  |
Posted on 09/06/2005 11:05:03 AM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
by Margaret Friedlander Brinig, Douglas Allen
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
    
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'These Boots are Made for Walking': Why Most Divorce Filers are Women
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract: Because of the financial and social hardship faced after divorce, most people assume that generally husbands have instigated divorce since the introduction of no-fault divorce. Yet women file for divorce and are often the instigators of separation, despite a deep attachment to their children and the evidence that many divorces harm children. Furthermore, divorced women in large numbers reveal that they are happier than they were while married. They report relief and certainty that they were right in leaving their marriages. This fundamental puzzle suggests that the incentives to divorce require a reexamination, and that the forces affecting the net benefits from marriage may be quite complicated, and perhaps asymmetric between men and women. This paper considers women's filing as rational behavior, based on spouses' relative power in the marriage, their opportunities following divorce, and their anticipation of custody. |
|
It doesn't make any sense at all unless you know what I'm replying to. Sorry about that, but it's just that kind of post. Scroll up.
:) Yes, I was wondering about that "commie" statement, the dude must hang out with FReeper "repinwi".
Then I too am old fashioned. I too married because I was in love and wanted to spend my life together with the one I loved. We met 35 years ago and are married for 32 of those years.
I am older now. I know that one can fall in love, be in love and not married. What is the difference, then? Perhaps, it is even easier to maintain "freshness" of the relationship by perpetual dating. I can entertain other ways which people may individually prefer in their relationships.
All this thinking is fine as long as two adults are involved: they can decide what is good for them. And this thinking stops when children are involved. They are not asked to be born. We decide that for them, and it is our duty to give them the best chance in their adult life. That requires in turn the continual presence of both parents. Myriad benefits have been mentioned: a child learns about courtship and roles played by the sexes, how to maintain relationship --- that is not only "ups" but also "downs," how to be a parent in his or her own life. And, not the least, the set of moral values --- that is how cultures perpetuate themselves, via family. This is the reason that all scum has always attacked family first: if you want to destroy any given set of values, destroy the family. Russian communists did that almost immediately after the revolution. So did the Nazis. And the American Leftists followed in their footsteps in 1960s-70s.
Returning to your point: what one says to himself when getting married is irrelevant. You feel hungry but that is not why you eat: you eat to sustain life. You feel sleepy but that is not why you go to bed: you are programmed to do so to sustain life. You fall in love but that is not why you get married: you do so to sustain and give life. Even lions and tigers do that: they stick around, BOTH male and female, as long as children are raised.
It appears, we are both romantics. Now I know there are two of us.
Prenups are for people who are planning for failure. Some folks should simply never get married. They aren't up to the commitment.
Prenuptial agreements are for realists.
This 'commitment' you speak of is a romantic ideal. If there were truly 'commitment', divorce would not be legal. A prenuptial just makes the 'contract' complete.
And BTW, this 'commitment' you speak of seems to mean less to women who are the ones who file the most for divorce.
ahhhhh, bitterman at hand and on the deck reporting for duty I see.. A lawyer got into the discussion. Sorry for all your troubles. I do wish you a happy life. I've found mine. ;D
Statutes are, to most of us, merely the justifications for the court's rulings. I think my post carried the widely accepted perception that divorce courts are stacked against the men appearing before such a kangaroo court.
As to whether the female biased results are a result of the court's discretion or a statute or a mix of both, what matters is the end result.
Anyone with any awareness of divorce procedures in AMerica knows what is occurring, hence the "How insightful" part of the post.
As you should know, far too much of America despises lawyers and distrusts the courts. How long this state of affairs can continue is questionable.
Well, you apparently have an "X" also, I assume you used a lawyer. No hard feelings repwini, best of luck with what you have. Regards.
Please add me to that list. My first husband was the love of my life, but he sadly died of cancer, I was blessed to meet a wonderful American and find that "soul mate" a second time. I couldn't live without him. He is a great husband and wonderful father to our children. I have no need to cheat, play games or all of that rubbish, why would I? I have everything I could ever want, and so does he. We knew it was right before we married and totally trust each other.
I am reading such sad stories on here from those who thought they had married for life, end up hurt, and abused. My heart and prayers go out to you all, that you learn to trust that special person when they do come along and that you experience love and marriage how it is meant to be. : )
Follow the money.
No lawyer was used, I took all the bills and left him clean and free. But one lawyer was hired last year to hammer the point home, he can't take advantage of me no more. Thanks for the well wishes. Freep on.
I disagree. Even if Dad was home, it depends if he was at home emotionally.
Then you and I have much in common. For me it was work out the assets, and part with respect, screw the lawyers. I apologize for misunderstanding your posts. Good luck and regards....
In most cases it is. Or it is not about the money - it is about more money.
That is the difference between botany and biology: botany gathers fact, whereas biology seeks reasons behind those facts.
Reread the ending of the posted abstract (reference to rationality)
good luck for the future. : )
Once upon a time that was true. All I see now is women wanting to be men and doing a pretty poor job of it. I've got no issue with that. They made a choice. But these women will then blame men for their failings. Part of being a man, a real man, is accepting responsibility for your choices. That is the failing of women. Want to see a society dominated by women? Take a look at statistics on the black community. It ain't pretty.
Best wishes to you Rose. I am sure it's not just good luck: you have what to give and know how to do that. May you have a long and happy life together.
When ya got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
Crayfishing? My stance is that whoever gets the kids are the ones who don't get the dough. Prove me wrong, pal.
That may be a good point. Both my marriages worked fantastic. But then, even though I have a very high IQ, when we decided on having children, I was happy to be the one that stays at home, looks after them and makes sure the house is clean, good food on the table and my husband is well cared for. I don't find it demeaning, I love being a homemaker, I love making my family happy and well cared for, that makes me happy. Maybe I am old fashioned? Who knows, but it works for me. : )
Thanks........... you too. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
