Women on SS are atypical

[Truly Exotic]

With the rules in terms of finance, custody in divorce heavily skewed towards the women, combined with today's feminism crusader fueled society where many think equal opportunity equals exercising equal rights when it suits them, I'm surprised, any male would be stupid enough to even consider getting marriage

And for those that say "we are different, we will last forever" I'd say you are delusional

 

[Fifth]

In any dynamic, there is always a natural leader and a natural follower. You will find, if you get to know gay people and monitor relationships (like I have) that there is almost always a 'male' and a 'female'. This occurs in lesbian relationships, too.

You claimed 'men have and always will be natural leaders'. You also claim men in homosexual relationships can be 'natural followers' and women in lesbian relationships 'natural leaders'. There's a huge contradiction right there.

And you believe these exceptions exist only within the realms of homosexuality?

And do you also believe that it's impossible to be a leader sometimes and a follower at other times?

There are over 7 billion people in the world with a magnificent array of quirks and idiosyncrasies. Is seems fairly naive to tar all of humanity with the same brush, particularly when you've already contradicted yourself with regards to our 'natural' evolutionary roles.

Personally, I don't go to evolutionary psychology textbooks for marriage advice. I'd rather take advice from successfully married couples (i.e. no divorce and both parties are overall happy). A lot of men's rights activist marriage guides with their absurdly rigid criteria are written by either 1. bitter divorcees (and bitter for valid reasons, no doubt) or 2. unmarried men. Neither are success stories.

It's quite presumptuous that men's rights activists are dismissive of any marriage (no matter how successful) which contradicts their viewpoint.

And some of the checklists are really quite silly. For instance, in the link you posted, a woman should be from a stable nuclear family to be marriage-worthy. Baby Boomers were mostly raised in stable nuclear families and they went on to divorce en masse.

 

[cimbom]

Time to get politically incorrect again. Women marry up. When was the last time you saw a female lawyer married to a mechanic? Getting back to evolutionary instinct, how many women are going to view a guy who makes less than she does, works in a lower status job than she does as someone who can protect and provide for her offspring? I'm not talking a few thousand dollars here, I'm talking a significant difference. Social status is exceedingly important to many women. As Dr. Warren Farrell says 'Men view women as sex objects, women view men as success objects'.

I guess I would be a "politically incorrect" example. My husband and I have been married for 1.5 years and been together for 5. He currently makes 45% of my salary (just calculated it now). Sure, it's only temporary while he is studying, but it will be at least 10 years, if not a few more, before he will outearn me. Considering the fact that I'm almost 27 and he is the same age, if we have kids, it will very likely be before this "out-earning" stage so there goes that argument. I didn't get two and half uni qualifications and dedicate years to my profession, to be "provided for and protected" by someone else. I'm more than capable of working and contributing financially. We work well together as a team and that is a great thing IMO. My father who is very traditional thought I was stupid to go into a marriage like that but really, he isn't the best judge. Believe it or not, some women look for a range of qualities in potential partners.

 

[Dazz]

so there goes that argument

Not at all.

Humans have this inane quality that as soon as someone states something, everyone desperately tries to pick an exception, find that one, or possibly two rare examples which goes against trend, which invalidates the original proposition.

It does nothing of the sort.

Hasn't anyone heard of the saying "there will always be exceptions to the rule" ??

It doesn't make the rule untrue.


Saying that "in general, men are physically stronger than women" is not invalidated by someone mentioning "I know a Bulgarian woman who was the strongest person in her village, so that rule is obviously not true".

The exception is just that.

 

[Francesco]

......
No one needs a study to realise that. Having your children stripped away, lies and innuedo being told about you in the subtle ways that endure, the pain of being shunted out of the marriage home.

Pfftt....lack of money - who cares....doesn't even rate compared to the pain most Dads go thru losing their kids. How much is a ripped out heart worth ??

I just came back on this subject and over a dozen contributions, anecdotes and experiences were shared. Most have some contributions I agree with and consider 'truths'. However, it is a study that can give an objective summation in a methodical approach to distill some conclusions. The study confirms that divorced man generally suffer emotionally from the divorce. This shows that on this aspect alone divorce is not what man generally want. However, they must have contributed to it happening even if they generally are not the ones who initiated divorce as the saying goes 'it takes two to tango'.

I sympathise with the emotional damage to the psyche of the divorced man. The children can mean so much to any parent and to be denied access to them is truly mean and unjust. No wonder family courts were bombed and presiding judges shot at not too long ago by aggrieved divorced fathers. I am not condoning those criminal acts but can impagine that they were the desperate acts of divorced fathers in custodial proceedings, which appear to be unfairly biased against them. The family court appears to be failing them.

On a brighter note, I attended a church wedding between a Cambodian and a Chinese. All the traditional beliefs for a happy life together were there:

1) religious belief that the union is spiritually inspired
2) oath to be mate for life, for better or for worse, signed certificate, exchanged rings
3) church members, colleagues and family members as witnesses
4) presents and good wishes of support were made
5) everyone was dressed to celebrate the couple's union

For the couple, the wedding marks a happy event in their lives. It is not a power struggle that brought them together. It was love, companionship and complementarity. They were not trained for many of the situations they will face in the future but I think they will manage if they seek the good for each other.

'He who loves his wife loves himself.' Ephesians 5:28

'Happy wife, happy life'

 

[AlmostBob]

My ex-wife made the claim during our divorce
I was too obnoxious to give in, eventually won my case
I was awarded full sole custody of my son

Australia still funded my ex's flight to Canada, supreme court barristers and qc, put her up in a hotel , provide car etc
and on the first day of the hearing for 'International Child Abduction' under the Hague Convention,
she plead no contest, hasnt spoken to him in 12 years
but she did get a holiday, which the Commonwealth of Australia has sent letters demanding I pay for.
equality, bullsh_t

 

[Dazz]

Nice post AlmostBob,

Your pain shows through - still.

I've always wondered why when -

mothers take the kids the reaction is "well done, best thing really, now, what financial support do you need"

fathers take the kids the reaction is "call the Police, the children have been abducted"

as you say...

equality, bullsh_t

...there's nothing of the sort.

 

[Truly Exotic]

Not at all.

Humans have this inane quality that as soon as someone states something, everyone desperately tries to pick an exception, find that one, or possibly two rare examples which goes against trend, which invalidates the original proposition.

It does nothing of the sort.

Hasn't anyone heard of the saying "there will always be exceptions to the rule" ??

It doesn't make the rule untrue.


Saying that "in general, men are physically stronger than women" is not invalidated by someone mentioning "I know a Bulgarian woman who was the strongest person in her village, so that rule is obviously not true".

The exception is just that.

Exactly! people seem to think if they are an exception, then the rule/observation is wrong,

it comes out a lot when you do Gen Y bashing,

on another note, I have a friend who says she works with a former NBA basketballer from Japan in the 70s, I thought, 1970s?, Japanese?, he must be about 6ft which would have been massive back then!

he is apparently 7ft 8!!!

 

[china]

Time to get politically incorrect again. Women marry up. When was the last time you saw a female lawyer married to a mechanic? Getting back to evolutionary instinct, how many women are going to view a guy who makes less than she does, works in a lower status job than she does as someone who can protect and provide for her offspring? I'm not talking a few thousand dollars here, I'm talking a significant difference. Social status is exceedingly important to many women. As Dr. Warren Farrell says 'Men view women as sex objects, women view men as success objects'.

At work a few months back, I was chatting to a female co-worker who was recently divorced. I asked her what she was looking for in an ideal new husband? Her answer, while surprisingly frank, didn't shock me: 'A guy who earns at least six figures so that I can afford to stay home and raise children'.

What about Margaret Thatcher, Julia Gillard, Britney Spears?

How do you explain guys in their 30s who earn six to seven figures with no wives/girlfriends/partners?

 

[Aaron_C]

What about Margaret Thatcher, Julia Gillard, Britney Spears?

How do you explain guys in their 30s who earn six to seven figures with no wives/girlfriends/partners?

You just proved Dazz's point about looking for the small exception and criticising the rule...

 

[BayView]

How do you explain guys in their 30s who earn six to seven figures with no wives/girlfriends/partners?

Smart.

Nah; seriously, I would say the percentage of guys in that category would be small.

And I would venture to say that most of that small percentage would put out the veneer of being the carefree "James Bond" type playboy with the lifestyle, but would secretly love to be in a happy relationship.

From my experience, most successful (and wealthy - the two do not always go together) men are in secure relationships, have a number of interests and a few close friends, lots of colleagues and contacts, are often workaholics, are generous and enjoy life for the most part.

 

[china]

Smart.

Nah; seriously, I would say the percentage of guys in that category would be small.

And I would venture to say that most of that small percentage would put out the veneer of being the carefree "James Bond" type playboy with the lifestyle, but would secretly love to be in a happy relationship.

From my experience, most successful (and wealthy - the two do not always go together) men are in secure relationships, have a number of interests and a few close friends, lots of colleagues and contacts, are often workaholics, are generous and enjoy life for the most part.

I know a few chaps earning over 200k per year with no one. They go home, watch tv and surf internet to use rsvp and e-harmony.

 

[cimbom]

Humans have this inane quality that as soon as someone states something, everyone desperately tries to pick an exception, find that one, or possibly two rare examples which goes against trend, which invalidates the original proposition.

That would be true if the argument was presented as a generalisation.

The wording used was "When was the last time you saw a female lawyer married to a mechanic? Getting back to evolutionary instinct, how many women are going to view a guy who makes less than she does, works in a lower status job than she does as someone who can protect and provide for her offspring?"

To me, this implies that even exceptions to the rule are extremely rare - so much so that almost everyone wouldn't even know of one example that goes against it, which is ridiculous. It's uncommon but it's not that rare. That's why I made my post.

 

[weg]

If the vast majority of guys don't earn 6 figures and aren't wealthy and still manage to attract a partner, it implies to me that the vast majority of women do not marry men for their income/wealth.

The exception then are the ones that do marry for wealth.

I've said it here before... I believe the majority of women want an employable husband with similar aspirations/goals, and who is able to work as part of a team.

 

[Francesco]

If the vast majority of guys don't earn 6 figures and aren't wealthy and still manage to attract a partner, it implies to me that the vast majority of women do not marry men for their income/wealth.

The exception then are the ones that do marry for wealth.

I've said it here before... I believe the majority of women want an employable husband with similar aspirations/goals, and who is able to work as part of a team.

It is relative wealth to be able to provide a comfortable and secure lifestyle that women basically require. It is not so apparent in Australia with welfare system to provide the basic needs but in third world countries with large populations, women know what they basically need to have a reasonable lifestyle. I am not disparaging the motives of women. I have personally experienced the ease of getting women to be interested if I were so inclined in third world countries.

The personal experience reinforces the impression of ongoing strong demand from Aussie men in overseas brides from undeveloped countries. Women from overseas undeveloped countries face intense domestic competition to get a good provider whereas Australian man can provide, failing which the welfare system will provide. In addition, their initial 'sacrifice' opens the loophole for migration and better life for the extended family.

 

[weg]

Agree fully, but I was not referring to women in third world countries where 'survival' is a motivating factor when choosing a mate.

 

[Truly Exotic]

That would be true if the argument was presented as a generalisation.

The wording used was "When was the last time you saw a female lawyer married to a mechanic? Getting back to evolutionary instinct, how many women are going to view a guy who makes less than she does, works in a lower status job than she does as someone who can protect and provide for her offspring?"

To me, this implies that even exceptions to the rule are extremely rare - so much so that almost everyone wouldn't even know of one example that goes against it, which is ridiculous. It's uncommon but it's not that rare. That's why I made my post.

I found it ironic when paris hilton who is a squillionaire, dated stavros from greece, son of a shipping magnate, who was apparently a squillionaire x 10!

 

[willair]

How do you explain guys in their 30s who earn six to seven figures with no wives/girlfriends/partners?

Maybe they are batting for the other team,just that the life they lead in public is quite different from the life behind closed doors,just like the small street we live in,Various Gay Men live on both sides of us and you could not get better people to have as neighbours,but unless your switched on to what happens in the real world you would never know,and by the way on both sides combined income would be above 500k,and they travel for over three months per year,but if your were too see them in the street you would not pick them unless they talked to you,it's not all black and white
China..

 

[Dazz]

I found it ironic when paris hilton who is a squillionaire

Not sure about that. She boasts she is worth ~ 100m.


All of the journalists label her the "hotel heiress", but that doesn't stack up against what the controller of the Hilton chain claims.


The founder, Conrad started a charitable trust, and his son Barron Hilton stated on Xmas day 2007 that 97% of the empire (worth 2.3 Billion) would go into a charitable trust and eventually merge with his fathers.


That other 3% of the 2.3 Billion is worth 69m. I'm not sure out of all the gandkids that Paris would get most of it.


I wouldn't call her a hotel heiress at all....and if she states she's worth 100m, then the truth would probably be closer to 5 or 10% of that....knowing how they all carry on.

 

[shuggy]

If the vast majority of guys don't earn 6 figures and aren't wealthy and still manage to attract a partner, it implies to me that the vast majority of women do not marry men for their income/wealth.

No.

It implies that women don't have any choice because the vast majority of available men don't earn 6 figures.