Should men never marry?

The truth of just cynical fiction?

This video is frightening, that is all I have to say. The most terrifying thing about it is that from my conversations with divorced men, this video isn't that far from the truth.

How have things become like this? This doesn't seem to provide a very strong incentive for people to marry. 

Original Post by fortius:

Original Post by coffincritter:

Lastly, jblargh's profile contains a few basic personal stats and absolutely nothing about any sort of ideological or political belief whatsover. Nothing wrong with that, but if it's your definition of feminism--well, at this point it's only one more addition to all your other words on the subject about just how clueless about it you actually are.

False statistics and unscientific studies happen frequently in Feminism, look it up on Google. And before you discredit finding sources on Google, investigate the sources. The false statistic I caught was from a mass e-mail from the women's center of my University, a women's center that was populated with feminists. I thought it was just bad research, but the source came from some  feminist book and the source was false. Later I came to find out that false statistics and misinformation are common in Feminism which is SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some example have to be cited, some examples people can relate to, and college campus Feminist cults are something that most of us have had experience with. If one investigate further into Feminism outside college campuses, his opinion on Feminism will probably worsen unless he is one of those rare creatures called a male feminist.

The guy personally doesn't have a restraining order, he was talking about how women can misuse the system to get grounds for divorce.

RAWA makes me nervous, nervous like communism invading south Vietnam to LBJ, but life isn't perfect. Hopefully they can find Bin Laden while they're at it.

BTW, I've been researching divorce and all of its components such as child support, child custody, and alimony. I might just post another thread on the subject. The problems with statistics is one has to interpret them, which can become a problem, case and point is the pay wage gap and gender discrimination.

Yup, the Jblarghp thing was just a joke based on that commercial/video of celebritiy women saying this is what a feminist looks like. hehe....

Coffincritter is the epitome of the patriarch.

I don't discredit sources found on Google, I discredit sources from places with a specific agenda, which is all you were capable of producing (link's to men's sites) while ironically decrying feminists who cite false statistics.

One of RAWA's primary current concerns is preventing acid attacks made on young Afghanistani girls who are attempting to attend school. The fact that an organization opposed to splashing acid in the faces of 13 year olds would make you nervous speaks VOLUMES about you and your attitudes towards women.

The guy in the video spoke directly about his personal restraining order, along with his revoked driver's license. All he neglected to mention is WHY he has those things, other than stating he did not physically harm his wife.

And if you think I'm the "epitome of the patriarch" it shows you're just as ignorant and misinformed on the concept of patriarchy as you are on feminism, and probably, come to think of it, the word "epitome". Maybe you should spend less time watching anti-feminist videos on Youtube and more time over at the Mirriam-Webster site.

The Department of Justice collects statistics on rape and other crimes.

(I do find it interesting that the most recent DoJ stats on rape are from 2003. knowing what I know about the Bush administration, that probably means the incidence of rape has risen since 2003.  Either that or simple gross incompetence is to blame for lack of data.)

Is the DoJ a feminist organization?

How about the CDC?

I said many posts back that I did not have evidence because my sources were bias, but I was suspicious because of the number of complaints about the family court system and gender bias against men in them. Hence why I am investigating the subject.

As of now, I'm swaying between feminism and other viewpoints. However, I have found statistics on child custody that may imply a gender bias against men.

Anti-feminism, like feminism, is a bias source, and prudence must be used before one chooses a side. 

Feminism makes me nervous, especially in places that are in strife, war, and upheaval; not the act of preventing atrocities such as throwing acid on school children.

TheEditorialist uses you as he is addressing the audience. He is voicing common complaints from divorced men to raise awareness, I really don't know if he is speaking from personal experience. False allegations by women of child abuse, domestic violence, and stalking can be used in divorce proceedings to defame the husband and win child custody, child support, and alimony. 

"epitome of the patriarch" was a joke, coffincritter! lmao!

I can't believe you haven't even brought up Lilly Ledbetter and the Fair Pay Act that was just signed by Obama!

The DOJ and CDC I surely hope are alright sources! If they were manipulated, no one could ever truly know.

Wait a minute...how did this go from marriage to feminism.

Fortius, leave the chicks alone.  Remember the power of the girl network.  You're going to find a gal you really want to bang and get back to her room and there's going to be a wanted poster on her wall with your picture on it...and not "wanted" in that way.  

What do us guys do on the 3 days we're not living the porn star life?  Play video games, watch TV, sports, regular stuff.  You can't keep up that lifestyle 24/7...too much chaffing.

And as to the arguement that people get better looking with age because someone knows a few people and saw this one lady on a TV commercial...STATISTICS people...STATISTCS.  For every one lady thats doable at 50, there are at least 10-1000 that aren't.  It's not a statistical impossibility, it's a statistical improbability.  Now, do men age better?  I guess...but I chalk that up to the fact that men don't actually give birth to children.  It's unfortunate that looks are wasted on the young, but it's simply a matter of evolution that the opposite sexes are at their most attractive level during their period of greatest reproductive ability.  Not saying I'd kick Goldie Hawn out of bed...just saying I'd be about 2000 times happier to do her daughter.

Wait...jblar wears pajammas to bed??  SONUVa...there goes fantasies #7 and 18.

Original Post by caloricat:

Not saying I'd kick Goldie Hawn out of bed...just saying I'd be about 2000 times happier to do her daughter.

Kate's cute as a button with an awesome smile, but Goldie's got a better rack.

 

Original Post by caloricat:

Wait a minute...how did this go from marriage to feminism.

ha, i was more ??? that for a little bit, rape came up, even if it had to do with statistics.

Original Post by dnrothx:

I still think the key question to get a real answer to is: How on Earth does any marriage survive?  Ignoring the outliers (the successful less-than-30 non-coinhabitants) seems to lead one to an incomplete conclusion.

Because both people in the marriage want it to. I have a theory that relationships require some hardship if they're to survive.

I liken a relationship to building a skyscraper: every good time you have together, every fun thing you share adds a floor.... but without a foundation, the first time trouble comes along that building is going to fall over. The foundation is built on shared difficulties overcome, challenges resolved. Every hard time you endure together digs a deeper foundation; you learn that you can depend on the other when the chips are down, and the trust grows.

Too many relationships, I think, are based on having nothing but good times. They build the floor up and up, but then some problem pops up, the earth starts to shake, and the building falls down. There's no foundation of mutual trust and respect to count on for the hard times. It seems easier to let everything fall down and start over somewhere else.

Conversely, if a relationship is in nothing but a constant state of crisis, you only dig down... and how many people want to live in a hole all the time?

I understand if you think it a trite metaphor, but hey, it's worked for me so far.

Original Post by hatamoto:

Original Post by dnrothx:

I still think the key question to get a real answer to is: How on Earth does any marriage survive?  Ignoring the outliers (the successful less-than-30 non-coinhabitants) seems to lead one to an incomplete conclusion.

Because both people in the marriage want it to. I have a theory that relationships require some hardship if they're to survive.

I liken a relationship to building a skyscraper: every good time you have together, every fun thing you share adds a floor.... but without a foundation, the first time trouble comes along that building is going to fall over. The foundation is built on shared difficulties overcome, challenges resolved. Every hard time you endure together digs a deeper foundation; you learn that you can depend on the other when the chips are down, and the trust grows.

Too many relationships, I think, are based on having nothing but good times. They build the floor up and up, but then some problem pops up, the earth starts to shake, and the building falls down. There's no foundation of mutual trust and respect to count on for the hard times. It seems easier to let everything fall down and start over somewhere else.

Conversely, if a relationship is in nothing but a constant state of crisis, you only dig down... and how many people want to live in a hole all the time?

I understand if you think it a trite metaphor, but hey, it's worked for me so far.

 franklin covey couldn't have said it better. my old company made us go through some of his seminars. he also likens any relationship (work, marriage, etc) as a bank account. you do things that add or withdraw a person's (your boss or wife, etc) emotional bank account.

Original Post by hatamoto:

Original Post by dnrothx:

I still think the key question to get a real answer to is: How on Earth does any marriage survive?  Ignoring the outliers (the successful less-than-30 non-coinhabitants) seems to lead one to an incomplete conclusion.

Because both people in the marriage want it to. I have a theory that relationships require some hardship if they're to survive.

I liken a relationship to building a skyscraper: every good time you have together, every fun thing you share adds a floor.... but without a foundation, the first time trouble comes along that building is going to fall over. The foundation is built on shared difficulties overcome, challenges resolved. Every hard time you endure together digs a deeper foundation; you learn that you can depend on the other when the chips are down, and the trust grows.

Too many relationships, I think, are based on having nothing but good times. They build the floor up and up, but then some problem pops up, the earth starts to shake, and the building falls down. There's no foundation of mutual trust and respect to count on for the hard times. It seems easier to let everything fall down and start over somewhere else.

Conversely, if a relationship is in nothing but a constant state of crisis, you only dig down... and how many people want to live in a hole all the time?

I understand if you think it a trite metaphor, but hey, it's worked for me so far.

but what about steel beams?  where would you be without rock hard steel beams?? 

in yer skyscraper

hey fortius,

i couldn't watch the video (work computer) but i got the gist of it from the discussion in here

can you say what you think is the injustice being addressed (by this thread), specifically?

is it that women usually get custody of the children?
do you believe that courts should always order joint custody?

my brother's first wife was/is a pyschotic, very damaged, very dangerous woman

i don't have time to tell you all the things she put him through, but she alleged abuse (the courts found the charge to be without merit and dismissed it), she used the kids to hurt him (told them lies about him, made them afraid of him), she did not obey the courts and would not allow him to have his visitation, she sued for increase in child support several times a year...  it was an awful saga and he suffered terribly

eventually the courts saw her for what she is - and ordered her and the kids into therapy (she refused and ignored the order, but could no longer demand higher child support because she would have been found in contempt of court for not getting therapy)

ok, so anyway, i have first hand knowledge of a woman exploiting the system to hurt her ex-husband

no doubt there are other women like her

from this do you conclude that all women are like her?

i mean, what's your agenda here?

i'm a feminist, i was on my brother's side of that dispute - there's no inherent conflict between feminism and justice

feminism is about justice

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

but what about steel beams?  where would you be without rock hard steel beams?? 

in yer skyscraper

I got your... nahhh. Not gonna do it. It's too obvious.

Why is it that people always try to bait me into making generalizations? It's like making the generalization that the wage gap is the result of rampant gender discrimination based on a few cases.

My agenda would be raising awareness and getting opinions on the video's assumption that divorce court in America is bias against men, and as a result, should men be wary of marriage.

I don't know what the courts should do right now, but I did read that children who have both parents in their lives (with the exception of abusive parents) tend to lead better lives.

For you to believe that psychotic woman should have full custody would not be in alignment with any moral system because all moral systems in the world tend to respect children and keep them out of harm's way. I don't see what that has to do with feminism or you being a feminist.

Original Post by hatamoto:

Original Post by dnrothx:

I still think the key question to get a real answer to is: How on Earth does any marriage survive?  Ignoring the outliers (the successful less-than-30 non-coinhabitants) seems to lead one to an incomplete conclusion.

Because both people in the marriage want it to. I have a theory that relationships require some hardship if they're to survive.

I liken a relationship to building a skyscraper: every good time you have together, every fun thing you share adds a floor.... but without a foundation, the first time trouble comes along that building is going to fall over. The foundation is built on shared difficulties overcome, challenges resolved. Every hard time you endure together digs a deeper foundation; you learn that you can depend on the other when the chips are down, and the trust grows.

Too many relationships, I think, are based on having nothing but good times. They build the floor up and up, but then some problem pops up, the earth starts to shake, and the building falls down. There's no foundation of mutual trust and respect to count on for the hard times. It seems easier to let everything fall down and start over somewhere else.

Conversely, if a relationship is in nothing but a constant state of crisis, you only dig down... and how many people want to live in a hole all the time?

I understand if you think it a trite metaphor, but hey, it's worked for me so far.

No that's not trite. This is a perfectly good analogy.

Though I'd also add that when the conflicts arise, sometimes you need to stop and figure out whether you need to work on the beams, or climb out of the hole entirely. And sadly, you get some relationships where one person wants to put up steel beams and the other person only wants to dig holes underneath them.

Original Post by fortius:

Why is it that people always try to bait me into making generalizations? It's like making the generalization that the wage gap is the result of rampant gender discrimination based on a few cases.

My agenda would be raising awareness and getting opinions on the video's assumption that divorce court in America is bias against men, and as a result, should men be wary of marriage.

I don't know what the courts should do right now, but I did read that children who have both parents in their lives (with the exception of abusive parents) tend to lead better lives.

For you to believe that psychotic woman should have full custody would not be in alignment with any moral system because all moral systems in the world tend to respect children and keep them out of harm's way. I don't see what that has to do with feminism or you being a feminist.

:)  your hostility and paranoia aside, thank you for spelling out your agenda to raise awareness about how men fare in divorce and whether the courts are biased against men, and whether consequently men should be wary of marriage

i don't believe that my brother's first wife should have had full custody (did i say that?  *goes back to look* nope, didn't say that)

those kids were definitely harmed by being raised by her (the youngest one - 20 y.o - has charges pending against her for larceny, identity theft, whatever it's called when you write bad checks, and other similar crimes)

i honestly was not surprised to find that out (about my niece) because how could those kids NOT turn out to be dysfunctional when raised by her?

I was wondering if you thought that men ought to always receive joint custody because I know men who didn't/don't want custody and didn't/don't take advantage of their visitation rights

I don't necessarily oppose a predisposition in the courts for joint custody

I do oppose people using their children as instruments with which to cause the other parent pain and anguish (which causes pain and anguish to the children most of all)

both genders do this

In the specific case I mentioned, and I'm sure in other cases as well, I'm a feminist who would support court rulings in favor of fathers having custody when that's in the best interests of the children.  Your earlier statements indicated that you think that feminists are irrational, hate-filled, or otherwise opposed to a father having any custodial rights.  I gave you a specific case where you're wrong.

But again, please don't get married. 
I think you will be happier not getting married.

 

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

:)  your hostility and paranoia aside, thank you for spelling out your agenda to raise awareness about how men fare in divorce and whether the courts are biased against men, and whether consequently men should be wary of marriage

Raise awareness [for the purpose] of getting opinions on the video's assumption. Not hostility or paranoia, but suspicion based on numerous anecdotes and skepticism and cynicism based on false statistics, misinformation, and recruitment techniques.

 

 

 

I was wondering if you thought that men ought to always receive joint custody because I know men who didn't/don't want custody and didn't/don't take advantage of their visitation rights.

I believe in the right thing, and the story you mentioned was not the right thing. Some statistics I found may point predominantly to the wrong thing.

 

 

 

Your earlier statements indicated that you think that feminists are irrational, hate-filled, or otherwise opposed to a father having any custodial rights.  I gave you a specific case where you're wrong.

If you can't make an argument against an issue, create your own with some defaming assumptions about the author.

Let's say for sport that all feminists are against fathers having child custody. Do you think a feminist would violate a basic universal moral principle such as child safety to fulfill the selfish desire to make all fathers lose child custody battles? Especially when the child in question is the feminist's close family? Do you think the rule still applies and is not negated when the mother in question is abusive and potentially insane?

But again, please don't get married. 
I think you will be happier not getting married.

I don't need to get married, I have more ho's than Santa Claus. lol

 

Original Post by fortius:

Let's say for sport that all feminists are against fathers having child custody. Do you think a feminist would violate a basic universal moral principle such as child safety to fulfill the selfish desire to make all fathers lose child custody battles? Especially when the child in question is the feminist's close family? Do you think the rule still applies and is not negated when the mother in question is abusive and potentially insane?

 

Nomo's anecdote about her brother and sister-in-law along with her self-identification as a feminist, pretty much already answered this question. What exactly would be the point of arguing a fictionalized notion "for sport" instead of discussing the actualities?

The actuality is built into the question, just with the premise  that she erroneously attributed to my belief system, that is "All feminists believe in denying fathers child custody."

You guys play a dirty game.

 

E D I T: Here is another thing to think about. If one member of a group violates the group's doctrine, does that mean that the whole group does not believe, support or follow the doctrine that was violated? Some Nazis helped Jews, Christians fornicate, Americans burn flags, Muslims commit terrorist acts.

This is the fallacy: because one member of a group violates group doctrine, the violation automatically becomes group doctrine and practiced by all group members.

But this is all for the sake of sport...

ok so men should not marry and this www.teethmovie.com is why men should not have sex either.

edit: oops, stupid html,

edit edit:ok fine why isnt this working like it usually does for me, sigh

Original Post by hatamoto:

Kate's cute as a button with an awesome smile, but Goldie's got a better rack.

 

 Yeah.  But she has a heine the size of New Mexico.  I guess if you're into ta-tas...Kate isn't a great example.  And actually, if you're a "chest" man...age probably doesn't matter as much either because old chicks actually usually have much larger endowment.  But then again, so do the very obese...so I guess you have to find where you cutoff the inner desire to motorboat your way to bliss.

Why isn't Fortius talking about Kate Hudson and her Mom (Oooo...there's a fantasy!)? 

All this child support/divorce talk is making me depressed.  Some of us married folks would rather not think about it.  Fortunately, neither me nor my wife can afford a divorce right now...so we're set.  Marital bliss by default I guess.

And marriage is not like a friggin skyscraper Moto!  Geez.  It's like a swamp.  At first, it's sort of fun because you discover all kinds of cool stuff (like weird frogs and tires and broken coolers).  And it's awesome fun to ride your motorcycle through it on a hot day until it stalls out. 

But then, after you have your fun for awhile.  You realize the swamp mud sort of smells bad and you got leeches on ya and now your motorcycle is broken because you got water in the engine.