Podcast: Divorce Court 101
Statistics indicate that the divorce rate is high--some say up to fifty percent of marriages in the US end in divorce while others say it is lower, but still high. Are you about to become one of these statistics or know someone who is? Then you have to listen to our dicussion with divorce attorney, Lauren Strange-Boston, who joins us in our studio today to discuss how men and women differ when it comes to negotiating the terms of divorce. We will focus first on what to look for in a spouse in order to avoid divorce, how to find a good divorce attorney if the worst happens and you need one, how to manage your feelings in the most effective way (hint: anger and/or manipulation may not win your case), and what to do if your soon-to-be ex decides to bring charges against you for sexual abuse or other serious allegations.
You can listen to the podcast by clicking here (no iPod necessary) or you can subscribe via iTunes here. Here is a link to our podcast archive if you want to listen to previous podcasts here. And there's a low-fi version for dialup users right here.
Please leave any comments or suggestions below
You can listen to the podcast by clicking here (no iPod necessary) or you can subscribe via iTunes here. Here is a link to our podcast archive if you want to listen to previous podcasts here. And there's a low-fi version for dialup users right here.
Please leave any comments or suggestions below
posted by Helen at 9:47 AM
46 Comments:
one of the best audio clips i've ever heard. you should commercialize it as a pre-marital decision aid.
Anonymous 9:06:
So glad you liked it!
Is there any alternate download loactions? We have tight security at my installation and centcom blocks most stuff like that.
mg. OIF
Extraordinarily good news to see this topic getting exposure. The divorce industry has gotten completely out of control and is itself spawning massive undue pressure on the American marriage and family. It must be reformed.
anonymous 9:37:
You can find it on iTunes or there is a dial up version etc. but it all comes from the same server.
One piece of advice they should add: never burn your bridges. I, or to be more exact, my ex, found that out by experience. www.franceshardy.com
I Read the instatpundit
http://instapundit.com/archives/030844.php
""As always, my lovely and talented cohost is soliciting comments and suggestions.""
I will say that your photo shows a good looking woman, I do not know about the talent but could give you the benefit ....
PLEASE PLEASE:
Could you tell The Pundit to stop the groveling in all the posts where he mentions you.
Then I would say that finaly you reached equality.
Ann Þ
Which is upset that a woman would accept such display of ( very negative word to be inserted by reader) by a man , any man, and assuredly by a man near to her....
PS
I will never read a word from you until HE stops to be a sad puppy.
I will keep reading him but cringe at every refence to the.......Helen
Ann Whatever,
You do realize that Glenn (InstaPundit) and Helen are husband and wife, right?
Dr. Helen,
You seem awfully convinced that men get the shaft in court. Every man I know who got divorced, even one who molested his grandchildren which caused the divorce, will claim that they got the shaft. Many men invariably claim shock and surprise that their spouse doesn't want to be married to them and immediately believe the evil bxxtch wants "my money". It couldn't possibly be that she didn't want him.
Women, on the otherhand, seem to revel in victimhood. He did this to me--not, he showed me his stripes, I stayed with him, married him, birthed children to him over and over and over and now I'm surprised that he did this to me. They negate the little choices they make over and over. They manipulate and believe they can change someone. They protect their own bad choices by putting up with bad behavior and then claiming innocence. They initiate physical contact and when they experience retaliation (which is a lot more damaging) they ignore their own part in the play.
I get sick and tired of women not being held to account. But give me a break, men are no angels and are hardly victims of the system. The lawyer you interviewed said that men want to "strike back" verbally, monitarily, etc. Surely you've seen that with your clients, no?
Have you seen the statistics on divorced fathers of children and paying for college tuition? Guys who would have paid tuition for their kids had they stayed married will refuse because their "legal obligation ends at 18" even though their former stay-at-home wife now works in a much lower paying profession. They punish the children for their own stupidity at procreating with this woman they now despise. The whole process is looked at in legal terms instead of moral terms. Of course, while mom and dad are playing defense and offense exchanging points, their kids are the losers.
Custody issues are a whole other thing. For the parents its about GETTING "my time". The whole divorce system is set up to look at the parents interests. The children are pawns. Excusing bad behavior by women or men just means buying into the myth that grown adults are the biggest losers. They're NOT.
I won't engage in debate but I will present some facts borne out by research and statistic. All of this info is available, much of it from the feds:
-The divorce industry grants women sole custody 85% of the time sole custody is granted.
-Joint custody is also found in a very small majority.
-False charges of domestic violence pave the way for the highly unconstitutional theft of property, income, and the children themselves. Such strategies are commonplace advice from the divorce industry and naturally follow the 85/15 ratio of moms/dads custody. It pays!
-There is no presumption of innocence in divorce and custody. Get divorced against your will and lose your basic rights; no questions, no recourse. You will be denied equal protection, due process, presumption of innocence, right to freedom and property, legalized kidnapping without representation. Yes, this includes prison in a country where debtor's prison is outlawed.
-Averaging all research shows that domestic violence is absolutely 50/50 with regard to gender. The abusive-man stereotype is a myth perpetuated by feminists in order to bilk any number of federal and local programs of billions in favor of women, another constitutional violation.
-Federal Title IV-D is co-mingled with welfare and pays the states huge sums to create acrimony and thereby profit in divorce court and environs. Title IV-D is an adjunct to Joe Biden's sexist VAWA, which is utterly gender-biased in favor of women. One simply cannot overstate the for-profit myth-making and profit in the divorce industry.
-New Bush-enacted legislation will force all schoolchildren to undergo psychiatric evaluation as a condition of public schooling. This is a parallel issue to the corruption in the pharma industry, a close cousin to the divorce industry that makes additional millions referring kids out to medicating psychiatrists as part of divorce court. Get separated and watch your kids go through the hell of the psych/pharma/welfare/socials services gauntlet.
-Legal associations co-mingle the family court bench and your local family attorneys. Reports of custody rulings favoring attorney campaign contributors are rife in the divorce industry. Legislators hear testimony from judges, a violation of the separation of powers and virtually all state constitutions. Feminist and pharma lobbyists also maintain the profitable status quo.
Follow the money, folks. Family court and the divorce industry are shameless, unconstitutional, and are making a killing killing your family. Don't let them.
Divorce Rate in California (*)
Year Marriages Divorces Divorce Rate
2000 196896 156531 79.5%
2001 224241 154672 69.0%
2002 217880 160854 73.8%
2003 194914 148511 76.2%
2004 172302 150180 87.2%
(*) Data from the California Court Statistics
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/3_stats.htm
In California at least, marriage and divorce is big business.
Don't feed the machine. Stay single. Stay free.
I'm a child of divorce.
I have to comment that taking the high road IS the better option for parents. Despite the fact that my father left my mother for another woman, didn't pay enough child support (my mom would take one chicken and make soup so the meat would last the whole week), and then tried to take away a small inheritance my grandmother left my brother and I my mom didn't bad mouth him--she didn't want us to believe our dad was a bad person and that we were "bad" by extension.
Dad bad mouthed her all the time.
My brother and I didn't even know it was my dad who'd left us, didn't know we were poor because he didn't pay child support on a regular basis (no, HE wasn't poor). We still forgave Mom for "leaving Dad" because he seemed so childish and mean putting her down all the time...even by Junior High we'd decided he must be really weak.
It was only as we got older that we found out the truth from relatives and by confronting our mother on certain issues.
Mom remarried a GREAT guy who was a fantastic father to my brother and I, and a great husband. He loved us like we were his own.
Our father kind of spent his emotional bank account and neither my brother or I trust him --he keeps trying to get back in touch...but we both are afraid he wants the money we've both had to work so hard to earn (he's now sick and broke living on Social Security).
Taking the low road is a great way to loose your children in the end--although taking the high road is a hell of a lot harder in the short run.
"I will never read a word from you until HE stops to be a sad puppy."
Puppies. You HAD to bring up puppies.
I'd be careful with those divorce statistics. For example, suppose we have a population of 10 couples. 2 couples get divorced then remarried then divorced again. Now we have 12 marriages 4 of which have ended in divorce. Our hypothetical divorce rate is over 33%, but does that mean that any old marriage has a 33% chance of failing?
Possible Bad Data Alert
Year Marriages Divorces Divorce Rate
2000 196896 156531 79.5%
2001 224241 154672 69.0%
2002 217880 160854 73.8%
2003 194914 148511 76.2%
2004 172302 150180 87.2%
Uhhhmmm is "marriages" the total number of married couples? Seems a tad low to me for CA with millions and millions of people. My guess is that the marriages are marriages for that year, hence the divorce rate is upwardly biased in that divorces can be any marriage from that year or previous year.
Steve I fail to see your point. We can also contemplate a scenario were 10 couples marry 4 get a divorce, 2 remarry and stay that way. 12 marriages 4 of which have ended in a divorce. a rate of 33% but 40% of the people involved has experienced a divorce. Is that what you were trying to say? that a 33% divorce rate does not mean that 33% of people would have experienced a divorce? if so, true, but as I have showed the actual percentage of divorcees may be higher or lower that the divorce rate. Or were you trying to say that people that divorce once are more likely to have more divorces?
The comments here make excellent points about equality. But an important thing to remember is that same-sex marriage will change all of this, and as a straight man I figured this out years ago. We should support it, not just because it's equal, but because it helps straight couples too.
Once feminists figure out, in a couple of years, that gay marriage takes away their exclusive power and royal female privilege (alimony, custody, and right to abuse kids) they will violently oppose it. Sadly, the NOW ladies will eventually turn gay-basher to fix the problem. Today, they expect a man to propose and a woman to dispose. Somebody must be forced to write the check and somebody must cash it. The other comments here, and widespread experience, has confirmed this one-way payment scenario. If there is no test to see who "the man" is, then such a mode of operation is impossible. So the feminists will be worse off and be shooting at their own foot. I would love to hear how it is not inevitable.
"But an important thing to remember is that same-sex marriage will change all of this, and as a straight man I figured this out years ago. We should support it, not just because it's equal, but because it helps straight couples too. "
"Sadly, the NOW ladies will eventually turn gay-basher to fix the problem. "
Will? Honey, you are late to the party. See GayPatriot on this issue - they continually point out how one-way the flow of support is from gay (male) organizations to feminist ones on all the feminist hot button issues, with nothing in return.
It's not just simple selfishness and opportunism. It is a philosphical position with these people. I remember reading some writer musing how the whole gay movement was really a patriarchal gambit to diminish women's power (ie. how wicked and controlling men were not to let themselves be lead around by the short handle) I guess the "thinking" was that men have some kind of obligation.
"Today, they expect a man to propose and a woman to dispose."
Well, what is the mechanism? Of course, with so many women so sexually inept - hint; lying there and daring him to give you and orgasm, letting him "get some", does not make you Good In Bed - it's not hard for the competition to leave them in the dust - I am here to tell you that there is an almost unending supply of married men who swing both ways. (And spare me the Church Lady moralizing and the tearful recriminations - no one strays if he is really in love, and it takes two to tango in that as in most thngs marital. Besides, you are not necessarily in the right just because he is in the wrong.)
Maybe Restoring isn't referring only to a wider range of sexual options. Then too, maybe he is just referring to an image in society of men enjoying life very well, in respectable suburban comfort, without depending on women.
A comment for those of you who practice domestic law and/or who are in a position to speak to policy issues.
Both in my own divorce and in those of some friends, I noticed a particularly thorny issue and think it is structural in the current system.
I refer to the practice of trying all issues, including custody, in a single proceeding. In the context of settlement, then, what happens is similar to what happened to me:
Three months before trial, we received recommendations from our mediator and facilitator on an appropriate parenting time schedule. The attorneys and parties agreed to these items and put them into the circulation drafts of the stupulated decree.
Negotiations then proceeded. Two weeks before trial, the other side made an absurd financial demand. But they also said if we did not acquiese to that demand everything was off the table. Given the brevity of docket time we'd get, we knew the bulk of trial would then be spent fighting about custody and parenting time. This happens very often, according to divorce lawyers I've spoken to. It puts the non-custodial parent (usually the man) in the impossible position of being forced to accept huge and inequitable financial concessions or face less than was already agreed on how much time he would get to see his attorneys.
It would appear, from where I sit, that separating the financial issues from the custody / parenting issues would keep this from occurring. Any other thoughts?
Thank you Jim for the excellent analysis. I guess once a few gay divorces kick in and feminists cry "where's my free lifetime divorce paycheck?", the NOW anger will accelerate.
No recriminations needed if there is honesty. Good in bed, as you suggest, requires a two-way street. But if a partner is totally honest and non-exploitive, learning to be good in bed for each other would follow. But one can't start out with a partner who is "good in bed" and then require honesty and fairness arrive later in a relationship (who is really that "good" in their unlearned youth?).
Jim, I wasn't referring to men not "depending on women", so much as saying let's keep it mutual and voluntary without the feminist guns at our heads. Divorce is a feminist profit center, using children as hostage. Yes, I was one of those kids years ago, though it's too late for me. The faster gay marriage is established, the faster the feminist battleship is sunk and our fathers can get their rights back.
"Thank you Jim for the excellent analysis. I guess once a few gay divorces kick in and feminists cry "where's my free lifetime divorce paycheck?", the NOW anger will accelerate".
I really don't understand. Why is gay divorce going to affect the feminist stance on divorce?. You thing gay marriage and divorce will mean less money for exploitive women? why? I fail to see the mechanism.
From the podcast:
"Don't disparage your spouse in front of your children."
Absotively. I can remember the shouts and the screaming between my parents. I can remember my Dad saying horrible things about my Mom. They divorced when I was 7. Do adults ever consider how traumatic this shit is to children? Let me tell you, it is the WORST feeling a child can have. The child's life is already being torn apart, and when one parent disparages another in front of that child it makes the child feel that the parents aren't just splitting up, one of them will be gone for good.
If you parents feel the need to have your stupid pissy screaming matches, wait until the kids have gone off to school for the day, or wait until the kids are asleep, go to your car, shut the doors and roll up the windows. Then scream. Your kids don't need to hear that crap.
I kinda wish my mom would have disparaged my dad a little more. Then I wouldn't have thought of his garbage as being "normal" and desireable in a mate. Some things are not okay.
I think that the suggestion that custody and asset division processes be divided makes a lot of sense. Frankly asset division, as distinct from alimony and support adjudication, should probably be removed from the discretion of family courts entirely. IANAL but from what I understand of family court rules and procedures, these seem wholey inadequate to the equitable determination of property allocation. Such disputes are probably more appropriate to civil courts where they could be treated as matters of contract.
as to 'gay marriage':
IMO a potent reform movement could be founded on the recognition that advocates of traditional and homosexual marriages share a common interest - to establish a definition of marriage which transcends the caprice of state authority.
I'm not sure how much clearer it can be said than by the statistics themselves, Atticus. The system is epidemically slanted against men and the reasons are simply too myriad to explain in a short comment.
Follow the money, follow the special interest, and follow the cultural stereotypes. Family law feminism, as with all feminist policy, is about anything but gender equity.
That's not opinion. Start with iFeminists.com and GlennSacks.com. Then research the US govt itself for legislation enabling the systemic and systematic ruin of a great statistical majority of fathers.
It's not for nothing that despite all the complaining and mythmaking about glass ceilings and wage gaps that US women own literally billions more in personal property than men. Or that women outlive men.
It's also not for no reason that women are the statistical majority of child abusers yet enjoy primary custody five times more than men.
Although it is, ultimately the issue shouldn't be about the war between the sexes. It should be about a highly socialized, authoritarian government where law is bought and sold for special interest votes.
I enjoyed this podcast.
I have heard this lawyer's observations many times from many different sources. The high divorce rate is driven by unrealistic expectations for marriage and choosing partners based on fleeting attractions instead of choosing your best friend.
I'm guessing people are either ignoring these observations which are being proved by the test of time or they are ignorant of them.
Steve R
Great Podcast as always, but just wanted to mention that something about Strange-Boston's voice clicked with me. Whether it was some tinkering with audio settings or just her charismatic speaking, I was extra irked when this podcast ran out of time.
I cannot imagine how this attorney cannot see any injustice except from the protective order side. Is the protective order, having been awarded, an advantage in the remainder of the case? After all, as she says, judges are people too. No matter how the law delineates, its all one big morass.
Her observation that men want to go litigate each development along the way seems counter to the nature of men and women. Seems women are the ones who really want that judge to proclaim their ex a horses back side, in a very gossipy way.
I just don't buy this interview.
Good luck with the idea of reforming family law. Too many "Licensed-To-Steal" lawyers are involved. - MyPGP.Com
Remember that the Divorce Industry is just that --- a lucrative business that channels billions of dollars to all of its various franchisees: the attorneys, judges, women’s advocates, DV counselors, child support collectors, police, drug companies, liquor dealers, shrinks, self-help book authors, etc. etc.
The expert attorney had lots of good advice about how to navigate through a divorce, but I can’t recall if she had any actual suggestions about how the easy drive-through no-fault divorce system could be reformed in order to restore marriage and family as viable social institutions.
Most of the experts lamenting the tragedies of divorce depend upon continued high levels of divorce to make their livings.
A long time ago I learned that when you see a system that is obviously "broken," ask yourself – "but on the other hand, who is it working very well for?"
As nep admin said so astutely -
"Follow the money, folks. Family court and the divorce industry are shameless, unconstitutional, and are making a killing killing your family. Don't let them."
Dear Dr Helen
The podcast on divorce matters was very good, and it is a pleasure to hear two genuinely intelligent women talking about these vital issues with a realism and commonsense that is sadly lacking in the average academically educated woman (and generally speaking man also) nowadays.
Furthermore, I'd like to congratulate you on your earlier post "Who Stole Psychology"
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2005/11/who-stole-psychology.html
Though at that time wholly unaware of your website or earlier article I recently wrote and published an article on the following website called "How the Feminists Stole Psychology."
http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3494000
(downloadable using a client such as BitTornado completely free along with any of the other works, or failing that as a direct download as a PDF file from the web site below.)
I supply this information merely for you and your reader's benefit, because I do not make any money from my writing in any way, and I am in fact wholly anonymous, as "Sam Fryman" is merely a pseudonym as with many writers.
Commenting briefly on your podcast, I can say that in England where I live, the situation on divorce and relationship breakdowns is every bit as bad or worse than in America, and as always, children are the greatest victims.
I have argued in one of my works that the pre-nuptial or - as attorney Lauren put it "ante-nuptial" - agreements should be made compusory in all marriages, not only as a legally protective measure in terms of property and custody issues of children, but as an essential exercise in determining whether a prospective married couple should ever marry in the first place, because I would extend this pre-nuptial agreement to a much broader (though not necessarily public in all instances) contract including questions of the compatibility of religious practices and beliefs (e.g. one person might insist on regular attendance at church or doing meditations in isolation, which may annoy or alienate the other party), where and how any children should be schooled and educated, division of labour on childcare/housework, sexual tendencies (i.e. will one party demand sexual practices the other may not wish to consent to), discipline of children (do both parents approve smacking, and in what situations?) and as full as possible a confession of personal habits (e.g. the toothpaste sqeeze issue attorney Lauren mentioned, raising the toilet seat, which side of bed preferred, sticking finger in ear; compulsive car fixing, playing of a musical instrument, sport watching etc.) which are likely to drive the other person crazy, so that both parties before any marriage know who their partner really is, rather than just basing the relationship wholly on sexual attraction and again as Lauren said,"unrealistic expectations" as happens now.
So may I just finish by wishing you luck with everything you do, and promising I will try and find an opportunity to mention you in any of my future works, which in general are downloaded by several thousands people on one site or another, each time I publish something new.
best wishes
Sam Fryman
the only problem would be who would police it, oh my hubbie plays the guitar and i hate it, lets have a divorce, on those grounds of cruelty..
he sleeps on his left side.. and that breaks the contract.. lets sue him.. this is worse case.
No, you're missing the point.
You would know about the guitar playing and how "hubbie" sleeps before marrying, and decide if you can live with that.
So you would "police it" yourself, by not getting married in the first place if you couldn't agree terms.
You are mistaken to take such a mocking attitude, because for example, there is a real life case of a woman who killed her husband because of his obsessive playing of the electric organ.
Please think more carefully before casually criticising the ideas of someone who has researched and studied his materials for over a quarter of a century.
but your saying that people cant change their habits, that they have to document every moment of their live, past, present and future, in a single document.
what if i decide to take up the guitar, and she hates it, people change, i used to like one thing, now i dont, i like another..
so document your entire life, interests, sleep patterns, if you like spicy sauces.. its beyond silly, my fiance cant stand a certain herb, but i love it, does that mean we shouldnt get married..
No, I'm just saying that in so far as possible, each party should be aware of all the potential problems at least at the outset.
For example, if you would not take up a new job without a detailed contract explaining your duties, rights, obligations, and "working conditions", which only a fool would fail to do, why on earth would you want to go into a marriage without any proper contract as to your rights, duties and obligations?
However, in many ways life is made of trivia such as you mention, and what is trivial to one person - e.g. someone who likes to sleep in late and stay up till 2 or 3am in the morning - could drive another person crazy.
In the days before people had a TV in every room, fights used to break out over which TV channel would be tuned.
I think it is not therefore unreasonable to suggest that people who disagree about a significant lifestyle issue should decide if they are going to be able to compromise on it, should they marry, and therefore be forced to live together.
You see, the sort of dicussion we are having here for example is very much like an argument of a married couple.
I say something I think is fairly obvious and acceptable. Then you raise points I think ill considered and needlessly argumentative.
So likely we are in a pattern by now of this cat and mouse, tit for tat, and I am not seeing any signs of agreement yet.
Thus, should we be of opposite gender, I would have decided by now that we weren't suitable to get married.
I wonder if you are going to change my view of you with your next reply?
"So likely we are in a pattern by now of this cat and mouse, tit for tat, and I am not seeing any signs of agreement yet."
You Sir have so misunderstood feminist "logic."
There was never any cat and mouse game.
Never any chance SHE would SEE AND ACCEPT your point of view.
You thought you could be the "CAT."
(If you ONLY played the game correctly.... obvious male fallacy.)
You were always, and merely, and tragically, the MOUSE.
(She defined you as the mouse at the get-go....)
Did I miss the predatory poster's feminist sense of discretion, compassion, or honor?
Well, any documentation of feminist's compassion for men would surely be real news!
Worthy of media coverage?
dear anonymous
I am very clear on what the motivation and modus operandi of both the average female and the feminist mind is.
That is to say, briefly, feminism has developed not via the ridiculous "penis envy" of Freud, but merely due to envy of the traditional male dominant role in society which has been reflected in the more favourable treatment of boys by fathers and mothers in comparison to girls.
In my work "How the Feminists Stole Psychology" I have quoted the short biographies from a feminist web site of the "founding mothers" of modern psychology, such as Anna Freud, Karen Horney, Melanie Klein and a number of others, who all had troubled relationship with their parents - usually fathers - and felt cruelly discriminated against in comparison to usually a brother, or sometimes even a (usually more attractive) sister.
So unlike our good looking Dr Helen here, they sought to compensate for their failure to develop as feminine women by becoming ambitious, and especially in an academic and intellectual way. That seemed to be their only means to shine, and to create the "self-esteem" and "approval" they so desperately desired.
e.g. Karen Horney was rejected by both her father and brother whose love she desired, and later for example declared "school is the only true thing after all."
So the result of such admittedly unfair childhood discrimination is of course a warped and hateful mindset. Clearly as the male gender in terms of the father or other male children in the girl's family were perceived to be the offenders, it is not surprising that a number of such girls saw the cause of their problem as the whole masculine gender and the concept of maleness itself.
Such a person charged with a self-righteous sense of vengeance, then goes on to wage a war against the male gender, and as they put it "the patriarchy" which has so deeply offended them.
Naturally a mentality of hate and a sense of deep injustice tainted with a burning desire for vengeance is not a logical, cool, impartial one, so I am well aware that when I debate with someone of this mentality the argument is not going to run very well according to logic or reason.
I am well aware, that it may not be possible to get agreement, because it is not intellectual debate the other party seeks, but a means to take out their frustration on one, by attacking the perceived "hate object."
However, if upon attacking such an object the person of such an inclination does not get the hostility and condemnation back they were expecting, but rather calm cool logic, it may be that whether they admit it or not, they may reconsider their position a little.
We cannot group all women with feminist inclinations as one and the same, there are many degrees of the spectrum, some of whom are (like some men also) totally beyond hope, so damaged that they have more or less shut themselves off from feeling entirely, and live in a kind of abstract intellectual fantasyworld, which avoids any significant human relationships as the only means of preserving a relative kind of sanity based on vanity and pride - i.e. in the case of the feminist psychologists, the academic esteem they eventually received.
But to regard all women with some feminist inclinations as beyond rational discussion seems to be a hopeless defeatist position, that rules out any hope of ending this needless and unholy war between women and men.
The fact is that is it not only "feminist" women, whom we cannot win an argument with, most men cannot "win" an argument - i.e. get acceptance of their point of view from - any woman, but a "doormat" type.
So men need to look at why this is the case, and we cannot just blame women for it.
The answer is often that we are not true to our own words, we are not in fact worthy of respect.
e.g. a lazy man who doesn't bother to consider the needs of his wife in legitimately needing assistance with the child care or whatever - which even the most old-fashioned and motherly woman will need from time to time, now grandmothers and the extended family etc. have mostly gone - cannot expect to be able to start "laying down the law", because she has an unresolved grievance with him to begin with.
That is, there is a saying in the English law, on the principle of "equity", that
"he who comes to equity, must have clean hands."
So likewise must a man who seeks to expect reason from his woman partner or wife.
He really has to be a paragon of truth, consistency and virtue, or she is never going to admit he is right, even when he is right.
In short, men have lost (or arguably never truly had) women's true respect - as we might see in the case of some historical character like "El Cid" for example - so again, it's no good merely blaming the feminists for their intransigent position, we have as men to show women in general with a sense of stoic heroism, honour and loyalty why we are deserving of respect.
Fathers who out of lack of understanding or fear (more or less the same thing) neglect their daughters for example, certainly are not deserving of such a title and honour, and in a sense it is therefore these unwise men who were responsible for the birth of feminism.
That is, while the feminists can accuse men of being uncaring, unfaithful, violent, cruel of whatever, and easily find evidence of such - as indeed they can now - we can never really "win" an argument with them, except those who are able to think in a purely rational way, which by our earlier definition, we cannot see as a realistic possibility.
The only way feminism will be defeated or sidelined is when men become far more wise and understanding than they are now, and also when women like our Dr Helen here gain more prominence, so that the "wise women" who care about both genders are distinguishable from the feminists who are empowering women only to things destructive not only to men, but to children, and ultimately to themselves.
the problem is, if you document everything like you suggested, there will be women who will use that very equality document, to penalise men, but isnt marriage a process of give and take, i may do things my love doesnt, like and she may do things i dont like. but we have come to an accomodation, but love is blind, regardless of sex, orientation, it should be bout the person. to over analyse things, will bring more contention out, to go over and over the perceived flaws of a person in the hope that you will marry. will only magnify it.
as you said "why on earth would you want to go into a marriage without any proper contract as to your rights, duties and obligations" but why should people need a contract legal of social, to be with someone they love.
the problem is people do change, what would happen if you got married and they decided to do something that wasnt on that.. would they be liable, if its a legal document. but i do agree people should talk, but not go over every single minutae. if you legalised the contracts, you will only be creating more problems, more divorces over behaviour.
No, I think you are wrong about so many things.
Firstly, you use the word "love" as if it was something with a commonly agreed meaning.
All these divorced couples who end up hating one another once said they "loved" one another too.
What needs to be understood is that most of us are not truly capable of love, in the sense of this all powerful force that "conquers everything."
As I said, men have been murdered by wives for being fonder of playing the electric organ than spending time with them.
Where did the "love" go?
Most of us are not capable of love in the Christian sense of "loving our neighbour as ourselves" and this applies equally to marriage.
We make all kinds of unholy demands on one another and call it "love."
Love is only demonstrated by actions rather than words, as all children know, and most adults forget.
The person who loves you wants to spend time with you, they care about your problems and feeings and so on, whereas most of us only care about our own problems and feelings.
So this "love" is mostly an illusion, and that's why there is so much heartbreak.
People use and abuse each other, and that's what's going on out there, not this "true love" we have heard so much about yet seen so little evidence of in real life.
So as being an indefinable, unreliable phenomenon, as such, it is not a sensible basis to deal with marriage relationships.
I would advocate "respect" as a better basis by far.
e.g. many women respect and obey their boss at work, but they don't respct or obey their husband at home.
So if you try to compile an agreement on the basis of this love, it is so flimsy, it is like playing a lottery - you will be exceedingly lucky if you win.
But if instead we say "hey, that person is OK looking. Let's talk to them and start discussing terms. Let's see if we agree tastes and life philosophy and are therefore compatible" that would be a sensible basis.
But that doens't happen. They discuss what they both like, but it's superficial.
The numerous ISSUES that come up in a marriage - like how to discipline the children, whether he will still be allowed to go off to bars with his friends, and whether she is willing to take part in some unusual sex practice he is addicted to - don't get discussed, and then there are rows and the marriage breaks down.
Because at the present, we are all relatively immature self-centred people, we are intent on satisfying our desires, and if one party of the other isn't getting what they want out of the relationship, complaints arise, and carry on until divorce comes.
So therefore, it is just a sensible suggestion that people would be forced by custom or tradition (rather than law) to compile such an agreement, and ask one another and seek agreement on all these major issues - not remotely trivia - like if his rock climbing obsession endangering his life is going to bother her, and so on.
So all these things would be mostly not of legal effect, but just a private agreement between the two parties.
The fully legal part would cover things like property, custody of children and so on, and again, we would see by its compilation if we can even agree about such things, before a marriage.
Attorney Lauren said that in some cases she thought pre-nuptial agreements not a good idea, because it made people see "a way out."
Well, if two people want to stay together because they "love" each other, why would they want a way out?
Don't tell me, "i love you, but I don't want to live with you."
Lies, lies, lies.
We know whom we love - we don't want to let them out of our sight.
This is the most ludicrous suggestion I have seen in a long time. Who is going to pay for the drafting out of this over the top listing. I can see it being big money for us legal eagles.
£190 a hour, yippeeee. And who polices this contract. self policing won't work because there are bound to be variations that come about.
Are you going to list the number of children you require? and what if more turn up or less as they do?
What is one of you becomes ill and the whole contract is unworkable?
Who is to dish out the spending money because obviously you will have to agree on that in the contract and the savings and pensions etc.,
This is just with one marriage or association as now they unmarried cohabitees will have exactly the same rights in law as a married couple. Where does this stop.
Will this contract have to be updated annually to take into account changes, in relationships or new hobbies being undertaken.
What a load of nonsense.
My god legal eagle
Please heaven help me that if you are actually a "legal eagle" you do not ever represent me!
Does nobody on this blog actually ever READ what a person has written PROPERLY before commenting on it?
I have suggested only two things:
a)a fully legal document, which could even be a DIY legal agreeement (as signed and witnessed by suitable parties, and deposited with some trustworthy independent 3rd party, and therefore need not hardly cost either party a cent) which would say things like what would happen to the property (who would get the house, would it be sold off and the money split, etc.), what would happen to any children (e.g. a man might say, you could have custody of all children till age 5 if desired, and then I would want custody of male children, and you would have custody of female children), and the level of maintenance for example as a proportion of income which would be payable, or how any other major assets or savings would be split.
b) a PRIVATELY AGREED "contract" on things like who would look after the children, to what extent a man would be expected to share child care duties and household chores, if for example a woman would be willing to give up her job if she had children, or whether nannies, nurseries etc. would be considered acceptable, if a man would be willing to give up any hobbies or pursuits he has for her sake, which she may consider a threat to her security (e.g. the rock climbing, or regular drinking with buddies, etc.).
This would simply be a totally private agreement, therefore WOULD NOT COST A PENNY and need not be written down, except it might be advisable to do so, as a reference document held by both parties, to remind one another of the original agreement.
It would be "policed" by the couple themsleves.
Of course it would not be set in concrete, and a sense of tolerance and love would allow variation of the terms.
But it would
a) enable couples to get to know each other better, and agree about the terms and conditions under which they would live together instead of just coming together thoughtlessly in a blind haze of passion and desperation as so commonly happens now.
b)act as a set of ground rules, so that when situations arose - such as how to discipline children, whether to smack or not and so on - both parties would already know they are in philosophical agreement on such issues, and therefore no nasty arguments would arise over these issues, leading to strife and possible divorce.
c) could be influential if divorce happened, as it would show that one party or the other had acted against the reasonable expectations of the other.
So none of your objections about cost or "policing" are sensible or reasonable ones.
But I am delighted in fact you have decided to criticise my suggestion, because it has given me the opportunity to comment about the probable motives of ones such as yourself who flatly object to these agreements, using a variety of wholly irrelevant arguments as you have done.
For example, you said
"Are you going to list the number of children you require? and what if more turn up or less as they do?"
Firstly, I think a lot of modern couples, now there is cheap and freely available birth control, including even vasectomy, DO decide on how many children they will have.
But then there are others who have children "turn up" (e.g. by DELIBERATELY neglecting to take the contraceptive pill) against the wishes of the other party, generally speaking the husband.
For example, I know personally one man already with four children, and his wife dropped exactly this bombshell on him after several years break after the last child.
Her object was that he was not happy with her, but because he was a responsible person and was only sticking around to take care of the children until they were reasonably grown up (because she was too lazy, he was doing most of the child care) she was using another unplanned, unagreed child as a means to trap him into staying with her far beyond his desire.
This is the kind of unfair liberty taking such a contract as I am suggesting is designed to avoid.
Whilst such a contract would not necessarily prevent such an occurrence, it would show to all concerned that the woman has acted unfairly towards her partner,which is a very important issue, because though you may not necessarily win the legal battle on this, you can thereby win the moral battle, and thus save your reputation, and all will know who the guilty party really is.
There is no question in my mind that this contract would be mostly to protect men from unscupulous women,though the fully legal pre-nuptial contract could also protect women with sizeable assets from unscupulous men.
As such, both the contracts I suggest are both sensible, reasonable measures, and so then we have to look at the real reasons why people such as yourself dismiss them.
And generally speaking, those who resist these ideas simply do not want to play fair.
Two women will often have a conversation about some man one of them is going to marry such as
"what about this habit x or y or z he has? How can you marry a man who does that?"
And the engaged bride-to-be will say "oh, don't you worry about that, I WILL SOON SORT THAT OUT WHEN WE ARE MARRIED."
So this unfair and unloving assumption that a huge proportion of women make that they will change a man or impose all sorts of conditions upon him in marriage which he never expected or agreed to, is the sort of thing that happens commonly.
It is liberty taking, it is cheek, it is unfair, it is a selfish, egotistical, domineering and hypocritical position.
Equally if a man is going to expect to carry on exactly the same way he did before, partying, staying out late, going off on long trips away from her etc., that too is unreasonable, so should have been discussed before marriage and agreed approximate terms upon.
Or if it turns out he has some perverse sexual demand on her (and what is perverse is debatable, e.g. some men seem to demand oral sex as if it were a right, when many women hate it), then that too has to be discussed, or he is dropping a bombshell on her.
But men and women are scared that if they reveal themselves as they really are, and how they will behave in marriage, the other party would never consent.
Well, yes, they might be right, in which case, they probably shouldn't marry any way, as it likely won't last.
So that is why couples should be forced by custom or tradition to do this - it can't really be law as such, because as you rightly said, it can't necessarily be policed by others, because some of the issues involved would be too private and personal, but e.g. the stuff on sex need not be written down, just discussed and agreed.
But as I have said in my book on this subject, many people such as yourself will come up with one thousand and one arguments why this is not sensible, and can't be done.
And they are the ones who will not play fair, they are the ones who want to sneakily entrap a man into marriage, and then start manipulating him and making his life a misery, behaving in all kinds of ways he never anticipated and never agreed to, such as having children without his consent, before he is ready to have them and so on.
So this is about fairness to one another and honesty in relationships, and anyone who resists these ideas like yourself is obviously against those concept of fairness, mutual respect and justice in relationships and marriage.
So please feel free to criticise some more if you wish, and I shall take great pleasure in pointing out further aspects of your Machiavellian resistance to a just, sensible and decent policy, fair to both genders.
I am a real legal eagle and deal regularly with messes that couples get themselves into, with or without agreements.
I must admit that the most aggressive parties tend to be the females, but I cannot see what the difference a piece of paper drawn up between themselves can achieve as it will not be enforceable anyway.
I do believe that people should get to know each other properly before diving headfirst into unsuitable matches (of which there are now many).
The worst victims in these associations are the children they have that are used as pawns in their arguments to get more than the other person.
But all I can see with this new contract business is taking the romance and special feelings that should be there simply into a business arrangement.
You can put what you want down on paper but you don't have to abide by it.
It would help more if mothers were mothers in the true sense of the word, unfortunately nurseries and putting them with sometime unsuitable people simply to go out to work to get more money rather than to put the child and the family unit first.
As for unexpected children these are not always as you put it got for a trap to keep someone with them. It takes two to tango and he has just as much responsibilty about whether they have more children or not.
I doubt very much these days that people or very few people expect to stay with someone for life, its too easy to change partners.
Apologies Leagle Eagle
It is now clear that you are an understanding and considerate person.
Apart from the serious legal pre-nuptial part about property, child custody and finances, it's not so much about a piece of paper.
I am not advocating anything very specific in terms of a document, but just some kind of process that causes both parties to think deeply and seriously about their coming together.
The main object really is to sober up men who dont think realistically but too romantically, and start thinking about their prospective partner as a personality, and what the relationship is really going to develop into.
Equally, it should help women think about their prospective partner as a human being also, instead of just an easily despisable sex-crazed beast who is likewise easily manipulable.
It is the exercise of trying to compile such an agreement which is the issue, as a preventative measure, to reveal an unreasonable partner to someone who previously imagined that the person they wanted to marry had the sunlight shine out of their orificies as we are all far too tempted to believe.
Because as you rightly said, it doesn't matter in the ultimate sense if a man and woman abuse each other, but when they place children into that battlefield who didn't ask for it, and make them pawns of their conflict this is the most awful and cruel thing.
So it is more a question of statistics than law, in that such care and attention in putting together a relationship would obviously lead to less problems later on.
As far as changing life partners is concerned, how can it really matter that much if children are not involved?
But most times they are, and that's when it becomes problematic.
People change partners under the illusion that the person they move on to will be better than the last one.
But oftentimes, if we were attracted enough to or "loved" the person we were first with , it's not likely the next person will be any better, unless we married very foolishly in youth, before we were really much formed as a personality.
So mostly the problem is in ourselves, and it is that which causes the moving on to a new partner, because we imagine that with someone else things will work out better, though they rarely do, because we imagine the relationship failure is their fault, not ours.
So I think this is the real problem.
We aren't happy with ourselves when we are alone, but we think as soon as we get that other person in our lives we will be.
But they are thinking the same, and we both discover sooner or later, that happiness is not a gift that one can give to another person like a christmas cake.
So the mistake is expecting too much from the other party. We have to realise that if there is any happiness in the world, we have to find it in our own soul and self.
But right now, almost nobody thinks that way, so they continually blame the other person, as if they had a magic wand to make their partner happy.
So sadly, when most people marry, that is what will happen to them regardless of all other factors.
They will say "why am I not happy?" and then blame the other partner for any of countless reasons.
But they forget, they weren't a happy person before they married, and as we have said, blame the other person in the relationship for a state of unhappiness that they didn't cause and aren't responsible for.
That is one reason why marriages used to last in former eras when religious beliefs were part of the average life.
Neither party actually believed that lasting happiness was possible on planet earth.
So they were less expectant of it, and accepted life was going to be tough a lot of the time instead of always a bowl of cherries.
When we are in a relationship - as even you and I are in this small way - we tend to see ourselves in the mirror of that relationship.
the other person shows us our weaknesses and limitations and it hurts.
Don't imagine I was 100% happy about how I replied to you last, I am constantly displeased with myself in one way or another, I always think - "I could have been kinder and wiser towards that person."
so really, the point is, we have two kinds of people generally speaking in the world.
the kind considerate understanding people, which despite my earlier overzealous judgement of you, I now feel you to be, and then we have the less kind, advantage taking people.
So I was just trying to say to the kind fair people:
"look, don't be too flattered or hypnotised by this beautiful woman or handsome man who is ready to marry you."
They may have dark motives, ones which will make your life a torment if you join yourself to them.
so take some precuations.
Say to them once marriage or living together bcomes an issue:
"let's really try hard to imagine what us living together would be like. What would you expect of me? will you be happy to lie in bed on a saturday morning, and hope that I have done the dishes and so on before you get up?"
will you forbid my friends, and go all possessive so I don't have any life apart from you, and feel trapped?
Let's be specific...do you mind if my girlfriend stays with us now and then and visits a few times a week?
do you mind if my mother does the same?
We have to base a society on gentleness and kindness, and consideration, or else we'll all end up killing one another.
So my message is really to the gentle and kind and fair, to say - hey, stop walking into volcanoes, properly check out a prospective partner, don't walk into disastrous relationships with incompatible people.
Then, there will be less divorces, men and women will as the guy above someplace well said marry their best friend.
Men and women should think first about being friends, best friends even, and if you don't feel that way about the other person, then yes, as you say, it won't last, you'll keep looking and looking, and likely never settle any place.
Before we can become happily married, we have to know how to be a friend, and then to find one.
I want to thank you for giving such a considerate reply Leagle Eagle, you really made my day, and I hope that our discussion has been some use to you and anyone else who cares to view this page.
best wishes
Sam F.
One summer of law school I worked for an attorney who specialized in benefits and Personal Injury. Every now and then we would adjudicate the divorces of his often hapless clients. We were preparing to go to one once when he told me, "Most divorce cases are the same. Each person just wants to tell their story about why the other sucks, then they argue over trinkets in an attempt to screw the other one. This one will be particularly sad because they don't own anything of real value so they'll be arguing over junk like cookie jars." He was right about the cookie jars (worthless, but fought for tooth and nail) and he was right about wanting to tell a story. I've noticed that it's been true in just about every divorce I've observed.
Exercising more selectivity in choosing a partner is something EVERYONE can agree with.
However, A legal document wherther it be DIY or not, will just exacerbate any tension that may arise.
The laws is an ass. Mixing it in with personal relationships is a disastrous idea.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home