum... you should be careful with how you analyze a situation. you're totally allowing certain extreme situations to mold you into thinking that women are evil. i'm not saying that there aren't evil women out there, but there's equal amounts of evil men.

for every bad situation you see, i'll be there's at least one or more amazing marriages out there that do work out.

anyway, i'm totally in agreement with kitty girl...

i feel like this thread is just another justification to bash on women and the stereotype that all women are evil.

when will people learn that stats can be malnipulated in such a way to make one party look bad?

annie

03-30-2004, 05:04 PM

Napoleon Chynamite

03-30-2004, 05:21 PM

What about the thoughts that marriage culturally, is the idealized destiny and source of fulfillment for women, and a constraint for men. but instiutionally it empowers the role of husband (move beyond domestic settings) while the wife has the responsiblity of domestic housework (unpaid labor), and if they have a job outside the home, they have two shifts, one at home and the other at work. this seems like marriage is a better deal for men and a stressful situation for women.

I was actually heading towards a similar train of thought. The institution of marriage in many societies as well as the appropriate conventions, standards, and taboos associated with marriage may be arranged in a way which allows a woman to perhaps seek monetary gain or selfish benefit as a result of her own ulterior motives. However, at the same time, one can also argue that such an institution also, as you mentioned, empowers men and reinforces their role in society, ultimately giving way to more justification for exercising authority or discrimination towards women. Obviously, gender roles and the values and goals each gender is taught to strive for also play an important part in how both men and women view marriage, and undoubtedly there are those that wonder what is 'in it for them' if and when they choose to marry.

In either case, I think it's kind of pointless and ridiculous to infer that either men or women are 'inherently more evil' (meaning one being more inherently evil than the other) or that marriage is simply a vehicle for many women to achieve monetary gain, status, or a sense of security as proven by the existing marriages out there that actually are largely free of problems and dispute. One could also easily make the case (the case has actually already been made obviously) that entire societies have been established and developed that pretty much can double as giant vehicles or channels by which men can embrace their interests, live out their desires, and achieve fulfillment at the expense of women via acts of oppression and discrimination.

shy

03-30-2004, 05:39 PM

i'm amazed at how many people here who are somewhat bashing women and marriage are going on and on and yet they haven't an inkling through personal experience what it's like to actually BE married. take it from some one who IS married.

ME!!!

take my word for it... marriage is not easy. i love being married but it's also a lot of work. is my standard of life increased? financially... no. it's the same. especially with a little one... it's a lot tougher.

emotionally... well, yes. it has improved but so it has for my husband as well. but that has nothing to do with how much either of us make. it has to do with how much we work at making the relationship work. and at the end of the day, we feel gratified in our success.

Kuchana

03-30-2004, 05:42 PM

lethal

03-30-2004, 05:52 PM

i'm amazed at how many people here who are somewhat bashing women and marriage are going on and on and yet they haven't an inkling through personal experience what it's like to actually BE married. take it from some one who IS married.

ME!!!

Does it require being in a position to have knowledge of a postion enough to analyze it? For instance, would it require someone be male to criticize or analyze being male? Or would it require a person be married in America to analyze marriage in America? If not, then why would it require someone be married to analyze being married?

The topic isn't the emotional costs of marriage for the respective parties, but rather the financial aspects. In the U.S.

Gumby's restated position of krome's original analysis sounds reasonable...do you have a disagreement with that position?

Mr.Lum

03-30-2004, 06:05 PM

lethal

03-30-2004, 06:10 PM

I watched a divorce break a man down because the woman got everything he worked for. I know what Im talking about.

You're basing your knowledge of divorce on one case that you saw?

Do you have any studies? Courtroom experience? Anything other than emperical evidence?

I'm an equal opportunity critic in this thread. I've seen scant evidence backing up anything anyone has said this entire thread besides krome.

shy

03-30-2004, 06:11 PM

I watched a divorce break a man down because the woman got everything he worked for. I know what Im talking about.

no you don't. because you basically are making a statement about women being evil... generalizing this might i add... JUST because you've seen some extreme cases.

so unless you can prove to me with better information that women are actually that evil, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

do you, mr. lum, have sound proof that women are so dangerous that way? becuase, clearly, you seem to feel that you do. are you THAT confident that from what you have seen, you have the right to make such a generalized, loaded statement as "women are dangerous that way?"

perhaps lethalweapon is right. one needn't be married to analyze marriage. but i think that some one like mr. lum has no idea what he's talking about when he comes up with a loaded statement such as how dangerous women are.

regardless of whether or not this is a thread based on financial loss or emotional loss, i honestly dare anyone who would be that crass in stating such a ridiculous statement!

maxwell

03-30-2004, 06:13 PM

This is what a pre-nup is for. Protect yourself and actually her too so she knows the whole deal. No mess to clean up. Shouldn't talk about money? It will be all about the money if shit hits the fan. Better talk about it beforehand.

And before a man pops the question, he needs to ask himself, "Is she really worth half of what I have?"

lethal

03-30-2004, 06:14 PM

Careful...no personal attacks. By anyone. I'm watching closely.

shy

03-30-2004, 06:16 PM

Does it require being in a position to have knowledge of a postion enough to analyze it? For instance, would it require someone be male to criticize or analyze being male? Or would it require a person be married in America to analyze marriage in America? If not, then why would it require someone be married to analyze being married?

The topic isn't the emotional costs of marriage for the respective parties, but rather the financial aspects. In the U.S.

well, i agree w/ you to some extent but you cannot deny that some people here are using the financial aspects (and i only say 'some' not 'all') to justify the stereotype of women being evil, etc. i'm not talking about all posters. just those that are bashing one women and marriage. that's not to say that i'm in totall disagreement with those such as gumby.

stunninglyAsian

03-30-2004, 07:24 PM

Why are men reluctant to marry?
— They can get sex without marriage;
— They can enjoy "a wife" through cohabitation; and,
— They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks

and... you can't buy the sportscar of you're liking... you have to "discuss" the matter with the mrs. :mad:

But seriously,

A quick scan of the ages have most people here in their early 20s. Obviously at that age, you're in the prime of your life- why marry, why not fool around at clubs, why not use a guy for money, why not sleep around with different women? Who needs marriage at that age?

I know a bunch of people in their late 20s to mid 30s, and at that stage in your life, most people begin to realize that they can't live life like that anymore, that they need something more meaningful at their age. So I think part of it is getting married too early.

I do think that lots of women are into it for everything except for the relationship, that they expect it to be this miraculous event that will give them a a luxurious life, social standing, and a relationship that looks like something out of the latest chick flick. Basically, they expect to get everything for doing nothing. And I think men are just as guilty for expecting the relationship to work out perfectly- that the women will tend to his needs at all times, that he can go out and do his thing while the woman waits at home for him with a nice meal and sex. People these days don't want to work for anything, we just focus on the results and want the results without thinking about the hard work that goes into that.

Just to show that not all women are into it for money, if you marry a doctor, the divorce rate shoots up 20% higher than the national average, which I read was around 45%. By the time the the smoke clears from the divorce court, all the money is used up. If they were in it for the money, why ruin a good thing?

Mr.Lum

03-30-2004, 07:31 PM

no you don't. because you basically are making a statement about women being evil... generalizing this might i add... JUST because you've seen some extreme cases.

so unless you can prove to me with better information that women are actually that evil, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

do you, mr. lum, have sound proof that women are so dangerous that way? becuase, clearly, you seem to feel that you do. are you THAT confident that from what you have seen, you have the right to make such a generalized, loaded statement as "women are dangerous that way?"

perhaps lethalweapon is right. one needn't be married to analyze marriage. but i think that some one like mr. lum has no idea what he's talking about when he comes up with a loaded statement such as how dangerous women are.

regardless of whether or not this is a thread based on financial loss or emotional loss, i honestly dare anyone who would be that crass in stating such a ridiculous statement!

I am not saying women are evil. I am saying that the laws regarding property are not fair and are bias towards the women. I am saying that women can be caniving(sp) in that way. they can do almost nothing and take everything. and yes, they are dangerous in that way. I have not seen one divorce where it ended fairly for the man and the woman did not get EVERYTHING she asked for. I know what I am talking about and just because you dont agree. have you been divorced?
You're basing your knowledge of divorce on one case that you saw?You're basing your knowledge of divorce on one case that you saw?

Do you have any studies? Courtroom experience? Anything other than emperical evidence?

every aunt and uncle I have has been divorced and my parents have as well. I went to court and I watched it happen twice.

This is what a pre-nup is for. Protect yourself and actually her too so she knows the whole deal. No mess to clean up. Shouldn't talk about money? It will be all about the money if shit hits the fan. Better talk about it beforehand.

And before a man pops the question, he needs to ask himself, "Is she really worth half of what I have?"
I totally agree. most people think they will be married forever, which is usually foolish.

mr. lum... you should be careful with how you analyze a situation. you're totally allowing certain extreme situations to mold you into thinking that women are evil. i'm not saying that there aren't evil women out there, but there's equal amounts of evil men.

I do not think women are evil. I think the way that they are favoured unfairly even when some of them do next to nothing and reap the benefits. that action is evil. women are not inherently evil and I have not said they were.

do you, mr. lum, have sound proof that women are so dangerous that way?

my father.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-30-2004, 07:58 PM

I am not saying women are evil. I am saying that the laws regarding property are not fair and are bias towards the women. I am saying that women can be caniving(sp) in that way. they can do almost nothing and take everything. and yes, they are dangerous in that way. I have not seen one divorce where it ended fairly for the man and the woman did not get EVERYTHING she asked for. I know what I am talking about and just because you dont agree. have you been divorced?

You could just as easily repoint the gun barrel to face the other direction by arguing that it is society's own fault for allowing the average man to make more than the average woman in the first place in order for the average man to have 'more to lose' than the average woman after divorce.

I totally agree. most people think they will be married forever, which is usually foolish.

Uh...it's not foolish to think that you will be married forever with the one you love or cherish. It might be foolish to think that you actually love and cherish someone when you really don't, however. There's a difference.

I do not think women are evil. I think the way that they are favoured unfairly even when some of them do next to nothing and reap the benefits. that action is evil. women are not inherently evil and I have not said they were.

Once again, it can be argued that the entire friggin' society is set up so that women are already at a disadvantage to begin with. US society and many other societies provide the environment and medium in which men are favored unfairly even when some of us (men) do next to nothing and reap the benefits.

On that note, as a Christian, I do believe that inherent evil exists in all of us...it's just pointless to compare who has more of it. But I'm not gonna bring religion into this argument.

Mr.Lum

03-30-2004, 08:02 PM

Uh...it's not foolish to think that you will be married forever with the one you love or cherish. It might be foolish to think that you actually love and cherish someone when you really don't, however. There's a difference

ah, but most marriages end in divorce.

On that note, as a Christian, I do believe that inherent evil exists in all of us...it's just pointless to compare who has more of it. But I'm not gonna bring religion into this argument
I would agree, but this particular situation, I beleive is "evil". its taking what you did not earn.

Once again, it can be argued that the entire friggin' society is set up so that women are already at a disadvantage to begin with. US society and many other societies provide the environment and medium in which men are favored unfairly even when some of us (men) do next to nothing and reap the benefits.

yeah, and? some men work their whole lives for things, only to find out it meant nothing becuse their EXwife was able to snatch it all up. thats not right.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-30-2004, 08:12 PM

ah, but most marriages end in divorce.

Is the figure at over 50%? Regardless, there probably isn't any hard data to back this up, but I believe the high rate of divorce is largely due to people getting married for the wrong reasons such as money, sex, prestige/fame, misinterpretation of one's own feelings, combinations of all or part of the above, etc. This is different from saying that "it's foolish to think that you will be married forever".

I would agree, but this particular situation, I beleive is "evil". its taking what you did not earn.

Well um....I guess so. But then again, a lot of things are "evil" or "not right". This is no exception and deserves little to no additional focus. Additionally, it can be argued that most of us spend much of our lives trying to receive or get what we didn't earn. We want more for what we pay or put in whether or not we feel like we deserve it. It's natural, perhaps "evil" yes, but once again I don't see how women in such situations of marriage should be singled out.

yeah, and? some men work their whole lives for things, only to find out it meant nothing becuse their EXwife was able to snatch it all up. thats not right.

Uh....some girl broke my heart in high school cause she was a total bitch. I had no control over it either. I guess she's just evil and relationships are not worth my time. In all seriousness, I highly doubt that due to the patriarchal nature of this society that the amount of men getting shafted is even close to the amount of women presented with unfair obstacles. See my previous post regarding the wage disparity and societal norms decided by men, which is the reason for the allowance of women to grow up desiring richer or well-off husbands in the first place while also finding that they on average are going to make less than their male counterparts no matter what. To quote myself:

You could just as easily repoint the gun barrel to face the other direction by arguing that it is society's own fault for allowing the average man to make more than the average woman in the first place in order for the average man to have 'more to lose' than the average woman after divorce.

lethal

03-30-2004, 09:40 PM

every aunt and uncle I have has been divorced and my parents have as well. I went to court and I watched it happen twice.

Again - this is empirical evidence.

You can base opinions on your personal experience, but every state has a different family law system. Some states use community property, some states use the elective share system, other states use another system altogether. Some states craft their laws to favor one side, other states word their laws to favor the interests of the child. Also, each judge has his own interpretation of what the laws mean.

Your family's experience may or may not be representative of what happens in the U.S. Until you or someone else presents a study with a large enough representative sample saying this, its all talk and no proof of anything.

Lol, a "gold-digger" study? You really think that exists out there?

Actually, this study would be easy to find if one looked hard enough. Compare the incomes of newly married couples on their tax returns. See if generally men make more than women. Such studies exist due to research for the law eliminating the marriage tax penalty, which was recently passed.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-30-2004, 11:13 PM

And before a man pops the question, he needs to ask himself, "Is she really worth half of what I have?"

As a college student, I'd hafta say most women are worth more than 100% of what I have.

shy

03-31-2004, 08:38 AM

mr. lum...

you don't think all women are evil but you do think women are dangerous that way. do you think that us women here enjoy hearing that? do you think we're thinking, "oh.. okay, he's not saying we're evil per say. just hella dangerous... THAT way!"

sorry, but that does not convince me nor most women that you are making strong generalizations about our gender. i'm at awe that you don't see this rationalization here.

also, to add to lethalweapon's post, yes... the system does work differently depending where you are from. you can not take the naive position that where you are from represents that of the entire world, not just the US.

if you are that upset w/ out the system works, i would sugget that you move instead of playing the victim role.

Mr.Lum

03-31-2004, 09:58 AM

mr. lum...

you don't think all women are evil but you do think women are dangerous that way. do you think that us women here enjoy hearing that? do you think we're thinking, "oh.. okay, he's not saying we're evil per say. just hella dangerous... THAT way!"

sorry, but that does not convince me nor most women that you are making strong generalizations about our gender. i'm at awe that you don't see this rationalization here.

I dont think women are "evil" you put that word in my mouth. I never said that. that is a way that women can be dangerous to your livelyhood. its fact. just because I think women can be dangerous does not mean I think they are evil. Im in awe you dont see this ratinalization here. and I am making a generalization. in divorce, women are especially dangerous, especially if you have anything they want. just because you dont like my opinion does not mean I am going to change it or apologize for it.

537

03-31-2004, 10:51 AM

Traditional marriage balances different privileges and obligations for men and women. Modern woman wants all the benefits of "equality" without any of the responsibilities.

1. Traditional Western culture balanced special privileges for women with special obligations, and the same for men.

2. Equality states that no one get special privileges, and that responsibilities and rights should be equally shared.

Either system is balanced and fair. The problem with modern Western culture is that many women want only the positives from both systems:

They want special privileges from the traditional system (men paying, being "gentlemen" by using special deferential manners and language to women, being the main breadwinner, etc) but not the old-fashioned obligations (being modest and ladylike, being a housewife, etc).

They want the positives of equality (rights, equal access to work and education, etc) without the responsibilities (paying your own way financially a full 50% for life, taking risks with no safety net, and taking your lumps without complaint like men do...not expecting to be protected or sheltered from harsh reality, etc).

You can't take only the good from both systems...you have to take the bad with the good in any balance you strike. When women try to have their cake and eat it in this way, the bad doesn't disappear...it gets paid by men, and this is why the current culture is one of exploitation by selfish hypocritical women...and it's why men are tired of the inequity.

If women chose one system or the other and took their full share of the bad with the good there would be no problem. But current American culture discourages women being looked at critically, instead projecting all blame unjustly onto men; and so the inequity is rationalized away.

Thoughts on this?

This is what a pre-nup is for. Protect yourself and actually her too so she knows the whole deal. No mess to clean up. Shouldn't talk about money? It will be all about the money if shit hits the fan. Better talk about it beforehand.

And before a man pops the question, he needs to ask himself, "Is she really worth half of what I have?"

Often, pre-nups expire after a certain amount of years. Plus, women now can contest pre-nups and essentially render them void. Pre-nups don't help at all in issues like who gets the kids, visitation rights, and child support.

Mr.Lum

03-31-2004, 11:01 AM

Often, pre-nups expire after a certain amount of years. Plus, women now can contest pre-nups and essentially render them void. Pre-nups don't help at all in issues like who gets the kids, visitation rights, and child support

yeah, my dad had/has visitation for 30minutues a week or something.

krome

03-31-2004, 11:22 AM

I personally don't see anything inherently sexist about Krome's assumption. On average, women don't make as much money as men, and on average women marry men who are richer than they are. Regardless of a woman's ulterior motives for "wanting a rich man" or whatever, the chances that the guy she chooses to marry is going to make more money than her are pretty high I would assume, due to the truth and probability inferred from the first assumption. I'm fairly certain that these two assumptions can be supported with statistics. This is completely different from saying that women do not deserve to be paid equal wages, or are incapable of providing the services or contribution deserving of the amount of pay a man of the same caliber or position receives. Additionally, the wage disparity is obviously and clearly used as firepower by proponents of the feminist movement.
Exactly, first feminists claim that there IS a huge gender wage gap (a topic in itself*). But now, kittygirl (a feminist) claims that that belief is s*xist?

Yeah, colour ME confused, here. :confused:

lethalweapon - Good legal points.
Careful...no personal attacks. By anyone. I'm watching closely.
But um, did you watch >:^|'s posts #10 & #15 closely?

I think some women are simply getting overemotional and over-defensive here, no offense. This is just another example of how prevailing social perception (propaganda) overrides current reality. I'm seeing a LOT of words being put in my mouth by some. But with U.S. divorce rates at over 50% and rising and these legalities, I think U.S. men need to take a hard look at these FACTS.

537 - Got a link for "an anonymous website?" You can PM me it if you want...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
* What "gap?" (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/1209roberts.html)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The average wage gap is not proof of widespread discrimination, but of women making choices about their educational and professional careers in a society where the law has granted them equality of opportunity to do so. Comparable worth promotes a dependence for women, and a reliance on government for protection. Given women’s achievements, such dependence is unnecessary. American women enjoy historically unparalleled success and freedom, and the progress they have made in the past half century will continue.
~Diana Furchtgott-Roth, April 12, 1999 testimony before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Some studies, for example, have suggested that secretaries and truck drivers are "comparable" jobs. Both involve long periods of sitting, similar amounts of training, and repetitive tasks. Therefore, it is argued, the pay of secretaries (a female-dominated occupation) should be equal to the pay of truck drivers (a male-dominated occupation). (http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/gender.html)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the "wage gap" may be from 0%-12%-20% - but if it's due to personal female choices, discrimination or both is almost indeterminable.

This study says there "may" be a 20% gap - but that you can't really make a fair comparison due to statistical limitations and various base inequities - like work hours & experience, occupation, career path, etc.

For example, women average:
4 years less experience
472 hrs less worked/yr
21% less worked full-time
2 unworked weeks more/yr

Women tend to assume more maternal at-home responsibilities, as well - which can reduce their pay.

Also, there is significant gender-split in career lines - so it's really hard (if even possible) to compare them 1-to-1 "equivalently."

For example, I heard something like 87% of elementary school teachers are female. Whereas, I'd guesstimate maybe 87% of engineers are male. Now obviously, engineers will get paid far more than elementary teachers... (http://www.house.gov/dingell/womens_report03.pdf)

>:^|

03-31-2004, 11:59 AM

lethal

03-31-2004, 12:07 PM

lethalweapon > Isn't it true that in the majority of custody cases, men do not seek sole custody in similar numbers? Also, I believe awards of joint custody are now something like 20 percent. I don't doubt that custody might slightly favor the woman; I just don't know that it represents any kind of advantage.

http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=14440

For example, a Stanford study of 1,000 divorced couples selected at random found that divorcing mothers were awarded sole custody four times as often as divorcing fathers in contested custody cases. A study of all divorce-custody decrees in Arlington County, Va., during an 18-month period found that no father was given sole or even joint custody unless the mother agreed to it. According to Frank Bishop, the former director of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, almost 95 percent of custody cases in Virginia were won by mothers.

An Ohio study published in Family Advocate found that fathers seeking sole custody obtain it in less than 10 percent of cases, and a Utah study conducted over 23 years found similar results. According to the 2000 Census Bureau report, mothers constitute 85 percent of all custodial parents.

Even the 80 percent to 95 percent maternal preference documented by these studies and others understates family-court discrimination against fathers by identifying many coerced child-custody arrangements as "uncontested." The vast majority of divorces involving children are initiated by women, and women usually are granted temporary custody of the children. Judges are reluctant to switch children from the custody of one parent to another.

>:^|

03-31-2004, 12:26 PM

shy

03-31-2004, 12:51 PM

I dont think women are "evil" you put that word in my mouth. I never said that. that is a way that women can be dangerous to your livelyhood. its fact. just because I think women can be dangerous does not mean I think they are evil. Im in awe you dont see this ratinalization here. and I am making a generalization. in divorce, women are especially dangerous, especially if you have anything they want. just because you dont like my opinion does not mean I am going to change it or apologize for it.

so... you're saying that there's no connection to the insult of 'evil' and 'dangerous' as your choice of words?

and you just admitted now that you ARE making a generalization. and we all know that the dangers of making gerneralizations leads to wrongful stereotypes.

i absolutely think you should apologize for making a generalization, which you admit, by saying that women are dangerous when it comes to divorce. as others have pointed out here, you have no sound proof that we are dangerous.

you really do need to watch how you phrase things. and frankly, i couldn't care less that you are saying that you don't think women are evil. and i don't think anyone sees how i put such words in your mouth when most people know that just by stating that 'women are dangerous' whether it ties in w/ 'evil' or not isn't insulting on it's own.

at least you should take accountability for such an insult.

btw, you're claims are also insulting for women who are married on this board.

one more thing mr. lum... a question:

do you really think that any woman, married or not, would accept your oppinion that you think women are dangerous? honestly... you seem to walk around thinking you can say anything and not have more then half the population on this earth (since last i heard women out number men 2 to 1 in this world) by stating such a thing.

THAT's what i call being totally irrational.

Mr.Lum

03-31-2004, 01:18 PM

do you really think that any woman, married or not, would accept your oppinion that you think women are dangerous? honestly... you seem to walk around thinking you can say anything and not have more then half the population on this earth (since last i heard women out number men 2 to 1 in this world) by stating such a thing.

of coarse not. but Im still going to have it, because I am paranoid and most women are in fact looking at you wallet rather than your heart. you have to protect yourself. and if you have to protect yourself, there is a danger, in this case, it is the woman.

at least you should take accountability for such an insult.

it is not an "insult" unless you make it one.

and frankly, i couldn't care less that you are saying that you don't think women are evil. and i don't think anyone sees how i put such words in your mouth when most people know that just by stating that 'women are dangerous' whether it ties in w/ 'evil' or not isn't insulting on it's own.

youre saying I think women are "eivl" and trying to alude that I am some horrible woman hater. thats how youre putting words in my mouth. dont add words to what I said. evil was nowhere in that post.

i absolutely think you should apologize for making a generalization,

and you are welcome to that opinion.

. as others have pointed out here, you have no sound proof that we are dangerous

if a woman is able to put a mans lively hood in danger, there is danger for him if there is no prenup. its dangerous. and usually its the woman who is dangerous because the courts will favour her. and stop trying to act like I said "women are dagerous" with out the "in that way". in divorce, women are dangerous and I am not going to apologize for that opinion.

Napoleon Chynamite

03-31-2004, 08:55 PM

of coarse not. but Im still going to have it, because I am paranoid and most women are in fact looking at you wallet rather than your heart. you have to protect yourself. and if you have to protect yourself, there is a danger, in this case, it is the woman.

If that's how you truly feel, I'm sorry that events in your life have allowed you to arrive at such a cynical and close-minded conclusion. But you should also be able to understand that the accusations insinuated and/or tone you may be giving off in this thread is gonna draw much heat and objection despite your individual experiences.

it is not an "insult" unless you make it one.

Does this go with everything people say? So I can say anything hostile or degrading to anyone else and as long as they don't interpret it as being offensive, I can keep saying it?

youre saying I think women are "eivl" and trying to alude that I am some horrible woman hater. thats how youre putting words in my mouth. dont add words to what I said. evil was nowhere in that post.

I think the fact that you said 'because I am paranoid and most women are in fact looking at you wallet rather than your heart" is a pretty loaded and indicative statement of how you feel towards women regarding a gigantic facet of how morality is judged in today's society.

and you are welcome to that opinion.

Once again, everyone is free to their opinion, but those with offensive opinions should not act or be surprised when people take offense unless they are clearly deluded and out of touch.

if a woman is able to put a mans lively hood in danger, there is danger for him if there is no prenup. its dangerous. and usually its the woman who is dangerous because the courts will favour her. and stop trying to act like I said "women are dagerous" with out the "in that way". in divorce, women are dangerous and I am not going to apologize for that opinion.

Like I said before, arguably entire societies (including this one) are designed either consciously or unconsciously to favor men over women. Does this mean that in life, men are dangerous and in general present a threat to women?

lethal

04-01-2004, 12:19 AM

Eh, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children give me the willies. And the Stanford research studied families who divorced in the 1980's. But in any event, the number that's missing is how many times the man requested sole custody. Also, given that statistically the woman is the primary caregiver for the children, I can understand why a court might favor giving custody to the wife. But I'm not sure that getting custody is a financial advantage. Seems more like it would be the opposite.

I'm not particularly fond of the source, but the underlying studies do show some trends. However, I don't know if they selectively choose studies to present and there are sources that have conflicting data.

I can understand the court reasoning for custody issues, "best interest of the child" usually lies with the mother. Financially, its a mixed bag. I'll get into it more tomorrow when I'm not completely exhausted.

kitty

04-01-2004, 07:48 AM

shy

04-01-2004, 08:08 AM

if a woman is able to put a mans lively hood in danger, there is danger for him if there is no prenup. its dangerous. and usually its the woman who is dangerous because the courts will favour her. and stop trying to act like I said "women are dagerous" with out the "in that way". in divorce, women are dangerous and I am not going to apologize for that opinion.

okay.... lets say that since the stats show a higher percentage of men being the abuser in a domestic violence situation, leading to separation/divorce, or worse, etc., i then conclude that 'men are dangerous' that way.

after such a statement, i can not expect men on this board to accept such a generalized statemet, EVEN IF it's true that i've actually seen such cases.

however, if you want to play fire with fire... i think here's more danger about getting beaten up to the point where one finds herself in the hospital with serious wounds that could be fatal then any financial burdens.

your irrationality is that you are going from A to C through what you think is deductive reasoning. but actually, it's extremely poor reasoning. the statement you made is incredibly strong, naive and immature. you still can't see that by making such a generalization, you are truly insulting many women who have read your post.

i find that unbelievable that you do not see that. but now you are backtracking what you said in which case if you truly did not mean to make a statement such as 'women are dangerous' then you would have a) made the carification WAY earlier then now and b) not have talked about your fear of getting married to women.

but then again... i was just informed by two other members that you are 16, which i didn't take into account until just now.

not that all boys your age are that naive (see? see how i reframed from making a generalization of 16 year old boys? try to learn from my example), i would say that perhaps you will come to another conclusion later on in life.

krome

04-01-2004, 08:42 AM

krome > I have difficulty taking your points seriously when you use Model Minority posters, Kathleen Parker, and Diana Furchtgott-Roth as sources. I'm willing to bet that you would generally disagree with the majority of the opinions and politics of Parker and Furchtgott-Roth were you to know who they were. Parker's not exactly known for her insightful commentary and close adherence to the facts; she's more of Michelle Malkin's ilk.

And your argument about the discrepancy in pay between genders sounds strangely similar to some arguments about why Asian Americans typically earn less than their White counterparts.

In any event, if men are stupid enough to marry women who would gold-dig, they deserve what they get. If the non-financial contributions women make towards marriage are unimportant, then perhaps the institution should be abolished.
What are you referring to? I have linked a few threads, but I didn't use MM posters as sources.

But, you can't simply discredit a point by discrediting it's source, anyways. If Hitler said 1+1=2, would that make it wrong? No. Sure, you must consider the source, but ultimately it's the ACCURACY, not the SOURCE, of the data that really counts. And, I actually agree with Michelle Malkin on some points, and not on others. I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to wholly accept/dismiss any one person's beliefs - I don't care who it is. Again, that goes back to "Western" bipolar/borderline thinking... (http://www.yellowworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14174&page=7&pp=15&highlight=borderline)

Actually, if you check the stats, Asian-Americans actually average higher median incomes than whites.

According to the U.S. Census in 2001 ... Asians and Pacific Islanders had the highest median household income, higher than whites. (http://modelminority.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=722&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)

Asian household income - $45,249
White household income - $38,972

Asian per capita income - $24,277.00
White per capita income - $24,127.00

Now, Asians probably still get paid less than whites per our overqualifications and household incomes are higher because we average larger households with less broken families. Also, do note the difference between "median" and "mean/average."

Well, I think many men aren't so much "stupid," as naive and uniformed - well, I guess that may be the definition of "stupid." Anyways, the POINT of this thread is to wizen these guys up!

kitty

04-01-2004, 09:24 AM

krome... *are* you basically inferring that women are golddiggers? Or merely that marriage screws over men more so than women? I think the male slant of this thread is what is really irking some people here -- if marriage is financially unwise, than it is financially unwise for both... unless you are willing to make the blanket generalization that all women marry specifically to take a man's money -- which you haven't been willing to say.

Secondly, you can and do have to take into consideration the source of data ... If the 'Christian Coalition to Ban People of Colour' suddenly found that people of colour are more likely to carry STDs and should thus be banned from the United States, I would question their data and their study much more so than if it were coming from the Census.

There's no such thing as raw data -- if you worked in the field of science, you would know that every study is highly subjective and can be easily skewed to result in the conclusion you are looking for. It can depend on leaving variables out, overweighing certain variables, etc... and it can be hard for an outsider who don't know the Methods of the group doing the study to figure out where the data has been skewed (that's why most research papers include a Materials and Methods section).

How will you figure out how accurate the data is if you don't know how the study came up with the data and for what purpose-- ESPECIALLY if the data was done to support a group's existing political beliefs. So no, would I doubt Hitler if he said 1+1=2? No, but we're not talking about basic absolutes like 1+1 questions -- we're talking about sociological studies... and even numbers like 'mean incomes' can be skewed (favouring a higher income for certain Asian Americans, completely ignoring other Asian Americans for example, comparing recent immigrants to non-recent immigrants, only polling certain areas of Asians vs. another, etc)...

Also, if Hitler were to say "1+1=2, therefore all Jews should die", I hope that someone would go back and question why he is asserting his assertation before blinding accepting the conclusion.

537

04-01-2004, 09:34 AM

I have no issue with this thread.

krome is trying to illustrate the institutionalization of marriage and how it (as well as divorce) carries the potential for disaster, and he is doing so with a male slant - because this is in the Men's forum.

kitty

04-01-2004, 10:04 AM

I should clarify.

Having a male slant is fine -- blaming women for the breakdown of marriage and for shafting men in divorce? I merely question that conclusion.

Kuchana

04-01-2004, 10:13 AM

of coarse not. but Im still going to have it, because I am paranoid and most women are in fact looking at you wallet rather than your heart. you have to protect yourself. and if you have to protect yourself, there is a danger, in this case, it is the woman.

What a cynical view you have about women! I feel insulted already. In fact, I could say the same about men. Define what you mean by protecting yourself. The man can represent an equal danger to that of a woman, even moreso.

if a woman is able to put a mans lively hood in danger, there is danger for him if there is no prenup. its dangerous. and usually its the woman who is dangerous because the courts will favour her. and stop trying to act like I said "women are dagerous" with out the "in that way". in divorce, women are dangerous and I am not going to apologize for that opinion.

it would be natural to feel sympathy for the woman than the man in the case of divorce. it is a known fact that women as a whole are more at a disadvantage than men are. some may say they're equal but not even close.
well gee, i'd favor the woman, too especially considering how deadbeat dads has been prevalent in our society. or the ones who beat their wives as well.

deez nuts

04-01-2004, 10:34 AM

begone you she devils.

back to the fiery pits of the women's forum with thee, i say.

kitty

04-01-2004, 11:33 AM

Here are some numbers I found for income and divorce rates from the Census for 2000. Unfortunately, there's a lot missing here, but please feel free to pick apart the conclusions I've got here.

I'm not a statistician so I don't know the difference between mean and median, so here's both of them.

For men of 18 years of age and over

never married
MEDIAN INCOME: $18,501
MEAN INCOME: $25,500

married
MEDIAN INCOME: $36,389
MEAN INCOME: $50,114

divorced
MEDIAN INCOME: $28,861
MEAN INCOME: $37,501
ALIMONY: (unavailable, basal count too low)
CHILD SUPPORT - MEDIAN INCOME: $2,686

***
For women 18 years of age and over:

never married
MEDIAN INCOME: $15,747
MEAN INCOME: $21,527

married
MEDIAN INCOME: $17,639
MEAN INCOME: $24,652

divorced
MEDIAN INCOME: $24,424
MEAN INCOME: $30,314
ALIMONY-MEDIAN: $6,018
CHILD SUPPORT-MEDIAN: $3,460

It looks to me like men do indeed earn less in alimony and child support, though this may be because of the differences in income of non-married men and women -- since my understanding of when alimony is paid is in order to help in changes of post-divorce standards of living.

Also, there seems to be a *huge* increase in income for married men... and a negligible increase in income for married women. This may skew the subsequent divorce rates, because it is certainly possible that men and women in higher income brackets are not getting divorced and are staying married.

However, from those numbers, the vast increase in income, seems to indicate that it is within your best interest as a man to marry. I really don't know how well we can trust a comparison between the married and divorced figures, because it doesn't give the income pre-divorce and post-divorce for those men and women -- so we don't know how great the decrease actually is.

What I find interesting is that men actually seem to benefit from divorce -- looking at the numbers, there is a greater overall increase in income post-divorce in divorced men to men who have never been married than in women (i.e., after a divorce, men make more money before they got married than women). Women also show an increase in income, but not as much as men, and the numbers for income should already factor in alimony and child support payments.

All in all, it's hard to interpret these numbers. This is all raw data and I'm not really sure what can be compared and what can't be compared since I only had a few minutes to throw this all together.

The most striking thing to me is that women who get married make about as much as a woman who has never been married, compared to men who make more than twice what single men make -- shouldn't we really be issuing a warning to women that marriage is financially unwise?

In either case, considering how women seem to not benefit from marriage and men make twice as much as they would when single, I'm not sure how divorce settlements are unfair -- isn't it in fact men, then, who are benefitting from marriage and not having to pay for it?

(Incidentally, consider also that if women stop work while they are married, and then get divorced, they may get alimony, but they lose out on the years that they could've been working, building up a pension. Another stat I came across was that something like 40% of divorced women over the age of 65 live at or below the poverty line, compared to only 25% of divorced men).

(also incidentally, child support income numbers are closer than I would've thought... I would've thought that women would be getting a lot more in child support compared to men than is actually the case)

lethal

04-01-2004, 11:44 AM

Mean is calculated by adding all th figures up and dividing by the number of items. Median is the middle figure. Take for example: 1, 2, 6. The mean is (1+2+6)/3=3. The median is the middle figure, 2.

Where the median is much lower than the mean it can be interpreted to say that the figures at the top of of the bracket are significantly more spread out (read significantly higher incomes) than the figures at the bottom part of the bracket.

What the census figures do not account for is age. Married men are generaly more likely to make more than single men because they are generally older and more experienced. I can't account for the lack of change for married women over single women unless it is because it takes into account non-working married women and putting them as a 0 income. This is plausible, but fairly unlikely due to the higher median over mean. It could mean that married women tend to have lower paying part-time jobs. I'm not sure.

Either way, without taking into account age, its hard to read very much into the numbers.

Notice that the differential between the mean and median for married men is huge compared to the differential for single men.

kitty

04-01-2004, 11:48 AM

Mmm... well they do also give all those numbers according to age. So someone who's a real trooper could go analyze those.

But yeah, I noticed the same problem with those figures. But doesn't the divorced numbers also indicate age -- I mean... people who are divorced are more likely to be about as old, maybe older than those who count in the married bracket. *scratches head*...

>:^|

04-01-2004, 12:06 PM

But, you can't simply discredit a point by discrediting it's source, anyways. If Hitler said 1+1=2, would that make it wrong? No. Sure, you must consider the source, but ultimately it's the ACCURACY, not the SOURCE, of the data that really counts. And, I actually agree with Michelle Malkin on some points, and not on others. I think it's incredibly narrow-minded to wholly accept/dismiss any one person's beliefs - I don't care who it is.

I'm not discrediting an opinion based on its source. I'm saying that I am suspicious of the reporting of fact or the interpretation of research based on its source. Additionally, there are many levels of what lay people refer to as "research." You would need to see the methodology before arriving at a conclusion about a study's validity.

A point supported with misrepresented facts or statistics doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. I've caught Michelle Malkin and Kathleen Parker in bald-face lies and misrepresentations--enough to suggest to me that they are not credible sources.

Here's an easy example from your post:

"according to the American Association of Blood Banks (see their Annual Report Summary 2001) 29.6% of men named on birth certificates cannot be the fathers of the children named. Now, if you, Mom and the milkman are all Type O, the test can tell you nothing, but if you are Type O, Mom is Type A and the baby is Type AB, it's time to check the calendar for the dates of that business trip you took about nine months ago..."

Well, you got that from lewrockwell.com, so that's immediately suspect to me. That inflammatory statement seems to suggest that some huge percentage of women had multiple partners and lied about the paternity of their children. But if you look at the source data, it says nothing about "29.6 percent of men named on birth certificates cannot be the fathers of the children named."

http://www.aabb.org/About_the_AABB/Stds_and_Accred/ptannrpt01.pdf

Rather, it mentions that 29.06 percent of the relatedness cases of a select number of laboratories were exclusions.

That's quite different. Relatedness is not necessarily paternity. And the people requesting tests for relatedness are not a representative sample of the population at large. Those requesting paternity determination are not representative of the population at large.

krome, it seems to me that you do a huge amount of reading--but you need to be able to discriminate among what you read. That will make your argument more substantive. You obviously have a lot of passion for the things you take issue with, but you are losing credibility.

The most striking thing to me is that women who get married make about as much as a woman who has never been married, compared to men who make more than twice what single men make ...

That doesn't surprise me. Your office gets really busy, and the married guys' wives are often bringing them food, taking care of the errands at home, and in general filling-in and being supportive, whereas the unmarried people go home and their laundry is still undone and there's no food. :tongue:

But I believe I saw a study that was controlled for age--and there is still definitely a "marriage benefit" for men.

Maybe the conclusion to be drawn here is that some women are sluts and golddiggers and some are not.

krome

04-01-2004, 12:16 PM

As you noted before, interpretation is often the problem, kittygirl. You misinterpreted these stats in thinking they are a chronological pattern of the same guys from bachelorhood to marriage to divorce and am frankly, drawing reverse-causations here.
---------------
The most striking thing to me is that women who get married make about as much as a woman who has never been married, compared to men who make more than twice what single men make -- shouldn't we really be issuing a warning to women that marriage is financially unwise?
In fact, what this shows is that women ARE "gold-diggers" because they do marry rich men. The married men are likely richer because they are older and further advanced in their careers. And they are married because of that. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE MARRIED - cuz they're rich! Marriage in itself DOES NOT MAKE THEM RICH!!! WTH? DUHHHH!!!! Whereas, no women will marry the poor guys.

MEAN INCOME for NEVER-married BACHELORS: $25,500

MEAN INCOME for MARRIED MEN: $50,114

Do men's incomes magically double once they say "I do?" Or are women simply choosing to marry (likely older) men averaging $50K and choosing NOT to marry (likely younger) men averaging $25K? I think the logical conclusion is obvious here... :rolleyes:

Notice the difference in the same stat is only $3125 for women. Obviously, wealth is far less of a deciding marriage factor for men.
---------------
Also, how can you say divorce is profitable for men? It is the EXACT OPPOSITE!

Their average income drops $12,613 from $50,114 to $37,501! Subtract another $2686 for child support and you get $34,815. This is a NET LOSS of $15,299 - and not even including alimony, which is not listed here. Not to mention that this is only INCOME, not ASSETS AND NET WORTH.

Now, let's look at how women fare. Their average income actually INCREASES by $5662 from $24,652 to $30,314 after divorce. Add in $6,018 alimony and $3,460 in child support (both medians - means not listed) and you get a total increase of $15,140 for a grand total of $39,792!!!

Again, divorce is a HUGE $15K GAIN for women and a HUGE $15K LOSS for men in income. And this does not even include child-custody and NET ASSETS/WORTH...

Well, thanks for the SOBERING stats. Read 'em and weep, fellas! :eek:

Napoleon Chynamite

04-01-2004, 12:22 PM

Well okay this might be a bit off the subject and on the side here, but I actually don't think it's all that bad or unnatural for a woman to be concerned about her future husband's financial stability, or even a woman to want her husband to be well-off. I think it may be part biological and part social in terms of what a woman consciously or unconsciously desires. And once again, the likelihood of the man just happening to make more money than the woman is pretty darn high, regardless of how much of a "golddigger" she is.

Obviously though there are problems with women who think that money makes the world go round, and she absolutely won't date or give a guy a time of day unless he's fucking loaded. But that to me is just analogous to men who are obsessed with looks, and won't date an average lookin' girl and only like to talk to beautiful model-types. I guess if you wanna blame someone, blame capitalist society for placing so much on monetary gain and its association to status and worthiness. There are plenty of other institutions besides marriage that which guys use to their advantage as well, I am sure.

shy

04-01-2004, 12:37 PM

As you noted before, interpretation is often the problem, kittygirl. You misinterpreted these stats in thinking they are a chronological pattern of the same guys from bachelorhood to marriage to divorce and am frankly, drawing reverse-causations here.
---------------

In fact, what this shows is that women ARE "gold-diggers" because they do marry rich men. The married men are likely richer because they are older and further advanced in their careers. And they are married because of that. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE MARRIED - cuz they're rich! Marriage in itself DOES NOT MAKE THEM RICH!!! WTH? DUHHHH!!!! Whereas, no women will marry the poor guys.

MEAN INCOME for NEVER-married BACHELORS: $25,500

MEAN INCOME for MARRIED MEN: $50,114

Do men's incomes magically double once they say "I do?" Or are women simply choosing to marry (likely older) men averaging $50K and choosing NOT to marry (likely younger) men averaging $25K? I think the logical conclusion is obvious here... :rolleyes:

Notice the difference in the same stat is only $3125 for women. Obviously, wealth is far less of a deciding marriage factor for men.
---------------
Also, how can you say divorce is profitable for men? It is the EXACT OPPOSITE!

Their average income drops $12,613 from $50,114 to $37,501! Subtract another $2686 for child support and you get $34,815. This is a NET LOSS of $15,299 - and not even including alimony, which is not listed here. Not to mention that this is only INCOME, not ASSETS AND NET WORTH.

Now, let's look at how women fare. Their average income actually INCREASES by $5662 from $24,652 to $30,314 after divorce. Add in $6,018 alimony and $3,460 in child support (both medians - means not listed) and you get a total increase of $15,140 for a grand total of $39,792!!!

Again, divorce is a HUGE $15K GAIN for women and a HUGE $15K LOSS for men in income. And this does not even include child-custody and NET ASSETS/WORTH...

Well, thanks for the SOBERING stats. Read 'em and weep, fellas! :eek:

hmm... you've got a point. you'd better never get married. you'll be happier that way.

krome

04-01-2004, 12:42 PM

hmm... you've got a point. you'd better never get married. you'll be happier that way.
Ok, that's your 3rd personal attack on me on this thread. I mean, you've made that SAME COMMENT 3X ALREADY. You gettin' tired of it yet - cuz I sure as h*ll am! :rolleyes:

Look, you're taking this debate WAY too personal and getting over-emotional and over-defensive. This was a complete waste of a post and totally irrelevant. You addressed nothing factual at all. All you did was read my name and type in a knee-jerk diss. :rolleyes:

If I choose to get married - it will be a more informed decision - and careful about who to. That is the message I am trying to get across here - the reality of the institution circa 2004 USA.

(Woops, I gave you good karma by accident - consider yourself lucky.)

ChinaLama

04-01-2004, 12:52 PM

Re: KG's figures,

but what I find striking is that income for divorced women is higher than income for married women, while income for divorced men is lower than income for married men. So doesn't that provide a perverse incentive for women to ditch men in marriage?

^ Ok, that's your 3rd personal attack on me on this thread. You're taking this debate WAY too personal and getting over-emotional and over-defensive. This was a complete waste of a post and totally irrelevant. You addressed nothing factual at all. All you did was read my name and type in a knee-jerk diss. :rolleyes:

If I choose to get married - it will be a more informed decision - and careful about who to. That is the message I am trying to get across here - the reality of the institution circa 2004 USA.

(Woops, I gave you good karma by accident - consider yourself lucky.)

maybe she was just joking around. don't get your pan-- never mind, that'd be a sexist statement. :-)

Napoleon Chynamite

04-01-2004, 12:57 PM

If I choose to get married - it will be a more informed decision - and careful about who too.

I think you hit it on the dot there though...the problem is people simply need to be more careful about who they choose to marry, and they need to think shit over first. It has nothing to do with men or women screwing each other over and therefore labeling one group as more immoral (even in a certain situation such as marriage) or saying "yeah men and women are both evil, but women are especially dangerous in marriage". Otherwise the happiness and fulfillment of both parties are at stake.

Craig

04-01-2004, 01:11 PM

Usually it is the mother who gets custody over the father, but yes, I would be curious to find out how often father's want sole custody, as well.

I fail to see how getting custody of the child would be a financial plus. Taking care of a child is expensive (just ask my friend who, at one time, couldn't afford diapers and baby food for her kid, even with an almost full-time job, i.e. a part-time job where she worked nearly full-time hours). And they only get more expensive as they get older, because they need schooling, more food, more clothing, toys, etc etc etc.

The tax benefits of having a dependent and even having the father pay child support don't outweigh the financial costs, nor have they ever. To me, if you want to say women are benefitted from their current favouring as far as custody, it's that the woman gets *emotional* benefit -- financially, I think they get shafted as far as child custory goes.I have seen plenty of examples of women getting custody of the children and spending most of the child support payments on themselves.

Yes, the kids go to school, but most go to taxpayer supported public schools and only have small expenses for supplies. (It's not that expensive for paper, pens, pencils, folders, and other supplies for pre-university education in America; I paid for my school supplies myself in middle school, high school.) Many Americans kick their kids out when they are around 18, hence no need to pay for college. Also, I was under the impression that most places in America provided textbooks for students in elementary, middle and high school.

Yes, the children need food. However, there is no burden to provide quality food or expensive food. Many parents in America, married, divorced, whatever, may not provide quality food for their children.

Clothing gets cheaper as the children age. While you may know kids that got expensive fashionable clothes all the time, that wasn't the case for many. Judging by the way many students dressed, they weren't getting expensive clothes (even many of those who families could afford it). Also, don't neglect the power of hand me downs.

Toys, what toys ? Toys are not needed, and are not provided in many cases.

What items are you including in the "etc etc etc." ?

kitty

04-01-2004, 01:23 PM

Also, how can you say divorce is profitable for men? It is the EXACT OPPOSITE!

Their average income drops $12,613 from $50,114 to $37,501! Subtract another $2686 for child support and you get $34,815. This is a NET LOSS of $15,299 - and not even including alimony, which is not listed here. Not to mention that this is only INCOME, not ASSETS AND NET WORTH.

Now, let's look at how women fare. Their average income actually INCREASES by $5662 from $24,652 to $30,314 after divorce. Add in $6,018 alimony and $3,460 in child support (both medians - means not listed) and you get a total increase of $15,140 for a grand total of $39,792!!!

Right... I recognize that I'm not good at interpreting stats... I had a hard enough time understanding the census... but I never at all claimed that these were the same people and that it is chronological. In fact, I posted that I think the figures are skewed because we *don't* know the figures of the men before they were married, or the figures the divorced men made while they were married.

Thus, you contradict your own (logical) criticism of the numbers by saying that men's numbers dropped by whatever amount after they got divorced -- the numbers could easily be explained by saying that men making more money tend to stay married, whereas it's the men in the low income brackets who are getting divorced.

So I'm inclined to agree with lethal that the numbers dont' give us enough information.

I posted them more to add fuel to the fire by giving us at least something to mull over. But after I tried understanding them, I realized that there just isn't enough there to notice any sort of real trend.

and... I know I'm not that great at math, but doesn't $6000 + $3000 = $9000... and not $15000?

And we don't know what the expense of having a child is. The assumption for having child support is to spend it on your child -- thereby assuming that every woman who is getting child support is also taking care of a dependent. Can anyone who has raised a child estimate the cost of a child? Is it more or less than about $3000 a year?

Kuchana

04-01-2004, 01:28 PM

If I choose to get married - it will be a more informed decision - and careful about who to. That is the message I am trying to get across here - the reality of the institution circa 2004 USA.

Well being how high the divorce rate is in this country and how people take marriage lightly, it seems that both genders are at fault in not being more careful with their choice of partners. I applaud your decision.

kitty

04-01-2004, 01:39 PM

I have seen plenty of examples of women getting custody of the children and spending most of the child support payments on themselves.

Yes, the kids go to school, but most go to taxpayer supported public schools and only have small expenses for supplies. (It's not that expensive for paper, pens, pencils, folders, and other supplies for pre-university education in America; I paid for my school supplies myself in middle school, high school.) Many Americans kick their kids out when they are around 18, hence no need to pay for college. Also, I was under the impression that most places in America provided textbooks for students in elementary, middle and high school.

Yes, the children need food. However, there is no burden to provide quality food or expensive food. Many parents in America, married, divorced, whatever, may not provide quality food for their children.

Clothing gets cheaper as the children age. While you may know kids that got expensive fashionable clothes all the time, that wasn't the case for many. Judging by the way many students dressed, they weren't getting expensive clothes (even many of those who families could afford it). Also, don't neglect the power of hand me downs.

Toys, what toys ? Toys are not needed, and are not provided in many cases.

What items are you including in the "etc etc etc." ?

Craig, I am not a parent, but are you? (just out of curiousity, since your age lists you as old enough to be a possible parent)

Well, child support isn't designed to make a child live in poverty -- I don't know where you're getting your belief that women will starve their children in order to go buy a fur coat.

My understanding is that child support is to go to pay for a child's needs *AND WANTS*. Thus, no, toys aren't a necessity, but most parents do buy them for their children. More often, children get a toy every month or so, so can probably cost about $80 a month or something to buy miscellaneous things for a child.

Food? I cost about $300 a month to feed... and I buy a lot of things bulk and on sale. I can only imagine that a child similarly costs about $200 a month to feed.

Then you've got clothes, which for a child, even shopping at Kmart or something, you have to buy a lot of since they grow out of them so quickly, and young children fairly ruin their clothes in a couple of months (this I learned from my friend with the 3 yr old son). So let's say a woman drops about $100 a month on clothes (which is rather unrealistic, IMO, since I'm sure clothes cost more than that). Shoes are very expensive (I worked at a Foot Locker) and cost about $60 a pair (especially if they play sports). Most children go through them in about six months, so that'll be another $120 every year. Let's factor in the fact that as kids get older, their taste in clothing will increase too... so it should go to about $300/month for clothes. Remember, a pair of jeans nowadays costs, by itself, $50.

Then there's school supplies, which can be knapsacks, books, pens, paper, etc. As a child, I think I spent about $200 around the start of the school year to buy all the stuff I would need for school. In college, I dropped $800 every semester to buy books.

There's a general increase in electricity, water, heating bills that are associated with having an extra person in the house.

And that's all the basics. That hasn't included marked increases in gas consumption from moving the child from place to place, an allowance, and possible after-school extracurricular programs.

Craig, the stuff you list I think is unrealistic -- I think most people who take care of a child would feed them regular quality foods, and pay for things like toys.

Moreover, I don't know much about the legal system, but wouldn't you get in trouble if it's discovered that you're not supporting your child with your child support cheque?

(Incidentally, the *bare* minimum amount that I came up with is about $4500, and that's for a young child... not factoring in extra costs for bills that can't be estimated).

oh, krome, incidentally, that figure for $2686 for men and child support is the income received from child support, not paid out. I have no expenses listed from the Census, since I couldn't find that information.

537

04-01-2004, 02:07 PM

and... I know I'm not that great at math, but doesn't $6000 + $3000 = $9000... and not $15000?

krome was factoring in the median increase in income for divorced women as opposed to married women.

Now, let's look at how women fare. Their average income actually INCREASES by $5662 from $24,652 to $30,314 after divorce. Add in $6,018 alimony and $3,460 in child support (both medians - means not listed) and you get a total increase of $15,140

5662 + 6018 + 3460 = 15140

Craig

04-01-2004, 02:34 PM

Craig, I am not a parent, but are you? (just out of curiousity, since your age lists you as old enough to be a possible parent)Nope, I'm not currently a parent.
Well, child support isn't designed to make a child live in poverty -- I don't know where you're getting your belief that women will starve their children in order to go buy a fur coat.It's not designed that way, but judging by the high quality standards I've seen of American parenting and the maturity and responsibility I've seen of most Americans ... I would think the situation is more common than what I have seen. Yes, I have known mulitple women with children in America (of multiple races) that would go out and buy a fur coat over feeding their children.
My understanding is that child support is to go to pay for a child's needs *AND WANTS*. Thus, no, toys aren't a necessity, but most parents do buy them for their children. More often, children get a toy every month or so, so can probably cost about $80 a month or something to buy miscellaneous things for a child.Don't know most parents. However, I have seen plenty of situations where (married, single and divorced) parents don't spend anywhere near $80 a month on toys for their children. The *AND WANTS* seems just like a hope, and not a guaranteed reality.
Food? I cost about $300 a month to feed... and I buy a lot of things bulk and on sale. I can only imagine that a child similarly costs about $200 a month to feed.You can get cheaper in America. I especially knew many people in America that did cheaper than that for themselves in college.

Edit : I used to buy food stamps from single mothers when I was younger. I used them to part for part of my own food bill. I was paying something like $0.60 to the dollar, and my friends in retrospect said I was way too generous. Granted this isn't child support, but this is parenting in America.
Then you've got clothes, which for a child, even shopping at Kmart or something, you have to buy a lot of since they grow out of them so quickly, and young children fairly ruin their clothes in a couple of months (this I learned from my friend with the 3 yr old son). So let's say a woman drops about $100 a month on clothes (which is rather unrealistic, IMO, since I'm sure clothes cost more than that). Shoes are very expensive (I worked at a Foot Locker) and cost about $60 a pair (especially if they play sports). Most children go through them in about six months, so that'll be another $120 every year. Let's factor in the fact that as kids get older, their taste in clothing will increase too... so it should go to about $300/month for clothes. Remember, a pair of jeans nowadays costs, by itself, $50.I think $100 a month on clothes (even in America) is quite excessive.

You can get decent $60 shoes on sale for $30 usd here. It's noticeably cheaper in Texas than in California.

That same $50 pair of jeans can be had for about $20 in the USA if you get it on sale. I have had no problem getting clothes like Levi 501s at places like Sears, the former Wards, etc. for about that price. The last time I bought jeans in America (which was last month), I got them for about $18 usd at Mervyns (on sale) in California.

I got hand me down clothing not only from my brothers, but from my brother's friends, my friends, etc.

Screw their fucking taste in clothing if it's $300 a month. You are talking about being fiscally irresponsible.
Then there's school supplies, which can be knapsacks, books, pens, paper, etc. As a child, I think I spent about $200 around the start of the school year to buy all the stuff I would need for school. In college, I dropped $800 every semester to buy books.Since when do you need to change backpacks or folders every year ? I remember my schools giving the students a list of recommended purchases, but even that (inflation adjusted) shouldn't be anywhere near $200 a year.

There's a general increase in electricity, water, heating bills that are associated with having an extra person in the house.[\QUOTE]
The water should add what, $2 a month ? The electricity is more, but not much. Heating doesn't go up with an extra person.
[QUOTE=kittygirl]And that's all the basics. That hasn't included marked increases in gas consumption from moving the child from place to place, an allowance, and possible after-school extracurricular programs.I knew quite a few parents (in good neighborhoods) that were working and didn't move the child around from place to place.

An allowance is an ideal assumption, but even then I knew many people (in a wealthy school district) where the people got only a single digit dollar amount a week.

They key word you mentioned is "possible".
Craig, the stuff you list I think is unrealistic -- I think most people who take care of a child would feed them regular quality foods, and pay for things like toys.Judging buy American standards of white people (since they are the majority in this equation), I was say they wouldn't feed them quality food. Even most American parents, since they don't even feed themselves quality food. Judging by Americans standards of responsibility, maturity, caring for their families, etc., ... wait, I may have been too generous in my assumptions.

Judging by international standards, I'll give the non-Americans the benefit of the doubt.
Moreover, I don't know much about the legal system, but wouldn't you get in trouble if it's discovered that you're not supporting your child with your child support cheque?

(Incidentally, the *bare* minimum amount that I came up with is about $4500, and that's for a young child... not factoring in extra costs for bills that can't be estimated).

oh, krome, incidentally, that figure for $2686 for men and child support is the income received from child support, not paid out. I have no expenses listed from the Census, since I couldn't find that information.I think your estimates are what you think parents should pay, not reflected in what many parents actually pay. Young children should be more expensive than older children.

>:^|

04-01-2004, 03:00 PM

Yes, I have known mulitple women with children in America (of multiple races) that would go out and buy a fur coat over feeding their children.

You know this because you believe they would do it, or you know this because their kids are starving and they wear fur coats, or you know this because they told you so?

Boy, having worked with indigent families, I have to say that there are expenses that you would just never dream of with kids. Health care has got to be the worst one. Call your human resources department and ask how much it would cost to get a dependent added on your insurance. That's assuming you have group insurance as a benefit, of course. Private insurance will run you much more. And one big accident or a couple of dental problems can cost a huge chunk of change. Don't forget glasses. Simple things can wreck a budget. A kid takes the bus to school and it costs $4/day or $20 a week. Doesn't sound like much? What about if you have two or three kids? And what about child care?

Formula is a huge budget buster. You need about $40/week for that. Diapers are about $100 a month. And small kids can eat as much as an adult. I was shocked when I found all of this out.

Let me put it this way: How much money would somebody have to offer you in order for you to take custody of a child or children? Would you be willing to take $3,460? I'm willing to bet that would barely cover your health insurance.

Craig

04-01-2004, 03:16 PM

You know this because you believe they would do it, or you know this because their kids are starving and they wear fur coats, or you know this because they told you so?

Boy, having worked with indigent families, I have to say that there are expenses that you would just never dream of with kids. Health care has got to be the worst one. Call your human resources department and ask how much it would cost to get a dependent added on your insurance. That's assuming you have group insurance as a benefit, of course. Private insurance will run you much more. And one big accident or a couple of dental problems can cost a huge chunk of change. Don't forget glasses. Simple things can wreck a budget. A kid takes the bus to school and it costs $4/day or $20 a week. Doesn't sound like much? What about if you have two or three kids? And what about child care?

Formula is a huge budget buster. You need about $40/week for that. Diapers are about $100 a month. And small kids can eat as much as an adult. I was shocked when I found all of this out.

Let me put it this way: How much money would somebody have to offer you in order for you to take custody of a child or children? Would you be willing to take $3,460? I'm willing to bet that would barely cover your health insurance.I did personally know more than one woman who owned a Mercedes and left the kids at home without food. I am making the fur coat statement in response to what kittygirl said, and because that is my belief based on many personalities that I have run across.

Millions upon millions of people in America go without health insurance.

In all the places I've lived the buses were already paid for by the taxpayers.

As far as child care, I knew many latch-key kids.

You are following kitty's lead and making the argument on what you think people should pay, not what they actually do, or what is needed. Also, you many too many "what ifs" ...

Personally, I don't want to take care of anybody else's child. However, if I wanted, I could definitely do it for less than what people are getting for child support.

kitty

04-01-2004, 04:59 PM

i am merely offering child-related costs. craig, you speak as if you know exactly how much the average american spends on children. do you have any studies to back this up... or merely anecdotal recounts?

krome

04-01-2004, 05:17 PM

Well, looks like I can't help but set the facts straight again...
(Incidentally, the *bare* minimum amount that I came up with is about $4500, and that's for a young child... not factoring in extra costs for bills that can't be estimated).

oh, krome, incidentally, that figure for $2686 for men and child support is the income received from child support, not paid out. I have no expenses listed from the Census, since I couldn't find that information.
You're right, the $2686 was income, not a payment. My bad. Other than that, 537 explained my math perfectly in the post below yours.

I agree with Craig - $4500/mo IS absolutely ridiculous! That's $54,000 a year - and I don't even make that much after taxes!!! Do you come from a rich, privileged family, or something? I live on probably $1000/mo myself - and that includes car insurance as well (which a child would never have to pay)!

I ran thru this child cost estimator (http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/businessmanagement/DF5899.html) using generous figures for a single lower income (under $38k) home. The price for a child came out to $560/mo.

This is easily doable. I prolly costed far less myself. I got a toy about once a year - at X-mas. I wore all 2nd/3rd-hand clothes up thru high school. My first bike was picked out of the neighbor's trash. Etc etc.

Also, keep in mind that the father should not have to pay this full cost - but only half of it to be fair (although that's not necessarily t