WHY DIVORCE IS SO PREVALENT: The #1 Answer To Society's #1 Problem

Toogood Reports ^ | Uncertain | Unknown

[Dr. Octagon]

Will you delete all the posts between the two? That section detracts from what is otherwise a very constructive thread. I would really appreciate it.

[ventana]

I think it may be a little more than that. I think communism made plain its tenet that everyone must be a worker, and feminism made it possible/acceptable for women to define themselves solely in relation to the workplace; neopaganism removed religion from the quotient insofar as how one discerns the value of one's actions. So, women now define themselves differently in a way that plays into the hand of what communists love: godless workers. How dreary. Women just don't realize it. Also, western women have been taught to vilify and emasculate our strong men (taught this by communistic professors). These women don't realize that when we allow our men to be strong, they in turn help us to be strong and liberated and fulfilled. Western women have it better then anybody else, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. I abhor the feminization of men and never shrink from an opportunity to say so. V's wife.

[ewchil]

Somebody else? Arrogant?!? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

[SamAdams76]

Or perhaps my neighbor got tired of coming home from work (and he wanted her to work), doing 90% of the childcare, 90% of the housework, and 100% of the yardwork.

Just curious. How would those ratios be affected by your neighbor getting divorced. I assume she now has to to 100% of everything now. So how did divorce make her life better?

Of course, there is no excuse for the husband in this situation to have his wife work AND do most of the work around the house. But I just don't see a divorce as solving the problem.

BTW, other than cooking (which I do pretty well), I detest the rest of the housework. So when my wife went back to work fulltime after the kids got old enough for school, we hired a cleaning service to clean the house once a week. Worth every penny and it's not as expensive as one might think. I think we pay $75 for four hours of cleaning. Also, I do 100% of the yardwork. No way is my wife lifting as much as a rake out in MY yard!

[independentmind]

The divestiture of the current gyncentricized and virtually immutable child-custody advantage would be the single most powerful tool for dramatically decreasing the divorce rate here in the United States of America.

Getting rid of no fault divorce is the better answer. As much as I appreciate what organizations like DADI are trying to do, I can't help but dislike the move towards "men's rights" which for the most part pretends that men and women have no distinctive roles to play in marriage and as parents.

[disclaimer]

And , for you who indulge in " hate / reveile the rich " persifage, get over it. There is NOTHING " noble " in being poor or middle calss, and NOTHING inherintly " evil " in being wealthy.

You missed the point. It's not about being wealthy or not, but about being willing to live a spartin life putting your children and your marriage first if need be. If you put wealth ahead of your marriage, if you are willing to give up your marriage (especially with children involved) in search of a "better" life, that's where things go wrong and is part of the discussion here.
Read some researched work on the topic.

[disclaimer]

#206 is a reply to your posting at #93. I read beyond #93 after posting and saw a battle erupt between you and others. I'm not joining in, just giving you my two cents. Take it or leave it.

[ventana]

Hah, I wouldn't let my husband near MY garden. But I do let him dig holes for the trees! Son mows lawn.

[FairWitness]

Q.E.D.!

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

I was very impressed with your #196 posting. It sounds like you gave up something of value only to find something of much greater value.

[joathome]

"Just curious. How would those ratios be affected by your neighbor getting divorced. I assume she now has to to 100% of everything now. So how did divorce make her life better?"

She doesn't have to come home every night to a selfish pig. She's not angry at him; she's at peace. I personally think divorce should be much harder to get because of it's effects on the children, but I'll tell you, I could not live with a man who wanted me to work, and then didn't lift a finger to help.

[GreatOne]

The only winners in a fault divorce are the lawyers. The couple ends up hating each other worse then they did when the started. The children end up having to choose one parent and condemn the other. A significant part of the assets of the family goes to the lawyers.

Yeah, your comments are correct. But, it might cause people to think twice before going the easy way out and simply getting divorced; point is to try to keep them together. People know that it's relatively easy to do. Mandating counseling is preferable, but if one party won't fully participate, it's worthless. Hence my thought to make it more costly, and tougher emotionally.

[GreatOne]

You forgot "A" number 4 - Attorneys. There are too many lawyers.

Yes there are too many. But lawyers don't "ambulance chase" for divorces; the clients come to us. It's not the plethora (a veritable plethora, even) of lawyers, but the relative simplicity of obtaining a divorce that is the problem.

[aruanan]

Though divorce is a big problem, it isn't as large as most people think. The oft-quoted "one of two marriages ends in divorce" fails to make a crucial distinction: It's not referring to first marriages but to all marriages. A sizable percentage of total marriages and an even greater percentage of divorces are by people who have been married and divorced multiple times. A relatively small group of people skew the numbers.

[Dr. Octagon]

Interesting! And actually, heartening.

[Dr. Octagon]

Both. An end to no-fault divorce AND the divestiture of the current gyncentricized and virtually immutable child-custody advantage would be the single most powerful tools for dramatically decreasing the divorce rate here in the United States of America.

[Dr. Octagon]

Men and women are distinct, and I love that distinction. I would not paint it in such broad strokes as some do: in the case at hand I contend that fathers deserve equal time with their children because they are fathers. Fathers can do anything mothers can do (bottle-feeding of course): they will do it distinctly, but that does not make them secondary.Hope that clarifies exactly where I and most of the father's right movement stand. We believe that equal time is best for fathers and their children, and seek legal protections therefor.

[Dr. Octagon]

I agree. Feminist men, whom I abhor, would disagree with everything I contend.

[Dr. Octagon]

With regards to custody, too often the family court takes the gender-feminist position, which is that women are the owners of the children, children are chattel subject to maternal possession, and fathers are ATMs and "visitors"

This perspective is antithetical to both the reality of situations of any given family, and a virtual deification of motherhood in concordance with the feminist peripheralizing of fatherhood.

And in the last 30+ years of the movement to peripheralize fatherhood, just look what has happened to society: drugs, crime, immorality, "alternative lifestyles", abortion....

The co-incidence is not coincidental.

It is cause and effect.

I'd like to note also that within the father's rights movement, those who are in it primarily for financial reasons form a distinct minority.

The vast majority want equal time with the children they love, and need protection therefor enshrined in law. The vast majority would trade every dime they have for equal time with their children.

And here is a critical point.

Too often, the rhetoric of "best interests of the child" is proferred with zero substance thereto attached.

The best interests of the child in reality, as opposed to in women-first fathers-last feminist philosophy, is for their time spent with each parent after the divorce to as nearly as possible reflect the time spent with each parent within the marriage.

Any objections to this are based upon a women-first perspective, not a child-first perspective.

[Gabz]

i>Feminist men, whom I abhor, would disagree with everything I contend.

I agree with you, and so would my husband!!! I have seen many sides of this issue - the woman using the kids to get what she wanted from; the woman using money to give the man what he wanted; and the man using control and manipulation to keep the woman from getting what she knew she wanted.

The absolutely absurd part of this - it was all just one man. Three different women, but the same man. How do I know this - I was the 3rd woman!!!