Unfair Alimony Horror Stories

22 views
Skip to first unread message

Jaycee

unread,
May 7, 2005, 4:00:13 PM5/7/05
to
http://www.angelfire.com/realm3/jtest28/Anti-feminismpage.html


My brother's wife filed for divorce in 2001 and I just can't seem to
think the courts or his lawyer has any interest in his well being.
Alberta had a drastic oilfield boom last year and he made 116,000. and
the two previous years he made 84,000. and 79,000. The case is not
finished but in the last months since sept 11 oil and gas has employment
has slowed down dramatically. Working all his days off the maximum
amount in the last 6 months he made $3400. and the court has ordered
temporarily for him to pay 3200. per month plus half the child care
expenses. So he has been in the hole for the last 6 months. He moved
backed home and it quite embarrassed to be with his parents. The court
also said for his visitation he is to provide food and shelter. I asked
how is this. He has lost 31 pounds from not eating...can't afford to eat
that is why last month I encouraged him to move to our parent's home.
She is living in the house and secretly cleaned out the bank accounts
and in court she said she needed the money to feed the children...but
spent 2 weeks in Hawaii for Christmas. I had to secretly buy presents
for the children at Christmas for him and for having been a successful
caring man he is suffering depression (I think). His lawyer said he
should sign off his half of the house and give her all the rrsp.s and
keep it easy. We are not talking about a guy who would even raise his
voice to his wife and a very caring father and if she decided to have an
affair why should she and the boyfriend (she had an affair and carried
it on) get to live the life style she is accustomed to and he can't even
pay rent. We are from Red Deer Alberta and I know he can't afford
another lawyer but any suggestions. I am sick to my stomach about this
and I can see how helpless he feels. PLEASE, IF ANYONE KNOWS WHAT TO DO
HELP US. MY BROTHER SAID HE IS ALMOST TO THE POINT OF NOT FIGHTING FOR
ANY ASSETS OR HIS TWO DAUGHTERS ANYMORE. IT'S LIKE A DEATH TO HIM. SHE
HONES HIM AND SAYS I HOPE YOU HAVE MONEY TO AT LEAST GET TO WORK TO PAY
ME AND I SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT KNOWING YOU ARE STARVING ha ha! SHE HAS
VERBALLY AND PSYCHICALLY ABUSED HIM THROUGHOUT THE MARRIAGE IN FRONT OF
ALL THE FAMILY AND I AM THANKFUL HE HAS NEVER HIT HER. Kim Re: unfair
alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 17:50:20 03/11/2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot believe what you said, we are going through almost the exact
same thing. We are in the process of losing everything. What a feeling
to know that someone else understands. Thank you so very much!! Kim Re:
unfair alimony??? (Currently 1 replies) Posted At 17:51:22 03/11/2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trina, my friend is going through pretty much the EXACT same thing as
your brother, so I know where you are both coming from. My friend has
lost everything in the last year from his house to the fish in his fish
pond (she stole them one weekend when she cleaned out the family home
while he went away with the children for the weekend) if you can access
my email addy from this I would love to hear from you. Leanne Re: unfair
alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 10:42:22 04/21/2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trina, I can believe what you say. My brother is going through the exact
same thing. What I cannot believe is how unfair our so called justice
system is. Not only is my brother being screwed by the system but 2
other male friends that I know of. My brother has worked hard for over
20 years, thinking that he is building himself a life and family. The
next thing he knows is everything he worked for is taken from under his
feet and handed over to her along with his children. He cannot afford to
live on his own, because by the time he pays her child and spousal
support he has nothing left for himself. In the meantime she brings home
more than he does. Over the past 2 years I have had my eyes opened up to
our so called justice system and just wonder who makes these laws and
if/when they will be changed. Peter Woodcock Re: unfair alimony???
(Currently 0 replies) Posted At 12:14:31 09/30/2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought I was alone in this problem! I divorced an alcoholic wife last
year and at the same time lost a good paying job. We were married 15
years with no children. I spent most of that time trying to help her
with her disease. Bottom line "no good deed goes unpunished" I have been
out of work for 18 months and have no money with loosing everything
slowly, day by day.

I was hauled into court in Massachusetts last week and they did not care
that I had no money. I have to pay $3,000 in arrears or go to jail. They
don't care, they just want the money. I am stunned at the kangaroo court
system and loosing faith in our justice? system.

My attorney was useless.

I'm sorry for every decent person that is getting the shaft.....it's
heartbreaking. At least I don't have kids. That would be even worse. Not
to be dramatic but I do think of killing myself or picking up a
drink...but have to keep the faith. Good luck to all of you. Peter Tyler
Ell Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 12:02:20
10/27/2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too am about to embark on a similar situation. I've been married only
about 2 years but have also shared in the growth of my two children, 3
and 2, with my wife for five years she now wants to leave me. I feel
also I will be dragged through the sharped sprockets of injustice. After
reading your story I can't believe there isn't some type of
constitutional challenge here. I mean you too like myself are citizen of
this so called free country, Canada. Are we not allowed to pursue
happiness here like anyone else and if there are laws preventing us from
that pursuit of happiness, is there then not a constitutional challenge
here? I'm not a lawyer in any aspect of the word but hope this will
bring some insight and direction for your absent Brother. Good Luck
Tyler Ell Janet Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At
14:18:00 11/06/2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My friend is divorcing his physically and verbally abusive spouse of 21
years (stayed till the kids were 18, and he's being shafted for $45,000
support, she gets ALL the assets (including his retirement!) and he gets
ALL the liabilities. The formula for the support, according to the
judge, was (his income - her income) X 1.5.

This is just wrong. He's worked 3 jobs for 20 years to support her
spending habits and now he's being screwed for it.

Oh, I almost forgot. He has to pay BOTH lawyers.

I love Oklahoma, but you don't want to be a man in a divorce case here.
John Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 07:55:19
04/01/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They (the court system) could care less about the men. As long as you
have access to a newspaper and a park bench that should be good enough
for you.

Then when the guy is at the end of his rope and snaps and does something
to her and gets in trouble with the law everybody scratches their heads
and say "I wonder what got into him" We have a system (thanks in large
to the HATEFUL feminazis) that discriminates against men and until we as
men are willing to stand up for ourselves it will continue and only get
worse. Charles Buchanan Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies)
Posted At 10:48:16 08/23/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My ex, who lives 7000 miles away from me, is bright and applied for an
alimony increase through her country's court system, when she was in
between jobs. She now has a better paying position and I'm being milked
dry. As a Canadian how can I have this reversed as it's crippling me?
T.Labon Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 12:56:04
10/28/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had a gambling wife for 27 yrs. She spent all the money I made. We
separated last year and she got the house, half the pension, and I have
to pay about half my earnings which she uses to go to Atlantic city and
other gambling places. She used to work but now she says she has a hip
problem. Yet she goes bowling and dancing but the Judge can't see that.
My Lawyer was useless and it looks like he was working for her. They
Just want to move on to the next case and nail another hard working man.
I am very disappointed with the court system. I cant believe that a
Judge can show such a lack of wisdom and understanding. People in a
position of authority and trust should be held accountable for their
actions but I'm sure these arrogant bastards won't be reading this to
educate themselves. I feel for you all. Jennifer Re: unfair alimony???
(Currently 0 replies) Posted At 00:03:58 11/20/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a friend who is married to a severe alcoholic, very abusive
woman. He has documentation of everything she has put the family through
and the lawyer says he can do nothing. He has to pay her 4000+ a month
plus his retirement plus the equity in his house all the assets. She got
fired from her job a day or so ago because of her heavy drinking. This
is a woman who goes through 1.75L of vodka in 2 days. She hits him, she
stalks him, and all the lawyer says is perhaps the judge will grant her
a lifetime of spousal support. I am a woman and I think this is horrid
to ruin someone! The court system sucks, the justice system is bad, and
can't a woman be the abuser and the dead beat? He feels just helpless.
Chris J. Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 09:30:35
12/20/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been married for 12 years, have one son (7 yrs) and my wife filed
for divorce in February this year. I make $60K/Year Salary plus
Commissions. I am on track to make $100K Gross this year. The court
temporarily ordered me to pay $2900 month Child Support $2000 month
Alimony (She doesn't work, claims she is disabled) 1/2 Mortgage, 1/2
private school tuition, 100% Car insurance, 100% Both life insurance
policies. Oh yea...when we split she took the $25k in the bank earmarked
for taxes. We still have not filed for 2002 because she has all the
receipts and papers. The judge ordered me responsible for paying the
taxes but if there is a refund I have to split it!!! I was making good
money $15-20K per month, but biz got slower just before the breakup. The
judge thinks it was suspicious that the income went down and that I am
hiding income! I am going bankrupt, lost my car, and my son's mother
still claims she has no money for X-Mas shopping. She is going to Toys
for Tots!!!

The way I see it, I could have a bad commission month, I am obligated to
pay out $4900/mo for alimony and support but my salary is $5K/mo BEFORE
TAXES!!!! Where is the justice? Jerry H Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently
0 replies) Posted At 11:14:34 12/24/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone have any suggestion for avoiding unfair alimony? No kids,
only a greedy ex wife that is getting 40K per year, and garnished my
wages. I am planning on running, I just don't know where. E. Kelly Re:
unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 20:55:37 01/11/2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfair alimony and child support. I am a self employed woman who is
shocked at the number of men getting sucked dry through the court system
after divorce. I am involved with a man who resides with me and couldn't
live on his own if he wanted to. The ex-#$$% gets all his pay for
alimony and child support. The courts in N.J. could care less if the man
has enough money to buy a cup of coffee. We are fighting...let her chase
the money...he pays the CS (garnished) but she can chase the alimony!!!
I have no respect for the week and needy women in this world who use the
laws to punish their ex-husbands. If they can't understand why they
aren't married anymore look at how they are through a divorce!! The laws
are wrong. When will men start to fight this. The laws need to be
changed. The laws are never about parenting and children, only money. I
hope no good man ever gets involved with the woman my man has divorced.
Well I could go on and on but there are far too many unfair divorce
cases for men in this country. WORRIED FOR HIM Re: unfair alimony???
(Currently 0 replies) Posted At 13:09:00 01/22/2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MAN I HAVE BEEN WAITING TO MARRY FOR 3 YEARS HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR MORE
THAN HE BRINGS HOME. ALSO WITH PERMANENT ALIMONY AND THE LIST GOES ON
AND ON. I OWN A HOME AND HE LIVES WITH ME. NOW IT SEEMS THE COURTS ARE
TAKING IN CONSIDERATION MY INCOME. I'VE BEEN CONSULTED BY 4 LAWYERS AND
THEY SAY NOT TO MARRY THIS MAN. THAT I SHOULD BE CONSIDERING LEAVING
VERSES A PRENUPTIAL TO KEEP HIS X-WIFE FROM MY ASSETS. SO, LAWYERS NOT
ONLY HAD NO CARE OF HIS DAY IN COURT, THE ARE QUICK TO TELL ME HIS
FUTURE IS IMPOSSIBLE. I HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD OF THE DRASTIC MEASURES THEY
ARE GOING TO. (SUICIDE) NO ONE WANTS TO BELIEVE THESE STORIES UNTIL ONE
HAPPENS TO THEM. WE ARE TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY THAT A JUDGE CAN ORDER THE
IMPOSSIBLE. I THINK THEY WANT TO SEE HIM HANG HIMSELF SO SHE CAN COLLECT
THE LIFE INSURANCE

Doug Laidlaw

unread,
May 7, 2005, 8:28:41 PM5/7/05
to
Jaycee wrote:

I reckon that you got a really unfair deal, Jaycee.

Doug.
--
ICQ Number 178748389. Registered Linux User No. 277548.
"I'm a good housekeeper. Whenever I leave a man, I keep his house."
- Zsa Zsa Gabor.

krp

unread,
May 8, 2005, 6:02:40 AM5/8/05
to

"Doug Laidlaw" <laid...@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message
news:p230l2-...@dougshost.mydomain.org.au...

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> THE MAN I HAVE BEEN WAITING TO MARRY FOR 3 YEARS HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR MORE
>> THAN HE BRINGS HOME. ALSO WITH PERMANENT ALIMONY AND THE LIST GOES ON
>> AND ON. I OWN A HOME AND HE LIVES WITH ME. NOW IT SEEMS THE COURTS ARE
>> TAKING IN CONSIDERATION MY INCOME. I'VE BEEN CONSULTED BY 4 LAWYERS AND
>> THEY SAY NOT TO MARRY THIS MAN. THAT I SHOULD BE CONSIDERING LEAVING
>> VERSES A PRENUPTIAL TO KEEP HIS X-WIFE FROM MY ASSETS. SO, LAWYERS NOT
>> ONLY HAD NO CARE OF HIS DAY IN COURT, THE ARE QUICK TO TELL ME HIS
>> FUTURE IS IMPOSSIBLE. I HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD OF THE DRASTIC MEASURES THEY
>> ARE GOING TO. (SUICIDE) NO ONE WANTS TO BELIEVE THESE STORIES UNTIL ONE
>> HAPPENS TO THEM. WE ARE TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY THAT A JUDGE CAN ORDER THE
>> IMPOSSIBLE. I THINK THEY WANT TO SEE HIM HANG HIMSELF SO SHE CAN COLLECT
>> THE LIFE INSURANCE

> I reckon that you got a really unfair deal, Jaycee.

I think that was a bunch of stories not just one.


Avenger

unread,
May 8, 2005, 11:37:38 PM5/8/05
to

"krp" <web2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4tlfe.7668$hh6.2401@trnddc01...

>
> "Doug Laidlaw" <laid...@myaccess.com.au> wrote in message
> news:p230l2-...@dougshost.mydomain.org.au...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >> THE MAN I HAVE BEEN WAITING TO MARRY FOR 3 YEARS HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR
MORE
> >> THAN HE BRINGS HOME.

Any man who tolerates this inhuman treatment deserves it. If he's paying all
of his money to his wife he should quit working and tell his wife and the
judge to go to hell and pay NOTHING. Remember they get NO MONEY if he's in
jail. But if he's smart he would just leave and change his identity. If
enough men did this wacko judges and wives would have to give up because the
cost of tracking someone down would be more than the money they want. He
should work for cash only and since he won't be paying any tax he'd only
have to make 1/2 of what he is now :o)


ALSO WITH PERMANENT ALIMONY AND THE LIST GOES ON
> >> AND ON. I OWN A HOME AND HE LIVES WITH ME. NOW IT SEEMS THE COURTS ARE
> >> TAKING IN CONSIDERATION MY INCOME.

They can't. You don't have to even answer any questions. If you're ever
summoned to testify before a court, your story is you rent him a room in
your house for $1 a week :o)

I'VE BEEN CONSULTED BY 4 LAWYERS AND
> >> THEY SAY NOT TO MARRY THIS MAN. THAT I SHOULD BE CONSIDERING LEAVING
> >> VERSES A PRENUPTIAL TO KEEP HIS X-WIFE FROM MY ASSETS. SO, LAWYERS NOT
> >> ONLY HAD NO CARE OF HIS DAY IN COURT, THE ARE QUICK TO TELL ME HIS
> >> FUTURE IS IMPOSSIBLE. I HAVE ALSO BEEN TOLD OF THE DRASTIC MEASURES
THEY
> >> ARE GOING TO. (SUICIDE) NO ONE WANTS TO BELIEVE THESE STORIES UNTIL ONE
> >> HAPPENS TO THEM. WE ARE TOTALLY BLOWN AWAY THAT A JUDGE CAN ORDER THE
> >> IMPOSSIBLE. I THINK THEY WANT TO SEE HIM HANG HIMSELF SO SHE CAN
COLLECT
> >> THE LIFE INSURANCE

He can always change the beneficiary as the owner of the policy :o) Or just
don't pay the premium so it's cancelled. Courts and wives only go after
people who have assets. When you have nothing people give up. Failure to
obey a court order is only civil contempt and a court does not have the
jurisdiction to pursue you beyond their jurisdiction. Make it hard for them
to accomplish anything. Go to another state or even another country. The
problem with most people is that they give in too easily when they should be
fighting every little thing and running their opponents bills skyhigh. If
this judge is so irrational your boyfriend should have made a number of
complaints against him both with the Advisory Committee Of the State Supreme
Court but should have also filed a complaint against the judge, and others
involved, in Federal Court for damages and a violation of his civil rights
and for injunctive relief(stop harrassment by judge). Even if you can't win
the case you must remember that a pro se Plaintiff has a lot more leeway
that a lawyer. He can write almost anything he wants in the complaint. He
can claim that the judge is an irrational drug addict who is shagging his
former wife and that they are both conspiring to steal everything he has :o)
Once the complaint is filed and served he can make a few hundred copies and
distribute it to everyone in the area :o) Hey it's a public document lol
Counties work on the profit philosophy. How long do you think they'd keep a
judge when they have to spend a lot of money for his defense or theirs? Of
course, the county and anyone else connected with the case should also be a
named defendant :o) Each one of them will need a seperate lawyer :o)
My advice to him is to give up working. BTW, a judge cannot hold a layman in
contempt if he is not represented by an attorney so they'll have to appoint
one if he's broke :o) If he was held in contempt or jailed without an
attorney to advise him the judge would lose his immunity and could be sued
for a violation of civil rights and you'd have a good chance of winning
substantial damages :o)

krp

unread,
May 9, 2005, 7:46:38 AM5/9/05
to

"Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6WAfe.4273$N_5.946@trndny09...


>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------


-
>> >> THE MAN I HAVE BEEN WAITING TO MARRY FOR 3 YEARS HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR
>> >> MORE
>> >> THAN HE BRINGS HOME.

> Any man who tolerates this inhuman treatment deserves it. If he's paying
> all
> of his money to his wife he should quit working and tell his wife and the
> judge to go to hell and pay NOTHING. Remember they get NO MONEY if he's in
> jail. But if he's smart he would just leave and change his identity. If
> enough men did this wacko judges and wives would have to give up because
> the
> cost of tracking someone down would be more than the money they want. He
> should work for cash only and since he won't be paying any tax he'd only
> have to make 1/2 of what he is now :o)

But many men do without even a whimper. Men ACCEPT without question loss of
driver's licenses, even the ability to go hunting and not even a small
snivel.The American male was castrated LONG ago.


> ALSO WITH PERMANENT ALIMONY AND THE LIST GOES ON
>> >> AND ON. I OWN A HOME AND HE LIVES WITH ME. NOW IT SEEMS THE COURTS ARE
>> >> TAKING IN CONSIDERATION MY INCOME.

> They can't. You don't have to even answer any questions. If you're ever
> summoned to testify before a court, your story is you rent him a room in
> your house for $1 a week :o)

The "jurisdiction" of the court to question a spouse as to their assets
in a case between former spouses has successfully been challenged.

> and for injunctive relief(stop harassment by judge). Even if you can't

James Hernandez

unread,
May 16, 2005, 8:38:03 PM5/16/05
to
By Federal Law a simple Family Law judge cannot take over 65% of his
"disposable earnings" (i.e. after tax, FICA, health insurance). This
is a fact and you can look it up at the U.S. Department of Labor
website under "garnishments and wage attachments"

I don't understand why so many millions of men are putting up with
this inhumane family court system. It is terrible and needs changing,
some of us have decided to fight back and get organized. We are
changing the laws but we need dads and friends of non-custodial
parents to get involved and tell others about the American Center For
Child Support Reform http://www.childsupportreform.org

Indefinate alimony should be illegal. In Maryland, if a custodial
parent decides to work and the NCP works at a good job, up to 65% of
his income can go to the custodial parent (CP). There is no reason for
the CP to ever get married or work if the non-CP has a good job.

Is it really in the best interests of thie children if they see how
the family courts terrorize working divorced dads? They will be
terrified of marriage.

webm...@childsupportreform.org

glenn

unread,
Jun 25, 2005, 3:33:32 PM6/25/05
to
Well, if this man does flip out and does something stupid and kills his
ex-wife, we should take up a collection to support he legal fees.
"Jaycee" <j...@noydb.com> wrote in message
news:h79fe.7044$7F4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Bock

unread,
Jun 26, 2005, 7:05:53 AM6/26/05
to
> > My brother's wife filed for divorce in 2001 and I just can't seem to think
> > the courts or his lawyer has any interest in his well being.

Why did he file for divorce. What went wrong with the marriage?


Alberta had a
> > drastic oilfield boom last year and he made 116,000. and the two previous
> > years he made 84,000. and 79,000. The case is not finished but in the last
> > months since sept 11 oil and gas has employment has slowed down
> > dramatically. Working all his days off the maximum amount in the last 6
> > months he made $3400. and the court has ordered temporarily for him to pay
> > 3200. per month plus half the child care expenses.

Well, let us stop right there. There has been a global shorage of oil
and the
price is rising. They don't make oil anymore. Reseves will soon run
out.
So here are the questions.
Does this guys wife live with him or does he go out of town to work in
the oilfields?
How many chilren does this guy and his wife have? What are the ages of
the chilren?
What is this guy's education? What is his wife's education and job
skills should she
be required to return to work? How old is this guy, 21 or 51? How old
is his wife?


> So he has been in the
> > hole for the last 6 months. He moved backed home and it quite embarrassed
> > to be with his parents. The court also said for his visitation he is to
> > provide food and shelter. I asked how is this. He has lost 31 pounds from
> > not eating...can't afford to eat that is why last month I encouraged him
> > to move to our parent's home. She is living in the house and secretly
> > cleaned out the bank accounts and in court she said she needed the money
> > to feed the children...but spent 2 weeks in Hawaii for Christmas.

Again how many children?


I had to
> > secretly buy presents for the children at Christmas for him and for having
> > been a successful caring man he is suffering depression (I think). His
> > lawyer said he should sign off his half of the house and give her all the
> > rrsp.s and keep it easy.

Why are they getting a divorce? If his wife does't love him and she is
so bad,
should he be the happiest man on the planet? Again how old are his
children?
Don't the all want to live with daddy?

> We are not talking about a guy who would even
> > raise his voice to his wife and a very caring father and if she decided to
> > have an affair why should she and the boyfriend (she had an affair and
> > carried it on) get to live the life style she is accustomed to and he
> > can't even pay rent.

Well, you see fella, you left out the good stuff. The number of
children and their ages,
the amount of monthly income from either spouse, the cost of the
mortgage each month,
If the father is home every night after working his shift, when did the
wife have time
to have an affair with all these kids?

We are from Red Deer Alberta and I know he can't
> > afford another lawyer but any suggestions. I am sick to my stomach about
> > this and I can see how helpless he feels.

Well, most people I know don't make 80,000 dollars.

You say SHE HAS VERBALLY


> > AND PSYCHICALLY ABUSED HIM THROUGHOUT THE MARRIAGE IN FRONT OF ALL THE
> > FAMILY AND I AM THANKFUL HE HAS NEVER HIT HER.

So why did your brother marry her and why did he have any children and
especially
why did he agree to have the last child if she was so bad?

You see, the problem is you leave out the good stuff.

I love these stories where they present no facts.


> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I thought I was alone in this problem! I divorced an alcoholic wife last
> > year and at the same time lost a good paying job. We were married 15 years
> > with no children. I spent most of that time trying to help her with her
> > disease. Bottom line "no good deed goes unpunished" I have been out of
> > work for 18 months and have no money with loosing everything slowly, day
> > by day.
> >
> > I was hauled into court in Massachusetts last week and they did not care
> > that I had no money. I have to pay $3,000 in arrears or go to jail. They
> > don't care, they just want the money. I am stunned at the kangaroo court
> > system and loosing faith in our justice? system.
> >
> > My attorney was useless.
> >
> > I'm sorry for every decent person that is getting the shaft.....it's
> > heartbreaking. At least I don't have kids. That would be even worse. Not
> > to be dramatic but I do think of killing myself or picking up a
> > drink...but have to keep the faith. Good luck to all of you. Peter Tyler
> > Ell Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 12:02:20
> > 10/27/2002
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I too am about to embark on a similar situation. I've been married only
> > about 2 years but have also shared in the growth of my two children, 3 and
> > 2, with my wife for five years she now wants to leave me. I feel also I
> > will be dragged through the sharped sprockets of injustice.

At last a few facts. If you have been married two years and been with
your
wife for 3 years, and have two babis 2 and 3, your ages aren't given,
but
you should have known your spouse a little in all that time. Why did
you get
married? Why did you have babies so soon. Why didn't you wait 5 years
before starting a family? What is the education of this woman and what
kind of employment skills does she have? For 5 years until the youngest
child is old enough to say they want to live with daddy,
how is your wife going to support herself? Your wife each need a place
to live
with room for visiting kids so how can you afford that?

> After reading
> > your story I can't believe there isn't some type of constitutional
> > challenge here. I mean you too like myself are citizen of this so called
> > free country, Canada. Are we not allowed to pursue happiness here like
> > anyone else and if there are laws preventing us from that pursuit of
> > happiness, is there then not a constitutional challenge here? I'm not a
> > lawyer in any aspect of the word but hope this will bring some insight and
> > direction for your absent Brother. Good Luck Tyler Ell Janet Re: unfair
> > alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 14:18:00 11/06/2002
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > My friend is divorcing his physically and verbally abusive spouse of 21
> > years (stayed till the kids were 18, and he's being shafted for $45,000
> > support, she gets ALL the assets (including his retirement!) and he gets
> > ALL the liabilities. The formula for the support, according to the judge,
> > was (his income - her income) X 1.5.
> >

More facts. j This guy of probably 50 stays with a women for 20
something years
and then decides to leave. Who would want somebody else's woman after
20 years?
Would you keep a car that long? Would you expect to get anything for a
car
after 20 years? Since nobody wants this old woman of 50 and she
probably has
no job skills or much compared to the beautiful woman who are computer
literate,
how is this woman who has no pension of her own going to support herself
after
she is dumped?


> > This is just wrong. He's worked 3 jobs for 20 years to support her
> > spending habits and now he's being screwed for it.
> >
> > Oh, I almost forgot. He has to pay BOTH lawyers.
> >
> > I love Oklahoma, but you don't want to be a man in a divorce case here.
> > John Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 07:55:19
> > 04/01/2003
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > They (the court system) could care less about the men. As long as you have
> > access to a newspaper and a park bench that should be good enough for you.
> >
> > Then when the guy is at the end of his rope and snaps and does something
> > to her and gets in trouble with the law everybody scratches their heads
> > and say "I wonder what got into him" We have a system (thanks in large to
> > the HATEFUL feminazis) that discriminates against men and until we as men
> > are willing to stand up for ourselves it will continue and only get worse.
> > Charles Buchanan Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At
> > 10:48:16 08/23/2003
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > My ex, who lives 7000 miles away from me, is bright and applied for an
> > alimony increase through her country's court system, when she was in
> > between jobs. She now has a better paying position and I'm being milked
> > dry. As a Canadian how can I have this reversed as it's crippling me?
> > T.Labon Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At 12:56:04
> > 10/28/2003

Well, you could start off by describing how many children you produced
by this woman,
the ages of the children, how much you earn, how much she earns.


> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I had a gambling wife for 27 yrs. She spent all the money I made.

Why would any guy stay married to a gambling women for 27 years who
spends all the
family money. And worse, what guy on the planet is going to want this
woman after
27 years with somebody else? Was this women employed with an excellent
pension?
What profession or job skills does she have to support herself and how
much can she
earn?

We
> > separated last year and she got the house, half the pension, and I have to
> > pay about half my earnings which she uses to go to Atlantic city and other
> > gambling places.

Okay, well it is the old story, you take your victims as you find them.


> She used to work but now she says she has a hip problem.

Yes, I would expect that any woman who is probably in her 50s and has
sat
gambling for 27 years would probaby have hip problems. No surprises
there.

> > Yet she goes bowling and dancing but the Judge can't see that. My Lawyer
> > was useless and it looks like he was working for her.

WEll, you may be correct but you haven't stated any of the facts.

> They Just want to
> > move on to the next case and nail another hard working man. I am very
> > disappointed with the court system. I cant believe that a Judge can show
> > such a lack of wisdom and understanding. People in a position of authority
> > and trust should be held accountable for their actions but I'm sure these
> > arrogant bastards won't be reading this to educate themselves. I feel for
> > you all. Jennifer Re: unfair alimony??? (Currently 0 replies) Posted At
> > 00:03:58 11/20/2003
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I have a friend who is married to a severe alcoholic, very abusive woman.
> > He has documentation of everything she has put the family through and the
> > lawyer says he can do nothing. He has to pay her 4000+ a month plus his
> > retirement plus the equity in his house all the assets. She got fired from
> > her job a day or so ago because of her heavy drinking. This is a woman who
> > goes through 1.75L of vodka in 2 days. She hits him, she stalks him, and
> > all the lawyer says is perhaps the judge will grant her a lifetime of
> > spousal support.

Well, you see, in the beginning a mother and father have to look after
their children unless
they can get them married off to some fool and then the child becomes
the responsibility of
the spouse. Most people I know don't make 4000 a month so what does he
have left to tell us
his annual salary.

You see these people complain about their spouse but they don't say much
about themselves
or what led to the divorce.

Longshot

unread,
Jun 27, 2005, 4:19:24 PM6/27/05
to
> Who would want somebody else's woman after
> 20 years?
> Would you keep a car that long? Would you expect to get anything for a
> car
> after 20 years? Since nobody wants this old woman of 50 and she
> probably has
> no job skills or much compared to the beautiful woman who are computer
> literate,
> how is this woman who has no pension of her own going to support herself
> after
> she is dumped?

Should women of 50 be put to sleep?
aren't there men of 50 in this world?


Nearl J Icarus

unread,
Jun 28, 2005, 2:49:45 AM6/28/05
to
Long...@aol.com says...

>
>
>> Who would want somebody else's woman after 20 years?
>Should women of 50 be put to sleep?
>aren't there men of 50 in this world?

I don't know where the original thread came from, but whoever you replied to
is an idiot. My finacee walked out on her husband after 21 years. I sure as
hell want her.

Bock

unread,
Jul 3, 2005, 12:52:42 PM7/3/05
to

No. Look at the subject line! The context was in response to a poster
who was disgruntled at the thought of
having to share the assets and benefits of a marriage with a woman, his
wife, for 30 years who
bore him many good children and was in her mid 50s. I took the
demonstrative, sarcastic
response to demonstrate my point that it was rather selfish don't you
tbink. If she
spent her time washing his dirty undwear and brought beer to him so he
didn't miss any
football plays, she may have sacrificed some of her time for his benefit
that might otherwise
have gone to keeping up her academic education to easily enter the
workforce after he dumps
her at 50.

Beautiful and ugly women can always attract men regardless of their age,
but women over 45, particularly if they are large in size may be
discriminated against in employment very discretely by employers for
younger, thinner women employees who may be less bright, less
experienced and less emotionally stable with a bad attendance record
simply because of visuals and potentials not only for themselves
personally but for every other male in the business whether it be an
industrial laundry or expensive law firm. Context is everything.

~ krp

unread,
Jul 3, 2005, 7:22:09 PM7/3/05
to

"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C81887...@telus.net...

> No. Look at the subject line! The context was in response to a poster
> who was disgruntled at the thought of
> having to share the assets and benefits of a marriage with a woman, his
> wife, for 30 years who
> bore him many good children and was in her mid 50s.

Hmmmmmmm interesting. So you think it is fitting to hold a MAN to his
end of a contract that the woman broke IN BAD FAITH. (To support her) Yet
would you support a court order forcing her to come to his house and cook
and clean and do his laundry? Or is it ONLY the men who are obligated to
continue honoring the contract?

Bock

unread,
Jul 3, 2005, 9:36:17 PM7/3/05
to

What you mean by "broke in bad faith"?
Well, each case is unique but if the woman is not working, she is
gaining
equity in the family investment while she looks after the home. He on
the other
hand looks after his work outside the home. Key to all of this, of
course, is that
the taxpayers don't want to be faced with supporting in any way
anybody's ex-wife.
You take and leave your wife as you find her. So if she has always
worked outside the
home during the course of the marriage, then it is expected she will
after the divorce.
If however she has raised several children, remained homebound and
separation and divorce
ensues, the courts would find her in a less than ideal situation and if
she is in her 50s
she is not very employable without training and even with training after
so many years the
prospects are slim. Whether any of the couple have fallen out of love
has no bearing on the equity
of each of the spouses to 50 percent of the family assets.

The problem is that little boys and young men aren't told this stuff and
Daddy and the gang don't
tell them either. You can take religion in some schools, banking and
finance but there are not courses
on marriage law, child custody laws, responsibilites and costs or
raising families or divorce law and all the other stuff, no guidence on
how many kids to have depending on your education and income. And, of
course, with good reason. Nobody tells young men what the front is like
else they wouldn't enlist. Same with marriage.

Dustbin

unread,
Jul 3, 2005, 11:46:18 PM7/3/05
to
~ krp wrote:
> "Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:42C81887...@telus.net...
>
>
>>No. Look at the subject line! The context was in response to a poster
>>who was disgruntled at the thought of
>>having to share the assets and benefits of a marriage with a woman, his
>>wife, for 30 years who
>>bore him many good children and was in her mid 50s.
>
>
> Hmmmmmmm interesting. So you think it is fitting to hold a MAN to his
> end of a contract that the woman broke IN BAD FAITH. (To support her) Yet
> would you support a court order forcing her to come to his house and cook
> and clean and do his laundry?

And look after his cock.

D.

Dustbin

unread,
Jul 3, 2005, 11:49:20 PM7/3/05
to
Bock wrote:

> ~ krp wrote:
>
>>"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>news:42C81887...@telus.net...
>>
>>
>>>No. Look at the subject line! The context was in response to a poster
>>>who was disgruntled at the thought of
>>>having to share the assets and benefits of a marriage with a woman, his
>>>wife, for 30 years who
>>>bore him many good children and was in her mid 50s.
>>
>> Hmmmmmmm interesting. So you think it is fitting to hold a MAN to his
>>end of a contract that the woman broke IN BAD FAITH. (To support her) Yet
>>would you support a court order forcing her to come to his house and cook
>>and clean and do his laundry? Or is it ONLY the men who are obligated to
>>continue honoring the contract?
>
>
> What you mean by "broke in bad faith"?
> Well, each case is unique

Here we go again. When a man dares to speak out
we have some joker quick to expound that each
case is different. Try being a man; you suddenly
find that each case is just the same: he is
guilty and told to pay pay pay.

D.

Society

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 12:03:41 AM7/4/05
to

"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> ranted in message
news:42C8933D...@telus.net...
>
>~ krp patiently explained...
>>
>> "Bock" boo-hooed...
>> >
>> > [...S]hare the assets and benefits of a marriage

>> > with a woman, his wife, for 30 years who bore
>> > bore

AND herself, the selfish bi*ch!

<giggle>

Some people like Bock need frequent reminders
about how the world really works. Otherwise,
they run off at their froth-hole with malarkey
about how women selflessly suffer blah blah blah.

>> > many good children and was in her mid 50s.
>>
>> Hmmmmmmm interesting. So you think it is fitting
>> to hold a MAN to his end of a contract that the
>> woman broke IN BAD FAITH. (To support her)
>> Yet would you support a court order forcing her
>> to come to his house and cook and clean and do
>> his laundry?

Good point, ~krp!

The real question, though, would be to ask
how compliant with a court order would women
be if that order said, "[...Y]ou will continue to
fulfill the traditional female role by going over
to your ex-husband and children's house three
times a week and cooking, cleaning and shopping
for them."

Jack Kammer, _Good Will Toward Men_
St. Martin's Press (1994)
http://www.menweb.org/kammer.htm

>> Or is it ONLY the men who are obligated to
>> continue honoring the contract?
>
> What you mean by "broke in bad faith"?

Just what the words say, Bock, that's what ~krp
means. She made a long-term agreement with
her man and now wishes to tear it up unilaterally
without compensating her man for taking away
what she had agreed he could count on in the
long run.

> Well, each case is unique

You speak fluent weasel, Bock.

What you're struggling to ignore is that
whatever "unique" components this case has
are irrelevant to this discussion. What this
case has in common with so many other
injustices is that one party (the woman 91%
of the time says feminist Shere Hite) unilaterally
tears up the agreement without compensating
her man for what she's making him give up.

> but if the woman is not working, she is gaining
> equity in the family investment while she looks
> after the home.

"Looks after the home". Kind'a soft duty compared
to all the working and slaving this woman expected
her man to do. Sheesh. Nice try, Bock, at stretching
the truth in order to make whatever her contribution
to the household wealth was appear 'equal' to her
man's but only fools are buyin' what yer sellin'.

> He on the other hand looks after his work
> outside the home.

When one works "outside the home" one does
not get to set ones own conditions of work (such
as watching the boob tube while supposedly
working), schedule, etc. Nor does one work
for ones loved ones and in their presence all day.
Need I remind you, Bock, (yeah, I see I must!)
that no parent ever feared being fired by their
two-year old, no matter how bad her terrible-
twos stage is! Working all day for and among
strangers in a dull job is not the wonderful,
empowering, self-fulfilling experience Betty
Friedan et. al. claimed it was.

This is soc.men. We know better.
-- Michael Snyder

> Key to all of this, of course, is that the taxpayers
> don't want to be faced with supporting in any way
> anybody's ex-wife.

Yeah, so you're admitting that women are not
cost-effective. If "supporting" these irresponsible
women is what's really bothering you, Bock, then
stop voting for politicians who promote nonsense
such as the-State-as-surrogate-husband.

I do not believe ripping men from their money
and funneling it to females was the goal of
feminists. Men already were giving their money
to women, on an individual level, in a natural
transfer of wealth. There was no need for women
to rip men of their money.

The goal, I believe, for feminists was to break
down the family structure. The only thing
feminists are accomplishing is changing how a
male-to-female transfer of wealth occurs.
Instead of husbands giving it to their wives,
in a natural, private, voluntary transfer of
wealth, the state takes the money from the
collective men and gives it to the collective
women. [...] The only thing that was changed
is that the family structure is dissolved. That
was the end goal. This is also a staple of
communism.

Amber Pawlik, "Gender Healing: Seeing Bees,
Not the Swarm"
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/p/pawlik/03/pawlik092803.htm


> You take and leave your wife as you find her.

Then if she was working part-time as a waitress
when you find her, she can just go back to that
when she dumps you, Bock. So what about
"leave your (runaway) wife as you find her" that
you just don't get -- even tho' you can type the
words, Bock, by your insistence on pandering
to the widdle hewpwess wimmins one can easily
conclude that you don't really understand what
you're writing!

> So if she has always worked outside the home
> during the course of the marriage, then it is
> expected she will after the divorce.

"It is expected" by whom, Bock? Dummies
like you, that's who! Sheesh. Whatever the
basis of that expectation, you'll notice that it
arose back in the days when unilateral divorce
was not permitted -- not under the present
conditions. And before legislators foolishly
altered the laws to permit unilateral divorces,
if the woman ran away from home then her
man was not held liable to support her after
a divorce.

> If however she has raised several children, remained
> homebound and separation and divorce ensues,
> the courts would find her in a less than ideal situation
> and if she is in her 50s she is not very employable
> without training and even with training after
> so many years the prospects are slim.

Bock, all you're doing there is demonstrating (a) how
poor the courts have become throughout the
Anglosphere and (b) why the woman who would
so easily choose to be a homewrecker should not
be given a cash prize.

> Whether any of the couple have fallen out of love
> has no bearing on the equity of each of the spouses
> to 50 percent of the family assets.

Now that you bring it up, Bock, "fallen out of love"
is a reason women commonly give for seeking
unilateral divorces, something that reflects badly
on women btw. And out of which of your bodily
orifices did you pull the idea that the at-home
slacker partner who wants to smash the marriage
has "equity to... 50 percent" of anything? Rather,
the bi*ch should be compensating her man for all
the years he was stuck away from home, away
from the affection of and parenting experiences
with his children as they grew up! Ahh, but
somehow in your MSguided chivalry, Bock, you
ignore what the man gave up. You are the very
sort of person Karl Marx anticipated, Bock,
when you foolishly treat as the "nexus of all
human relations" nothing but "cold cash."

> The problem is [...]

... that legislatures and courts are full of women
and men who pander to women. All the rest of
your hot air, Bock, are merely excuses for the
status quo.

--
By making her own work appear degrading
and contemptible, woman brings man to the
point where he will undertake all the
other tasks: in other words, everything
she does not want to do.

Esther Vilar, "Manipulation by Means of
Self-Abasement" in _The Manipulated Man_
(original title, _Der dressierte Mann_,
English translation by Eva Borneman
and Ursula Bender) Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, publishers (1972) page 62.
http://www.pinter.dircon.co.uk/Manipulated%20Man.html


Heidi Graw

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 1:03:20 AM7/4/05
to

>"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
>news:11chfev...@corp.supernews.com...
>
(snip)

>Society wrote:
> Some people like Bock need frequent reminders
> about how the world really works. Otherwise,
> they run off at their froth-hole with malarkey
> about how women selflessly suffer blah blah blah.

We've all heard it, "I gave him the best years of my life!"

An aquaintance of mine just recently told me that while trying to justify
her "entitlements." I asked her, "And what about your husband's life?
Didn't he give *you* the best years of his life, too?"

The look on her face: Priceless!

She couldn't give me an answer except for: "Huh? But...but..." She
blithered and changed the subject. <sigh>

Heidi


Honor

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 3:27:27 AM7/4/05
to

Heidi Graw wrote:
>
> We've all heard it, "I gave him the best years of my life!"
>
> An aquaintance of mine just recently told me that while trying to justify
> her "entitlements." I asked her, "And what about your husband's life?
> Didn't he give *you* the best years of his life, too?"
>
> The look on her face: Priceless!
>
> She couldn't give me an answer except for: "Huh? But...but..." She
> blithered and changed the subject. <sigh>
>
> Heidi

Actually, I don't blame the women at all. Rightfully they take
advantage of the situation. That is human nature. However, I do blame
the courts and legal system that do the injustices. I also blame wimpy
men for tolerating it.

First marriage should be based on whatever written agreement the man
and women agreed to when married. The state should not set the terms.
The courts should enforce the contract. That is part of the
Constitution that no one pays any attention to.

Once the husband and wife have a contract and agree to the
terms-custody, child support, property settlement, etc., the
court's only job is to enforce the contract. Not set it aside. The
court does not have a right to say, for example, you can't contract
away the rights of the child. That is false, the man and woman made
the child so they own the child.

If the court sets aside the contract, that is assault and you have the
right to self-defense including, if necessary, killing the judge. If
only one hundred brave and honorable men in this country would kill the
judge and/or the woman's attorney, this shit would stop in a hurry.
Men should never harm the wife because she is just a pawn in the syste.


Or real men might do what I did. I could not talk my wife out of
filing for divorce. I told the attorney, "I want custody, we will
divide our assets, and I will ask nothing from my wife." He told me
that's not the way it works. She would get custody and I would pay
child support.

So I made an offer. Split the assets and I pay 10% of my income for
child support. They turned it down. I then made another offer and
gave it to my wife. I get the house and she gets 50% of my income for
child support.

My attorney called me in and asked, "What are you doing? Her
attorney wants to jump on your offer."

I told my attorney, "If they will not accept my first offer, I want
the equity in the house. I am just buying time so I can vanish to
another state and change my identity. I won't even tell my parents
where I'm going."

My attorney said, "If you want to do this, I'll help you."

I replied, "I don't want to, but I am not paying more than my first
offer."

Later I heard from a mutual friend that my wife had to tell her
attorney to take my first offer. He didn't want to do. Of course it
wouldn't have cost him anything, if I vanished. However, my wife
knew me. I don't bluff. I was so very happy they accepted my first
offer. However, if they didn't, I was prepared to give up my
profession and survive on a greatly reduced income. If I of gotten
caught. I had it planned out. I would tell the court that I had
learned my lesson and that it won't happen again. Then I would leave
North America.

This shit will stop when men stop being wimps.

Truth and Honor

Bock

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 4:17:45 AM7/4/05
to
Society wrote:
>
> "Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> ranted in message
> news:42C8933D...@telus.net...
> >
> >~ krp patiently explained...
> >>
> >> "Bock" boo-hooed...
> >> >
> >> > [...S]hare the assets and benefits of a marriage
> >> > with a woman, his wife, for 30 years who bore
> >> > bore
>
> AND herself, the selfish bi*ch!
>
> <giggle>

Well, I am not sure how old Mr. krp or MR. Society or any of the others
are nor am I familiar
with who they are but their expressions would suggest they they are
probably under 30.


>
> Some people like Bock need frequent reminders
> about how the world really works.

Well, tell me how it works, but as an old man I understand it works the
way I said.


> Otherwise,
> they run off at their froth-hole with malarkey
> about how women selflessly suffer blah blah blah.
>

Of course, I am trying to be funny to make my point.
I believe that no man should marry but simply when he meets a woman of
his dreams, he takes
a step backwards, suggest the each buy a house next to each other and
shaire the kids if they
agree to have any. He has his life and she has hers. He works. She
works. The make love when
they are up to it. He washes his dirty laundry and she does her own.
To me it is a perfect life.
Would any woman agree? Well, maybe that is telling a guy something he
should know at 20 rather at 50.



> >> > many good children and was in her mid 50s.
> >>
> >> Hmmmmmmm interesting. So you think it is fitting
> >> to hold a MAN to his end of a contract that the
> >> woman broke IN BAD FAITH. (To support her)
> >> Yet would you support a court order forcing her
> >> to come to his house and cook and clean and do
> >> his laundry?
>
> Good point, ~krp!
>
> The real question, though, would be to ask
> how compliant with a court order would women
> be if that order said, "[...Y]ou will continue to
> fulfill the traditional female role by going over
> to your ex-husband and children's house three
> times a week and cooking, cleaning and shopping
> for them."
>

Well, when the marriage is over the contract is over.
I didn't think of this before, but a guy could agree to pay
his wife while she stays home and looks after the kids his
portion of the money then rather than at time of divorce.
It costs 7.50 per day per child per parent plus the wife would
need a little money for housework and looking after the kids.
So I suppose a guy could agree to pay his wife 10 or 12 dollars
a day to do her her part of the marriage. Now, in return, the husband
could charge the wife a fee for cutting the grass or whatever.
The courts don't appear to believe that a stay-at-home wife is
free but being a mother and wife she shares an equity in the home
and assets of the marriage. You see if you gave your wife the
$10 or 12 dollars a day, wife could invest it and that would be her
pension investment when she divorces later in life. Records kept, every
thing documented.

Men have nothing to gain from marriage and women have everything to
gain, so why do
men marry? I don't know. It is not that a guy shouldn't get married,
but does a guy
realize the risk he is taking and what it will cost him should the woman
walk with or
without kids?


> Jack Kammer, _Good Will Toward Men_
> St. Martin's Press (1994)
> http://www.menweb.org/kammer.htm
>
> >> Or is it ONLY the men who are obligated to
> >> continue honoring the contract?
> >
> > What you mean by "broke in bad faith"?
>
> Just what the words say, Bock, that's what ~krp
> means. She made a long-term agreement with
> her man and now wishes to tear it up unilaterally
> without compensating her man for taking away
> what she had agreed he could count on in the
> long run.
>

Well, now we are talking. I have not known a marriage contract to have
an end date but doesn't
stop there from being one. Since a marriage contract can be anything
the couple agree to like in the
old days, love, honour and obey, and now the younger generation puts
other words, but it could contain
a phrase that I, the wife, agree to remain in the marriage until the
youngest child is 7 or 9 years of age
and if I leave before that time, I will forfeit my equity in all assets
of the marriage including the home.


> > Well, each case is unique
>
> You speak fluent weasel, Bock.
>

Hey, Bud, I always say, let the enemy think they are winning and
they will only fight half as hard.


> What you're struggling to ignore is that
> whatever "unique" components this case has
> are irrelevant to this discussion.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you make a statement,
would
you state a reason why it is irrelevant to this discussion so I can
understand
why you say so.


> What this
> case has in common with so many other
> injustices is that one party (the woman 91%
> of the time says feminist Shere Hite) unilaterally
> tears up the agreement without compensating
> her man for what she's making him give up.
>

When the marriage ends, you have two people who aren't
getting along or agreeing on much, you have money and assets
and possible children. Each case is unique and facts are relevant.
Age of husband wife, age of kids if any, length of marriage, his income,
her income,
if any, his education, her education. All relevant.
Those are the major facts of separation/divorce. Did I forget any? I
dont' think so.

Now, I like your comment about she tears up the agreement without
compensating
her man for what she's making him give up. But understand one thing
about me, I go nuts when
anyone uses pronouns because I don't know what they are referring to.
What is she making her man give up? The marriage is over. Divide an
go.

I think the part you are not understanding is that if the husband and
wife each had good jobs and each earned about the same amount of money,
it is likely already that the couple have a housekeeper and some form of
daycare/childcare in the home that they pay, so after divorce nothing is
different. They each split the cost.
The kids lives wherever. The problem is when a guy earns more than his
wife or she doesn't work at all and a divorce happens. No guy should
allow - and many guys don't - they insist their wife works - and they
both earn the same amount of money, have separate bank accounts, each
pay half the mortgage, each buys and looks after their own car. But
does a guy of 22 or 25 or 30 think of that, no, no, no he thinks of the
hot babe he has met, love, whatever that is, marriage, sex, kids, new
car, new house, impress his friends, beers and sports, perhaps a little
extra on the side, whatever.

> > but if the woman is not working, she is gaining
> > equity in the family investment while she looks
> > after the home.
>
> "Looks after the home". Kind'a soft duty compared
> to all the working and slaving this woman expected
> her man to do. Sheesh.

Exactly, my good boy, so why let any woman stay home.
Insist in writing that your wife work the whole time
she is married to you in a job that pays no less than
your job does.

> Nice try, Bock, at stretching
> the truth in order to make whatever her contribution
> to the household wealth was appear 'equal' to her
> man's but only fools are buyin' what yer sellin'.

Well, I am glad you think that way because from what you are telling me,
you probably haven't been
married, probably haven't been divorced and you most certainly have not
read much on divorce. I am not
criticizing you or trying to put you down, but I strongly suggest that I
may not be as stupid as you
suggest I am.

I think what is bugging you is I write very politely and that often
throws people off. I also use examples that are extreme but is all
about presentation. When I say that the good woman does his dirty
laundry, doesn't that make you want to punch a wall. Exactly.


>
> > He on the other hand looks after his work
> > outside the home.
>

Yes, he does, but he would wisely keep the good woman working because if
she has babies
and stays home too long pretty soon she can't do the work she used to
because it has all
changed and she needs to upgrade. Women know all this, of course.
Women talk.


> When one works "outside the home" one does
> not get to set ones own conditions of work (such
> as watching the boob tube while supposedly
> working), schedule, etc.

Exactly. That is why I go nuts when a guy says that a chic is dumb.
A woman no matter how stupid is not dumb. Even prostitutes in the
Goldrush
days ended up with all the prospector's money and then she moved to
Paris.

So smart guys don't put all their money in a joint account. They have a
household account for the
family and he gives her x amount of money and he keeps the rest in his
private account. If she complains
or says their is not enough (all women do), then perhaps she ought to go
out to work and the two of you can split the cost of a babbysitter. You
see, this old guy ain't so stupid after all, is he? And no shared
credit cards. You have yours and she has hers in her own name. Now,
you may begin to understand what the
word love really means. Sex is sex so that isn't love. No, the real
meaning of love is not getting screwed
by your partner/spouse if you understand what I man. Tell that to a
young guy and he will give you the finger and call you stupid.

> Nor does one work
> for ones loved ones and in their presence all day.
> Need I remind you, Bock, (yeah, I see I must!)
> that no parent ever feared being fired by their
> two-year old, no matter how bad her terrible-
> twos stage is! Working all day for and among
> strangers in a dull job is not the wonderful,
> empowering, self-fulfilling experience Betty
> Friedan et. al. claimed it was.
>

Well, my good man, I read and understand what you are saying. Men talk
about other women when they get together for a beer. They seldom talk
about their wives. Women on the other hand usually only talk about
their man and how he hasn't learned yet to do this or that, or he
doesn't realize I mean that he must do
this or that. If you don't believe me ask your sister or other women
you know. Women dress beautifully, attrack a lot of men and a lot of
interest, but few guys think of them only in terms of beauty.



> This is soc.men. We know better.
> -- Michael Snyder
>
> > Key to all of this, of course, is that the taxpayers
> > don't want to be faced with supporting in any way
> > anybody's ex-wife.
>
> Yeah, so you're admitting that women are not
> cost-effective.

Yes, not cost effective and the most expensive bad investment a guy can
make because they usually
out live their husbands, so not only do they get what they want when he
is alive, they get it all when
he dies. He usually ends up with a little beer money and memories.


If "supporting" these irresponsible
> women is what's really bothering you, Bock, then
> stop voting for politicians who promote nonsense
> such as the-State-as-surrogate-husband.
>

Well, as a Canadian, we don't have that stuff as far as I know.


> I do not believe ripping men from their money
> and funneling it to females was the goal of
> feminists.

Well, there are two types of feminists. Firstly most of them are
academics, university eduated.
So they want equal pay and equal rights. Some want children and some
don't. Some want a husband and
some don't. But don't confuse feminists with your average woman who
dresses sexy to catch a man who
will marry her and let her stay home and have babies while she screws
around or not or divorces or not.

Feminists don't want to kiss ass to a man and that is why the get an
education so they don't have to.

Your average chic just wants to find a guy to have babies with while she
stays home. Feminists would be
too bored to stay home.

> Men already were giving their money
> to women, on an individual level, in a natural
> transfer of wealth. There was no need for women
> to rip men of their money.

You are absolutely correct but that is why it is so important to
determine who you are, what kind of woman you want and what kind of
woman you don't want. But to a guy between 18 to 35 he is sort of
blinded by women who are so smart. He is blinded because his parents
want him out of the house so any woman that will take their son is
usually cool. Most guys think their parents don't understand aren't too
bright so parents say nothing or try to say as little as possible. Guys
18 to date a chic for 4 or 5 years usually while the each buy a house.
No, no the good woman suggest they could share an apartment together to
save rent money. Now, any guy that believes that line, hasn't got a
hope in hell. See how smart woman are?

>
> The goal, I believe, for feminists was to break
> down the family structure.

Feminists are well educated, have good jobs and may or may
not want a husband. Feminists aren't your average wife or chic
that a guy meets or marries.

> The only thing
> feminists are accomplishing is changing how a
> male-to-female transfer of wealth occurs.

No, no, feminists are woman who don't want to get married
usually and often ear more money than their husband do to begin with.

> Instead of husbands giving it to their wives,
> in a natural, private, voluntary transfer of
> wealth, the state takes the money from the
> collective men and gives it to the collective
> women. [...] The only thing that was changed
> is that the family structure is dissolved. That
> was the end goal. This is also a staple of
> communism.
>

Well, please understand I am referring to North America or western
society for the most part.

> Amber Pawlik, "Gender Healing: Seeing Bees,
> Not the Swarm"
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/p/pawlik/03/pawlik092803.htm
>
> > You take and leave your wife as you find her.
>
> Then if she was working part-time as a waitress
> when you find her, she can just go back to that
> when she dumps you, Bock.

Well, you are correct, but tips are often based on
her sexy appeal and a woman who is older and has a
few kids and perhaps a little extra weight from
watching tv and eating chips while her husband takes
a shit kicking from the boss every day may not get
the job let alone the tips she used to get. The key
is to keep the good woman working except for the
3 days she spent in hospital delivery the baby.

So what about
> "leave your (runaway) wife as you find her" that
> you just don't get -- even tho' you can type the
> words, Bock, by your insistence on pandering
> to the widdle hewpwess wimmins one can easily
> conclude that you don't really understand what
> you're writing!
>

Again I tell you you are entitled to your opinion.
The term you take your wife or leave her as you find her
means you take your victim as you find them. So if your
wife was working when you met her, keep her working. If
she isn't working, then it means the courts and society
say you said it was okay for her not to work during the
marriage. You accepted that as a condtion of your marriage.
If she eats chips and gets fat and ugly and has no employable
job skills then then that is a term of the marriage your accept.
But when you accept those conditions of marriage, you also accept
the risk that if and when she leaves the marriage, she will be
of no use to anybody else, taxpayers don't want to support her, so you
my
good man, are left holding the bag, or the good woman as it were.
It is sort of like if you don't teach your kids any manners or how to
dress properly or how to look after themselves, then when they grow up
or get older they will have no friends, they will be so wierd that
nobody
will hire them and so you will have to support them for the rest of your
life.


> > So if she has always worked outside the home
> > during the course of the marriage, then it is
> > expected she will after the divorce.
>
> "It is expected" by whom, Bock? Dummies
> like you, that's who! Sheesh.

Why would a woman teacher who worked while she raised
her children during the marriage not work after the divorce.
Of course she would. She is a professional. She wants a career.


> Whatever the
> basis of that expectation, you'll notice that it
> arose back in the days when unilateral divorce
> was not permitted -- not under the present
> conditions. And before legislators foolishly
> altered the laws to permit unilateral divorces,
> if the woman ran away from home then her
> man was not held liable to support her after
> a divorce.

Well, yes, you are correct that in the old days, you had to prove
adultery
or mental or physcial abuse and who cased the breakup was important.


>
> > If however she has raised several children, remained
> > homebound and separation and divorce ensues,
> > the courts would find her in a less than ideal situation
> > and if she is in her 50s she is not very employable
> > without training and even with training after
> > so many years the prospects are slim.
>
> Bock, all you're doing there is demonstrating (a) how
> poor the courts have become throughout the
> Anglosphere and (b) why the woman who would
> so easily choose to be a homewrecker should not
> be given a cash prize.
>

When two children fight over a toy, the are told to stop fighting
or are separated to told to get along and make up. Fault is not an
issue.

Same with divorce. Fault is not an issue.

Marriage is a business deal to live together or to live together
and raise chilren until they are 18. It is all about money.

> > Whether any of the couple have fallen out of love
> > has no bearing on the equity of each of the spouses
> > to 50 percent of the family assets.
>
> Now that you bring it up, Bock, "fallen out of love"
> is a reason women commonly give for seeking
> unilateral divorces, something that reflects badly
> on women btw. And out of which of your bodily
> orifices did you pull the idea that the at-home
> slacker partner who wants to smash the marriage
> has "equity to... 50 percent" of anything?

Well, you see, the thing that is never posted is why she left.
Why does a woman fall out of love? When does it happen?
Does the good woman make love, breakfast for her husband and then
one day there is no sex, breakfast or lunch? You tell me.


> Rather,
> the bi*ch should be compensating her man for all
> the years he was stuck away from home, away
> from the affection of and parenting experiences
> with his children as they grew up!

Well, if you gave her your paycheck and she live on it,
then why would she work outside the home?

> Ahh, but
> somehow in your MSguided chivalry, Bock, you
> ignore what the man gave up. You are the very
> sort of person Karl Marx anticipated, Bock,
> when you foolishly treat as the "nexus of all
> human relations" nothing but "cold cash."
>

No, you tell me what human relations are.
Know what a Will is? Know how people fight
over estates? Human relationships are what
you make them. Are all your male buddies, honest
and forthright with you, always give you good deals?


> > The problem is [...]
>
> ... that legislatures and courts are full of women
> and men who pander to women. All the rest of
> your hot air, Bock, are merely excuses for the
> status quo.
>

Well, my good man, if you don't pander to your wife, she will
pander off.

If you don't want a wife, don't have one. But you see, my good man,
nobody
ever says to guys, don't get married, stay single, no need to take a
wife.
No, society says, a man is not a man until he takes a wife.


> --
> By making her own work appear degrading
> and contemptible, woman brings man to the
> point where he will undertake all the
> other tasks: in other words, everything
> she does not want to do.
>

Well, that may be true, but most guys don't cook, clean house, change
diapers.
But chores have little to do with marriage or divorce. People don't
marry so
the guy will wash her car and she will cook his meals. And people don't
divorce
because the woman burnt the potatoes.

With the divorce rate at 50 percent and few happy marriages of those
that stay together, men should be
learing a few things. But like war, if you haven't gone before, you
have no reason to fear it?

Bock

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 4:28:19 AM7/4/05
to

Yes, Heidi, but the context of the remark is that at the end of a
marriage, men usually earned more
money, have a pension, and good job skills for the work force. Women
have often taken lesser jobs, sporadic employment, body shape and age
plus children may make her less appealing to an employer regardless of
her employment prospects.

It is a mute point if everything is split 50/50. But often husbands
don't want to split their pension, half the house and assets of the
marriage with a woman that is leaving.

Marriage is so bizzare but that is because it was originally religious
based and not financially based.
One never rents an apartment without a deposit and terms and sign a
contract setting out the terms.

Marriage is all about money and commitment and yet little is put in
writing - when all of it could be spelled out and put in writing.

Heidi Graw

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 5:01:49 AM7/4/05
to

>"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:42C8F3CF...@telus.net...

>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>>
>> >"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:11chfev...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> (snip)
>>
>> >Society wrote:
>> > Some people like Bock need frequent reminders
>> > about how the world really works. Otherwise,
>> > they run off at their froth-hole with malarkey
>> > about how women selflessly suffer blah blah blah.
>>
>> We've all heard it, "I gave him the best years of my life!"
>>
>> An aquaintance of mine just recently told me that while trying to justify
>> her "entitlements." I asked her, "And what about your husband's life?
>> Didn't he give *you* the best years of his life, too?"
>>
>> The look on her face: Priceless!
>>
>> She couldn't give me an answer except for: "Huh? But...but..." She
>> blithered and changed the subject. <sigh>
>>
>> Heidi

>Bock wrote:
> Yes, Heidi, but the context of the remark is that at the end of a
> marriage, men usually earned more
> money, have a pension, and good job skills for the work force.

...along with the past work related injuries which stiffen the joints in bad
weather and cause him dibilitating pain. After 30 years of working hard to
support that wife and the brood she chose to bear, that man's body had
experienced significant wear and tear. He is mentally and physically spent.
He gave her the best years of *his* life, too.

>Women
> have often taken lesser jobs, sporadic employment, body shape and age
> plus children may make her less appealing to an employer regardless of
> her employment prospects.

Yes. However, she's not the only one who sacrificed a life for this
marriage. My gripe is basically about divorcing women who seem to think
they're the only ones who contributed anything to the marriage..."I gave him
the best years of my life." Well...the man did that, too. All I want is to
make sure *his* contribution to the marriage is also acknowledged. "He gave
her the best years of his life!"

As for divisions of assets, custody, alimoney, etc. that's something they
can argue about between themselves with or without lawyers or judges. All
I'm saying to these women, that while these negotiations are going on, they
would be well advised to remember who made it all possible for them to
receive any portion whatsoever.

Heidi

Bock

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 6:45:43 AM7/4/05
to
Yes, he did and that should be noted.


> As for divisions of assets, custody, alimoney, etc. that's something they
> can argue about between themselves with or without lawyers or judges. All
> I'm saying to these women, that while these negotiations are going on, they
> would be well advised to remember who made it all possible for them to
> receive any portion whatsoever.
>
> Heidi

Absolutely correct.

But good people are hard to come by and in the end they remain alone if
they burn bridges.

Honor

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 6:59:51 AM7/4/05
to
Bock, that is excellent. You tell it like it is in a nice
understandable way without attacting the person. I like that. Refute
the message without attacking the writer of the message. I may need to
take lessons since too often I am so critical of the person instead of
the message.

S.Taylor

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 7:26:33 AM7/4/05
to
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 08:28:19 GMT, Bock
<electronicm...@telus.net> wrote:
>Yes, Heidi, but the context of the remark is that at the end of a
>marriage, men usually earned more
>money, have a pension, and good job skills for the work force.

In cases where the wife has been the bread-winner, she will fight tooth
and nail to NOT give him 50-50. Women who are ordered to pay alimony
(support) to a man simply do not pay it.

20% of fathers are in child support arrears.
75% of mothers are in child support arrears, but this never makes the
newspapers.

Women are children and should not vote.

~ krp

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 8:26:44 AM7/4/05
to

"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C8933D...@telus.net...

>> > No. Look at the subject line! The context was in response to a poster
>> > who was disgruntled at the thought of
>> > having to share the assets and benefits of a marriage with a woman, his
>> > wife, for 30 years who
>> > bore him many good children and was in her mid 50s.

>> Hmmmmmmm interesting. So you think it is fitting to hold a MAN to his
>> end of a contract that the woman broke IN BAD FAITH. (To support her) Yet
>> would you support a court order forcing her to come to his house and cook
>> and clean and do his laundry? Or is it ONLY the men who are obligated to
>> continue honoring the contract?

> What you mean by "broke in bad faith"?

Marriage is a "civil contract" and as such should be governed by
contract law (but isn't). In this case i mean "breached" the contract in bad
faith. That can be done in many diffrent ways, infidelity is the most common
one. Did you know that? Women have surpassed men in infidelity. Oh our
culture stil plays the act of women's virtue, but it is a delusion, or
perhaps propaganda, but current statistics are showing that as many as 40%
of the children born to married women are NOT those of their husbands. A
pesky thing called DNA is starting to expose the truth.

So my point is that looking at marriage as a contract with certain
promises and covenants, why shoult it be that a party can break the contract
IN BAD FAITH but yet demand to reap all the benefits of it as if the
innocent party was the guilty party? Why is it that you think the women's
movement is so STRIDENT demanding "no fault" divorce? But yet MEN are in
favor of returning to a fault system where bad conduct is considered in the
divorce settlements? That HAS to tell you something.

> Well, each case is unique but if the woman is not working, she is gaining
> equity in the family investment while she looks after the home. He on the
> other
> hand looks after his work outside the home. Key to all of this, of
> course, is that
> the taxpayers don't want to be faced with supporting in any way anybody's
> ex-wife.

Why should they or he do that in 2005? Isn't she fully a man's equal?

> You take and leave your wife as you find her.

Horseshit! That doesn't work in a divorce court. Women DEMAND to
continue to be supported in the life they have become accustomed to or
DESIRE to become accustomed to!

> So if she has always worked outside the home during the course of the
> marriage, then it is expected she will
> after the divorce.

Yes but even where she makes considerably MORE than her husband HE is
excpected to chip in on supporting HER to the LIFESTYLE she wishes!

> If however she has raised several children, remained homebound and
> separation and divorce
> ensues, the courts would find her in a less than ideal situation and if
> she is in her 50s
> she is not very employable without training and even with training after
> so many years the
> prospects are slim. Whether any of the couple have fallen out of love
> has no bearing on the equity
> of each of the spouses to 50 percent of the family assets.

Bullshit! The number of women who come ANYWHERE and I do mean ANYWHERE
near that profile in 2005 is infinitessimal. Now if this were 1945 you would
have a GREAT GREAT point! You'd have had a slam dunk. But this is 2005. I do
not know WHY feminazis continue perpetuating that myth and the myth of the
VESTAL VIRGINS... Well, yes, I do too know why. Playing VICTIM gets you lots
of FREE goodies.

> The problem is that little boys and young men aren't told this stuff and
> Daddy and the gang don't
> tell them either. You can take religion in some schools, banking and
> finance but there are not courses
> on marriage law, child custody laws, responsibilites and costs or raising
> families or divorce law and all the other stuff, no guidence on
> how many kids to have depending on your education and income. And, of
> course, with good reason. Nobody tells young men what the front is like
> else they wouldn't enlist. Same with marriage.

Now again here is an area where we are in perfect agreement. I confess
to being ignorant as hell in my first marriage. Not that I didn't care for
her, but when we got married I wasn't thinking of divorce. It was the
furthest thing from my mind. I was a hopeless romantic. The sheer passion of
our relationship still lingers in my mind as something incredible. We would
literally soak she sheets from the passion. Three times a day hardly seemed
enough. But I agree that if men were forced to take classes it might help.
But I will say this, given everything, I doubt that a young man like myself,
in his early 20's and horny as hell, would correctly process the
information. An erection seems to shut down the male brain. Especially of
the magnitude I had going into my first marriage.

~ krp

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 8:28:22 AM7/4/05
to

"Dustbin" <dus...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ei2ye.105868$Vj3....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>~ krp wrote:
>> "Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:42C81887...@telus.net...
>>
>>
>>>No. Look at the subject line! The context was in response to a poster
>>>who was disgruntled at the thought of
>>>having to share the assets and benefits of a marriage with a woman, his
>>>wife, for 30 years who
>>>bore him many good children and was in her mid 50s.
>>
>>
>> Hmmmmmmm interesting. So you think it is fitting to hold a MAN to his
>> end of a contract that the woman broke IN BAD FAITH. (To support her) Yet
>> would you support a court order forcing her to come to his house and cook
>> and clean and do his laundry?

> And look after his cock.

Hey that would be an interesting thing to do. Have her come over and
cook, clean, do the laundry, and provide sexual services after the divorce..
<grin> I wonder what Mz. Hemingway would say about that?


~ krp

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 8:30:45 AM7/4/05
to

"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:sq3ye.1862142$Xk.54616@pd7tw3no...

>
>>Society wrote:
>> Some people like Bock need frequent reminders
>> about how the world really works. Otherwise,
>> they run off at their froth-hole with malarkey
>> about how women selflessly suffer blah blah blah.

> We've all heard it, "I gave him the best years of my life!"

Like WE (men) don't also give th e"best years of OUR lives?"

> An aquaintance of mine just recently told me that while trying to justify
> her "entitlements." I asked her, "And what about your husband's life?
> Didn't he give *you* the best years of his life, too?"

> The look on her face: Priceless!

Yes feminazis keep harping on the "contributions" that the women made...
What of the contributions MEN make?


~ krp

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 8:33:01 AM7/4/05
to

"Honor" <worn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120462047.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> Actually, I don't blame the women at all. Rightfully they take
> advantage of the situation. That is human nature. However, I do blame
> the courts and legal system that do the injustices. I also blame wimpy
> men for tolerating it.

I also blame the men without testicles for tolerating it. I kept predicting
that men would finally rise "if they....." and then they took it away and
STILL all you get is a muffled whimper and back to the channel changer.
Recent medical evidence proves my point. Both the sperm count on American
men and testosterone levels are 36% of what they were 2 generations ago!


~ krp

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 8:33:43 AM7/4/05
to

"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C8F3CF...@telus.net...

>
> Yes, Heidi, but the context of the remark is that at the end of a
> marriage, men usually earned more
> money, have a pension, and good job skills for the work force. Women
> have often taken lesser jobs, sporadic employment, body shape and age
> plus children may make her less appealing to an employer regardless of
> her employment prospects.

BULLSHIT! Just NOT factual.


~ krp

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 8:43:19 AM7/4/05
to
"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C8F3CF...@telus.net...

> It is a mute point if everything is split 50/50. But often husbands
> don't want to split their pension, half the house and assets of the
> marriage with a woman that is leaving.

(You meant MOOT point)

WHY should we split everything with a person who violated the contract
by screwing every male in North America? This image of the selfless wife in
the life of drugery makes fine PROPAGANDA for Peter Jennings to repeat like
a robot - but it is NOT reality. The FACTS are that WOMEN seek over 90% of
the divorces in America, despite what professional MAN HATERS like Ms.
Hemingway claim (lies) the men WERE holding up their end of the marriage
contracts. Only a very SMALL number of men abuse their wives. Those men are
often working jobs that place their health at risk. Why? The sad part is
that MOST men are devoted to their wives and families. They struggle to
survive for the sake of the families, and then comes divorce because SHE
wants a NEW STUD! Give us a break here. This picture of the POOR POOR POOR
50 year old drudge woman MAY have been a reality in 1945 or even 1955, but
does NOT exist in any significant numbers in 2005.

> Marriage is all about money and commitment and yet little is put in
> writing - when all of it could be spelled out and put in writing.

For FEMINAZIS Marriage is ALL about money. KAAAA CHINNNNNGGGGG!!! KAAAAA
CHINNNNGGGGG!
Commitment? To most men it is about LOVE.....


As we deride men for being BEASTS.......... Try to remember that 99% of
the love songs, those truly from the heart have been written by MEN.. Also
factor in that those many love sonnets were also written by MEN! Men have
been inspired forever to do great things because of their love for their
wives and children. Including surrendering their lives. That is what makes
the slander of Feminism about the male gender so totally EVIL!


~ krp

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 8:44:20 AM7/4/05
to

"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1W6ye.155524$El.35582@pd7tw1no...

>>> >Society wrote:
>>> > Some people like Bock need frequent reminders
>>> > about how the world really works. Otherwise,
>>> > they run off at their froth-hole with malarkey
>>> > about how women selflessly suffer blah blah blah.
>>>
>>> We've all heard it, "I gave him the best years of my life!"
>>>
>>> An aquaintance of mine just recently told me that while trying to
>>> justify
>>> her "entitlements." I asked her, "And what about your husband's life?
>>> Didn't he give *you* the best years of his life, too?"
>>>
>>> The look on her face: Priceless!
>>>
>>> She couldn't give me an answer except for: "Huh? But...but..." She
>>> blithered and changed the subject. <sigh>
>>>
>>> Heidi
>
>>Bock wrote:
>> Yes, Heidi, but the context of the remark is that at the end of a
>> marriage, men usually earned more
>> money, have a pension, and good job skills for the work force.
>
> ...along with the past work related injuries which stiffen the joints in
> bad weather and cause him dibilitating pain. After 30 years of working
> hard to support that wife and the brood she chose to bear, that man's body
> had experienced significant wear and tear. He is mentally and physically
> spent. He gave her the best years of *his* life, too.

And factor in this . . over 40% of those kids ARE NOT EVEN HIS!!!!

(but he has yet to learn that)


~ krp

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 8:45:33 AM7/4/05
to

"Honor" <worn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120474791.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> Bock, that is excellent. You tell it like it is in a nice
> understandable way without attacting the person. I like that. Refute
> the message without attacking the writer of the message. I may need to
> take lessons since too often I am so critical of the person instead of
> the message.

Yes - that IS noted and appreciated.


Message has been deleted

GL Fowler

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 10:53:48 AM7/4/05
to
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 05:03:20 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

Methinks you experienced a random cosmic anomaly, like Haley's Comet,
won't come around for another 1000 years. (yes yes I know Haley's
visits every 100 or so!!)


"The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come here."
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Heidi Graw

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 4:59:40 PM7/4/05
to

>"Jill" <perspi...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:codic19a47dplrlj9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:01:49 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
(snip)

>>Heidi wrote:
>>My gripe is basically about divorcing women who seem to think
>>they're the only ones who contributed anything to the marriage..."I gave
>>him
>>the best years of my life." Well...the man did that, too. All I want is
>>to
>>make sure *his* contribution to the marriage is also acknowledged. "He
>>gave
>>her the best years of his life!"
>>
>>As for divisions of assets, custody, alimoney, etc. that's something they
>>can argue about between themselves with or without lawyers or judges. All
>>I'm saying to these women, that while these negotiations are going on,
>>they
>>would be well advised to remember who made it all possible for them to
>>receive any portion whatsoever.
>>
>>Heidi
>>

>Jill wrote:
> Sometimes you really surprise me, Heidi. Those are excellent
> observations and ones that are not popular with feminists.

Hi Jill,
What I strive for is fairness. What is fair? I don't always succeed in
being totally fair, but I do give it a try. Certain situations dictate
what sort of advocate I may have to be. I'm more than just a feminist, I
can be a masculist, a humanist, a children's rights activist, an
environmentalist, a animalist, a unionist, a corporatist. I'm
multi-dimensional. I can wear differents hats depending on what the
situation calls for. When other people try to put me in one box, I can pop
up and out of another box. This tends to surprise them. "Huh? How come
you're there, when I put you here?" ;-)

Heidi


Heidi Graw

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 5:11:26 PM7/4/05
to

>"GL Fowler" <km...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:38jic1h7hve4aa5lg...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 05:03:20 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:11chfev...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>>Society wrote:
>>> Some people like Bock need frequent reminders
>>> about how the world really works. Otherwise,
>>> they run off at their froth-hole with malarkey
>>> about how women selflessly suffer blah blah blah.

>>Heidi wrote:
>>We've all heard it, "I gave him the best years of my life!"
>>
>>An aquaintance of mine just recently told me that while trying to justify
>>her "entitlements." I asked her, "And what about your husband's life?
>>Didn't he give *you* the best years of his life, too?"
>>
>>The look on her face: Priceless!
>>
>>She couldn't give me an answer except for: "Huh? But...but..." She
>>blithered and changed the subject. <sigh>
>>
>>Heidi
>>

>GL wrote:
> Methinks you experienced a random cosmic anomaly, like Haley's Comet,
> won't come around for another 1000 years. (yes yes I know Haley's
> visits every 100 or so!!)

LOL...Yet, how many men have you heard claiming, "I gave her the best years
of my life?" Not once in my whole life had I ever heard it said. So, when
I heard my acquaintance make the statement, "I gave him the best years of my
life." it somehow grated against my nerves. I thought, "How dare you say
that?" Visions of this husband slogging away day in and day out, giving up
his youth, his strength and his vitality to provide his wife with a
livelihood....well my sense of fairness just exploded. It had a stunning
effect on this woman. ;-)

So guys, if and when you next hear a woman claim, "I gave him the best years
of my life," you know what you can say in return. Try it out and let me
know the result. I didn't get an answer from that acquaintance of mine.

Heidi

GL Fowler

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 6:20:31 PM7/4/05
to
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:11:26 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

Heh, well I think your asking the wrong gender here. By inference
possibly I may have heard another man say its equivalent. I think men
learn at an early age complaining does them little personal good, at
best more is piled on them of someone else's complaint(s), read
'Hers".


>So guys, if and when you next hear a woman claim, "I gave him the best years
>of my life," you know what you can say in return. Try it out and let me
>know the result. I didn't get an answer from that acquaintance of mine.
>
>Heidi
>
>

"The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come here."

Bill in Co.

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 6:47:49 PM7/4/05
to

Yeah, I've kinda noticed that too, about some people! It's like, "hey,
you don't fit in this box, what's the matter with you?? I can't handle
it!!"


Bock

unread,
Jul 4, 2005, 7:50:37 PM7/4/05
to
~ krp wrote:
>
> "Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:42C8933D...@telus.net...
>
> >> > No. Look at the subject line! The context was in response to a poster
> >> > who was disgruntled at the thought of
> >> > having to share the assets and benefits of a marriage with a woman, his
> >> > wife, for 30 years who
> >> > bore him many good children and was in her mid 50s.
>
> >> Hmmmmmmm interesting. So you think it is fitting to hold a MAN to his
> >> end of a contract that the woman broke IN BAD FAITH. (To support her) Yet
> >> would you support a court order forcing her to come to his house and cook
> >> and clean and do his laundry? Or is it ONLY the men who are obligated to
> >> continue honoring the contract?
>
> > What you mean by "broke in bad faith"?
>
> Marriage is a "civil contract" and as such should be governed by
> contract law (but isn't). In this case i mean "breached" the contract in bad
> faith. That can be done in many diffrent ways, infidelity is the most common
> one. Did you know that?

Well, yes, I knew it was a civil contract but it isn't much of a contact
in terms of
setting out conditions. In polite language it is more like a treaty
which is sort of
funny particularly when we see how the courts and government have
treated
treaties historically! Yes, I know lots of women who are getting it on
the side.
Both men and women, depending on who they are, expecially the rich, have
lots of
extras on the side. One dentist I knew met this woman he had an affair
with for 20
years at a local hotel. As far as I recall she was married, too, but
they were rich,
had money and it was easy to do.

For most guys and gals, probably the first contract they enter into is
buying a vehicle and getting a loan often cosigned by their parents.
How can you hold a guy or gal for a breach of marriage contract even
with
modern stringent conditions at the age of 18 or 25 or even perhaps 30?
They haven't had enough of life's experience. Unless one is well
educated, and some of them aren't, and unless they are reasonbly well
off, neither the guy or the gal can afford to marry the wrong person,
especially if there is a child involved because there simply isn't
sufficient money for them to keep themselves going and looking after the
child and then to find enough cash to start looking for a new spouse all
over again. The term, you may know, is dry judgment. Yes, the husband
or wife can sue the pants or skirt off the other and win but there is no
money for them and the kids to continue. They are effectively
destroyed. The objective of the courts and society are not to destroy
the family, if at all possible.

> Women have surpassed men in infidelity. Oh our
> culture stil plays the act of women's virtue, but it is a delusion, or
> perhaps propaganda, but current statistics are showing that as many as 40%
> of the children born to married women are NOT those of their husbands.

Women have been doing that for centuries and so have the guys.

> A
> pesky thing called DNA is starting to expose the truth.
>
> So my point is that looking at marriage as a contract with certain
> promises and covenants, why shoult it be that a party can break the contract
> IN BAD FAITH but yet demand to reap all the benefits of it as if the
> innocent party was the guilty party?

I read the whole thing and then I think I answered this for the most
part above.

> Why is it that you think the women's
> movement is so STRIDENT demanding "no fault" divorce?

I have trouble with the term the women's movement (hate pronouns)


because I don't know

how you define it. Let me say this.

Feminists are usually well educated and usually make good money and
independent. I can't speak for
them but I never have read anything that suggested to me that they
wanted to have no fault divorce.
I don't think they cared because they could buy their way out, probably
made more money than any guy
they married and effectively had total freedom because of the freedom
education and money gives anyone.
Many feminists don't even take a husband and those that do often have
him in the distance.

When separation and divorce proceedings happen, the lawyers have to be
paid and they have to fight for
their client but it is the courts that have to ultimately make the
decision. It has been found that
nobody wants to be blamed for the divorce or separation especially in
the eyes of family members, the church and especially the kids. Every
spouse has unique characteristics that the partner may think they can
live with but find they cannot. Some women live with husbands cheating
for years, and do so because of religion, the children, the family and a
host of other reasons such as the husband standing in the community and
sadly worse of all, the woman may after a divorce have no means of
supporting herself and the kids to a proper lifestyle that they
currently have and remain within the marriage which for all concerned
may or may not be a good thing.

I think you have to work backwards. In a family what is the most
important thing? Well, the kids, of course,
because they have not lived long enough to know what is going on and are
easily destroyed when their comfort zone or protected loving environment
is changed or removed. So the courts are not interested nor is society
in who is at fault. If the marriage is over, then it is over. Leaving
the kids custody aside, the only thing
left in a divorce is money in the form of assets and the house which is
also an asset.

Now, there are exceptions. I was talking about your average divorce of
a little guy and gal. Obviously, millionares and the filthy rich have a
different set of rules but it is a different game and cannot be
compared. A rich man can have as many wifes as he wants and as many
chilren by as many wifes as he wants and
he can still afford to feed, cloth and give diamonds to them all.


But yet MEN are in
> favor of returning to a fault system where bad conduct is considered in the
> divorce settlements? That HAS to tell you something.
>

Well, you haven't said which men are in favour or returning and why?
Don't forget that the problem is that guys marry women who are less
educated and earn less money in most
cases. This isn't bad but it sets the guy up for failure if things go
wrong. Assume the woman is at fault and she leaves the husband. Under
the old system she is to be punished for being an unfaithful mother and
leaving the marriage. There are three girls under the age of 5 at the
time of divorce. The guy is a greyhound bus driver that drives to Reno
in three day turn-around trips. So the wife gets nothing after 10 years
of marriage. The husband keeps it all. She was a waitress but is now
fat, ugly, angry and mean
because she has been found at fault and gets nothing because she slept
with a cab driver. So who looks after the kids and how? The wife can't
because she has no job, no money and nothing from the marrige because
she has been a bad woman/wife. So the mother isn't going to be seeing
her daughters again anytime soon becuase
she can't even afford bus fare for herself let alone her three young
daughters. To the husband gets them
because he was found to be the good person of the marriage. Suddenly,
he is responsible for three daughters
in and out of diapers. He is on the road 3 days off and 3 days on. Who
looks after the kids? Well, when he is away they are with a stranger
because both parents are not available. When he is home, for most of
the day
the kids are in daycare but when they come home from daycare, the father
sees them for a few hours before they go to bed and then he goes out on
a date to find a new woamn who will hopefully be his new wife and raise
his
three little girls while he is away drivng a bus to Reno. Pretty
destructive environment if you ask me.

What do you say?



> > Well, each case is unique but if the woman is not working, she is gaining
> > equity in the family investment while she looks after the home. He on the
> > other
> > hand looks after his work outside the home. Key to all of this, of
> > course, is that
> > the taxpayers don't want to be faced with supporting in any way anybody's
> > ex-wife.
>
> Why should they or he do that in 2005? Isn't she fully a man's equal?
>

Well, she isn't a man's equal because she is less educated and less
skilled and so
gets a poor paying job. IF that is not the case and she is very well
paid like a
real estate agent, then she could care less about her husband because
she can afford
to hire the best lawyer, live on her on with the kids in a mansion
regardless who is at
fault.


> > You take and leave your wife as you find her.
>
> Horseshit! That doesn't work in a divorce court. Women DEMAND to
> continue to be supported in the life they have become accustomed to or
> DESIRE to become accustomed to!
>

In that point you are correct and the main reason for that is actually
for the kids
although she benefits hugely.


> > So if she has always worked outside the home during the course of the
> > marriage, then it is expected she will
> > after the divorce.
>
> Yes but even where she makes considerably MORE than her husband HE is
> excpected to chip in on supporting HER to the LIFESTYLE she wishes!
>

Well, only if he can. IF he were a poor ditch digger the courts would
not
order that. The are his kids, too, and where there is sufficient money
available from the father, he is expect to pay.

Yes, and there is good reason for this. A man's road/job is tough, very
tough.
IF the sex drive wasn't that strong, he would think twice and there
would be
few marriages and even fewer children. Women on the other hand are
cool, know
what they have, what they want, how to get it, who to get it from. Not
bad but
they have to know how to survive. Men think they have it all, are
raised to think
that. They are raised to think that women are weak, dumb and only good
for a good
time. Even you indicated that your first wife was less bright, but in
spite of that
her assets brought her everything she needed -without even asking. How
dumb it that?

~ krp

unread,
Jul 5, 2005, 9:55:06 AM7/5/05
to

"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C9CBF9...@telus.net...

That's why men feel like Indians. And we say "white woman speak with
forked tongue."


> Yes, I know lots of women who are getting it on the side.
> Both men and women, depending on who they are, expecially the rich, have
> lots of
> extras on the side. One dentist I knew met this woman he had an affair
> with for 20
> years at a local hotel. As far as I recall she was married, too, but they
> were rich,
> had money and it was easy to do.

Yes men cheat too. What is interesting is that men have been de-throned
as the kings of cheating by their spouses.

> For most guys and gals, probably the first contract they enter into is
> buying a vehicle and getting a loan often cosigned by their parents.
> How can you hold a guy or gal for a breach of marriage contract even with
> modern stringent conditions at the age of 18 or 25 or even perhaps 30?
> They haven't had enough of life's experience. Unless one is well
> educated, and some of them aren't, and unless they are reasonbly well
> off, neither the guy or the gal can afford to marry the wrong person,
> especially if there is a child involved because there simply isn't
> sufficient money for them to keep themselves going and looking after the
> child and then to find enough cash to start looking for a new spouse all
> over again. The term, you may know, is dry judgment. Yes, the husband
> or wife can sue the pants or skirt off the other and win but there is no
> money for them and the kids to continue. They are effectively
> destroyed. The objective of the courts and society are not to destroy
> the family, if at all possible.

My point wasn't that people violate the contract, it is that when a MAN
does the courts tend to punish the shit out of HIM, but when WOMEN violate
the contract they tend to punish the husband for MAKING HER do it!

>> Women have surpassed men in infidelity. Oh our
>> culture stil plays the act of women's virtue, but it is a delusion, or
>> perhaps propaganda, but current statistics are showing that as many as
>> 40%
>> of the children born to married women are NOT those of their husbands.

> Women have been doing that for centuries and so have the guys.

Yes but traditionally men were way in the lead, now women are.

>> A pesky thing called DNA is starting to expose the truth.

>> So my point is that looking at marriage as a contract with certain
>> promises and covenants, why shoult it be that a party can break the
>> contract
>> IN BAD FAITH but yet demand to reap all the benefits of it as if the
>> innocent party was the guilty party?
> I read the whole thing and then I think I answered this for the most
> part above.

>> Why is it that you think the women's movement is so STRIDENT demanding
>> "no fault" divorce?

> I have trouble with the term the women's movement (hate pronouns) because
> I don't know
> how you define it. Let me say this.

I define it as the lesbian dominated feminists such as NOW...........

> Feminists are usually well educated and usually make good money and
> independent. I can't speak for
> them but I never have read anything that suggested to me that they wanted
> to have no fault divorce.
> I don't think they cared because they could buy their way out, probably
> made more money than any guy
> they married and effectively had total freedom because of the freedom
> education and money gives anyone.
> Many feminists don't even take a husband and those that do often have him
> in the distance.

Most of the "Feminists" I have met over the years have either been
lesbians or have a serious problem with being women. They HATE their role as
a woman. There is nothing about it they like. They are angry all the time.
So it gets vented as venom toward men.

> When separation and divorce proceedings happen, the lawyers have to be
> paid and they have to fight for
> their client but it is the courts that have to ultimately make the
> decision. It has been found that
> nobody wants to be blamed for the divorce or separation especially in
> the eyes of family members, the church and especially the kids. Every
> spouse has unique characteristics that the partner may think they can
> live with but find they cannot. Some women live with husbands cheating
> for years, and do so because of religion, the children, the family and a
> host of other reasons such as the husband standing in the community and
> sadly worse of all, the woman may after a divorce have no means of
> supporting herself and the kids to a proper lifestyle that they
> currently have and remain within the marriage which for all concerned
> may or may not be a good thing.

Everyone has defecits in their makeup. It is when the negatives begin to
outweigh the positives that a marriage tends to fall apart. God knows I love
my wife, but even she has some annoying aspects to her. I have more than a
few of my own. But when you love the person and they love you back you
overlook the little things that merely annoy you. Nobody ever said we'd
lead lives free of all annoyances.

> I think you have to work backwards. In a family what is the most
> important thing? Well, the kids, of course,
> because they have not lived long enough to know what is going on and are
> easily destroyed when their comfort zone or protected loving environment
> is changed or removed. So the courts are not interested nor is society
> in who is at fault. If the marriage is over, then it is over. Leaving
> the kids custody aside, the only thing left in a divorce is money in the
> form of assets and the house which is
> also an asset.

When kids are involved they are devastated by a divorce. Parents willing
to do that to their kids just to get a better sex partner are UNFIT in my
opinion.

> Now, there are exceptions. I was talking about your average divorce of
> a little guy and gal. Obviously, millionares and the filthy rich have a
> different set of rules but it is a different game and cannot be
> compared. A rich man can have as many wifes as he wants and as many
> chilren by as many wifes as he wants and
> he can still afford to feed, cloth and give diamonds to them all.

Divorce is a disease, in today's reality you can't make people think of
what is best for the child. You just can't! We have laws written to appeal
to the MOST base and selfish wants of the bad parent. We have turned
marriage into a glorified going steady. And not even the social stigma there
used to be with going steady with lots of people and constantly breaking up.
In the neolitic era I went to high school with Fred Flintstone, we viewed
people who did that as "unstable." Then people get married, have kids with 5
or 5 different people and we enact laws to ENSHRINE that conduct!

>> But yet MEN are in
>> favor of returning to a fault system where bad conduct is considered in
>> the
>> divorce settlements? That HAS to tell you something.

> Well, you haven't said which men are in favour or returning and why?

Most men favor a FAULT system. Why? Because fewer of us would be getting
screwed in divorce if FAULT was back. The present law is that we can be
GREAT husbands and still the courts literally RAPE us as if WE were the bad
ones


> Don't forget that the problem is that guys marry women who are less
> educated and earn less money in most cases.

That was true 20 years ago, NOT today. At least as far as education
goes.

> This isn't bad but it sets the guy up for failure if things go
> wrong. Assume the woman is at fault and she leaves the husband. Under
> the old system she is to be punished for being an unfaithful mother and
> leaving the marriage. There are three girls under the age of 5 at the
> time of divorce. The guy is a greyhound bus driver that drives to Reno
> in three day turn-around trips. So the wife gets nothing after 10 years
> of marriage. The husband keeps it all. She was a waitress but is now
> fat, ugly, angry and mean because she has been found at fault and gets
> nothing because she slept
> with a cab driver.

(She was probably fat, ugly and mean before she left for the cab driver)

> So who looks after the kids and how?

Dad and SHE pays support. He does it the SAME way single moms do it. I
did.

> The wife can't because she has no job, no money and nothing from the
> marrige because
> she has been a bad woman/wife. So the mother isn't going to be seeing
> her daughters again anytime soon becuase she can't even afford bus fare
> for herself let alone her three young
> daughters.

She should have thought about that before she started spreading her legs
for MR. WONDERFUL! It is called "RESPONSIBILITY!" I am all in favor if it
applying egually to men AND women. Not the present ONE WAY STREET!

> To the husband gets them because he was found to be the good person of the
> marriage. Suddenly, he is responsible for three daughters
> in and out of diapers.

As IF he wasn't before... Where were the kids when she was BANGING the
taxi driver??????????????

> He is on the road 3 days off and 3 days on. Who
> looks after the kids? Well, when he is away they are with a stranger
> because both parents are not available. When he is home, for most of the
> day
> the kids are in daycare but when they come home from daycare, the father
> sees them for a few hours before they go to bed and then he goes out on
> a date to find a new woamn who will hopefully be his new wife and raise
> his
> three little girls while he is away drivng a bus to Reno. Pretty
> destructive environment if you ask me.

Your example is crap, in the first place. Do you think males were
hatched? Most divorced guys have parents, SOME of us even have silblings.
Things work out. And at times you change jobs so you can take care of the
kids. I did. There was a time I worked 3 jobs. And that was while I was
married. My wife was sick, insurance didn't cover enough, and her sister
helped watch the kids while I scrambled for every penny I could earn to pay
the bills. I was doing my legal work, wholesaleing air and water filtration
systems, and training salesmen for the Kirby company all at the same time.
That's what a PARENT (and husband in that example) DOES when they have to.
You ADAPT.. And the stats prove that single dads actually do a BETTER job
than single moms IF oyu look at OUTCOMES..

> What do you say?

I say you ADAPT! I say we need to set clear moral values for our kids
and society. No excuses. (Rationalizations - no GRAY areas.) Sometimes
things ARE black and white, wrong and right.

>> > Well, each case is unique but if the woman is not working, she is
>> > gaining
>> > equity in the family investment while she looks after the home. He on
>> > the other
>> > hand looks after his work outside the home. Key to all of this, of
>> > course, is that
>> > the taxpayers don't want to be faced with supporting in any way
>> > anybody's
>> > ex-wife.

>> Why should they or he do that in 2005? Isn't she fully a man's equal?

> Well, she isn't a man's equal because she is less educated and less
> skilled and so
> gets a poor paying job. IF that is not the case and she is very well paid
> like a
> real estate agent, then she could care less about her husband because she
> can afford
> to hire the best lawyer, live on her on with the kids in a mansion
> regardless who is at
> fault.

That simply is not true in 2005. If a woman gets a "poor paying job" it
is because she set that path in her life herself. Just as men who screw off
during their high school years did and find that they can't get a job above
bussing tables at a cheap restaurant. We are the architects of our own
lives. Time to stop bitching and finding others to blame for the messes we
make of them.

>> > You take and leave your wife as you find her.

>> Horseshit! That doesn't work in a divorce court. Women DEMAND to
>> continue to be supported in the life they have become accustomed to or
>> DESIRE to become accustomed to!

> In that point you are correct and the main reason for that is actually for
> the kids
> although she benefits hugely.

Cut the crap here, for so many women the kids are mainly a "Meal
Ticket!" This propaganda of the all sacrificing sainted mother is as
obsolute as steam driven locomotives pulling passenger trains between New
York and Los Angeles. Honey that train left the station decades ago and they
were cut up for scrap. I was born at night, just not last night!

>> > So if she has always worked outside the home during the course of the
>> > marriage, then it is expected she will
>> > after the divorce.
>>
>> Yes but even where she makes considerably MORE than her husband HE is
>> excpected to chip in on supporting HER to the LIFESTYLE she wishes!

> Well, only if he can. IF he were a poor ditch digger the courts would not
> order that. The are his kids, too, and where there is sufficient money
> available from the father, he is expect to pay.

Come on my office generally does not consult on child support cases, but
there have been a few we have. It was a case of the wife finding MISTER
WONDERFUL and trashing the marriage and going off with the kids to another
state with the new STUD! She did everything in her power to eliminate as
much of the father's contact with the 2 kids as she could. She was an RN and
the new STUD was an MD. They moved form Indiana to an affluent suburb of
Chicago. They bought a 7,000 sq foot home sitting on 5 acres. After about a
year of that the father being lucky to see his kiods three or 4 times a
year, she asked for a hefty increase in child support. She was asking for
$2500 a month (He earned $40 K a year) do the math. So I gave the guy some
suggestions, namely to document all the factors. They got the Real Estate
info on the cost of the house. She also wasn't working (the REASON she
needed the HUGE support amount) she was an experienced surgical nurse (heart
surgery). The guy hired an PI to video the home, get whatever info he could,
which included following MOMMY (Sainted Mother) to the local mall and
documented her ritualistic shopping spree where om dropped $7,000 that day.
(As it turned out a LIGHT shopping day for her) He also managed to get from
the chiefs of nursing at FOUR area hospitals affidavits of the salary they
would hire her for ON THE SPOT. Varried from $125,000 to $200,000 a year.
The PI also found that she and STUDSLEY has just installed a new heated
pool, oddly the increase she was asking for precisely covered the price of
the payments on the new pool.

The NET? When the judge looked at everything - he LOWERED the guy's
support.............................I think he should have given dad
custody, ordered her tyo get a job and awarded dad HALF her salary!

Women's sex drive is greater than men's. BUT I am reminded of the little
cartoon with the little boy and little girl. He shows her the marbles he
has, she shows him she has more. In the final two boxes, the boy is
frustrated drops his pants, points to his genitals and says "but you don't
have one of these." In the next frame she has dropped her pants and pointing
to her genitals she replies to a VERY frustrated little boy.. "Yes, but I
have one of these, and with this I can get all of those I want!"

SADLY it depicts reality.


He life was hell to the last day of it. The drugs, alcohol, promiscuity and
lack of judgment led to prison and finally a total collapse of her body.
Death is one hell of a price for all that, don't you think? Didn't get to
see 40.

mark_so...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 5, 2005, 2:17:02 PM7/5/05
to

Honor wrote:
> Heidi Graw wrote:
> >
> > We've all heard it, "I gave him the best years of my life!"
> >
> > An aquaintance of mine just recently told me that while trying to justify
> > her "entitlements." I asked her, "And what about your husband's life?
> > Didn't he give *you* the best years of his life, too?"
> >
> > The look on her face: Priceless!
> >
> > She couldn't give me an answer except for: "Huh? But...but..." She
> > blithered and changed the subject. <sigh>
> >
> > Heidi
>
> Actually, I don't blame the women at all. Rightfully they take
> advantage of the situation. That is human nature. However, I do blame
> the courts and legal system that do the injustices. I also blame wimpy
> men for tolerating it.

I always disliked that statment 'human nature'. If that was true,
we wouldn't be living in the kind of society we have today.
People would kill others for their pocket change when they thought
it was safe to do so. Unfortunately, in many "societies", such
behaviour is the norm.

mark_so...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jul 5, 2005, 2:21:27 PM7/5/05
to

I'm reminded of the cute statement by Kelly Bundy in
"Married with Children": "Why should I give him a
piece of my mind? I don't even like him!"

Another cute answer would be: "If you're given him the best
years of your life, why shouldn't he divorce you if you
don't have anything to offer him now?"

I think the meaning behind the "best years" statement is
that women have certain "quality years" where they're
hot and attractive and they use this time to attract
quality mates. After that, they're disabled similar to
the notion of women needing alimony because they've given
up her job as brain surgeon to save the family money
on daycare.

regards,
Mark Sobolewski

Bill in Co.

unread,
Jul 6, 2005, 4:00:23 AM7/6/05
to
OK Heidi, it's time to get out of that box!

> Heidi Graw wrote:
>>> "Jill" <perspi...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:codic19a47dplrlj9...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:01:49 GMT, "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>> Heidi wrote:
>>>> My gripe is basically about divorcing women who seem to think they're
>>>> the only ones who contributed anything to the marriage..."I gave him
>>>> the best years of my life." Well...the man did that, too. All I want
is
>>>> to make sure *his* contribution to the marriage is also acknowledged.
>>>> "He gave her the best years of his life!"
>>>>
>>>> As for divisions of assets, custody, alimoney, etc. that's something
they
>>>> can argue about between themselves with or without lawyers or judges

Society

unread,
Jul 6, 2005, 6:48:18 AM7/6/05
to

"Jill" <perspi...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:codic19a47dplrlj9...@4ax.com...
>
> Heidi Graw wrote...

>>
>> My gripe is basically about divorcing women
>> who seem to think they're the only ones
>> who contributed anything to the marriage...
>> "I gave him the best years of my life." Well...
>> the man did that, too. All I want is to make
>> sure *his* contribution to the marriage is also
>> acknowledged. "He gave her the best years
>> of his life!"
>>
>> As for divisions of assets, custody, alimony,

>> etc. that's something they can argue about
>> between themselves with or without lawyers
>> or judges. All I'm saying to these women,
>> that while these negotiations are going on, they
>> would be well advised to remember who
>> made it all possible for them to receive any
>> portion whatsoever.
>
> Sometimes you really surprise me, Heidi.
> Those are excellent observations and ones
> that are not popular with feminists.

Yeah. What Jill said.

--
As long as most women date, mate and marry
men who make more money than they do,
men will continue to expect women to put
their careers on hold when they decide
to have children.

Rod van Mechelen, Things that make you go, "hmmm"
http://www.backlash.com/content/hmmm/2001/hmmm0201.htm


Bock

unread,
Jul 6, 2005, 7:45:31 AM7/6/05
to
~ krp wrote:
>
> "Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:42C8F3CF...@telus.net...
>
> > It is a mute point if everything is split 50/50. But often husbands
> > don't want to split their pension, half the house and assets of the
> > marriage with a woman that is leaving.
>
> (You meant MOOT point)
>
Embarrassed, yes, I did. Thanks for the correction.

> WHY should we split everything with a person who violated the contract
> by screwing every male in North America?

Well, in the absence of any other written agreement, the courts take the
position that
it is an even split becaues their combined efforts, in the absence of
evidence to the
contrary would suggest that.

It is not that different from estate law. In the absence of evidence or
a will to the contrary, the estate
is divided amongst all children of the marriage evenly regardless
whether one child did more or less, lived
closer or further away.

> This image of the selfless wife in
> the life of drugery makes fine PROPAGANDA for Peter Jennings to repeat like
> a robot - but it is NOT reality. The FACTS are that WOMEN seek over 90% of
> the divorces in America, despite what professional MAN HATERS like Ms.
> Hemingway claim (lies) the men WERE holding up their end of the marriage
> contracts.

I totally agree that women are the ones seeking most of the divorces.
But it is
mainly that they have more to gain. Women want babies and to get babies
they have
to marry a guy in most cases. When they don't need the guy any longer
or he is a pain
in the butt, they can easily and cheaply divorce him. No argument with
that.

The problem is that men watch way, way to much sports on television and
not nearly enough
chic flicks. Men don't really understand women until they have lived
with them and by then
it is way, way, way too late.

No man in his right mind would ever call a woman stupid but guys do it
all the time. Why?
Very simple. They don't know women very well. If you don't know
something like a culture or
custom very well you are likely going to call it stupid until you have
it explained to you.

> Only a very SMALL number of men abuse their wives.

Absolutely correct.

> Those men are
> often working jobs that place their health at risk. Why? The sad part is
> that MOST men are devoted to their wives and families.

That is true.


> They struggle to
> survive for the sake of the families, and then comes divorce because SHE
> wants a NEW STUD!

A woman is apt to divorce for money more than love because she can get
love
from any guy she wants. Money is usually the answer.


> Give us a break here. This picture of the POOR POOR POOR
> 50 year old drudge woman MAY have been a reality in 1945 or even 1955, but
> does NOT exist in any significant numbers in 2005.
>
>

Well, yes and no. You see technically you are correct, but when divorce
time comes,
women claim back problems, and a host of other problems like
osteoperosis and say they
can't work or can only work a few hours a day. That is why no guy
should ever let his
wife not work.

> Marriage is all about money and commitment and yet little is put in
> > writing - when all of it could be spelled out and put in writing.
>
> For FEMINAZIS Marriage is ALL about money. KAAAA CHINNNNNGGGGG!!! KAAAAA
> CHINNNNGGGGG!
> Commitment? To most men it is about LOVE.....
>
>

Oh, no question that men marry for love. Men have everything else so a
beautiful sexy
woman who desires them is the only thing a guy doesn't have.

Women on the other hand have nothing but beauty and a sexual willingness
and they look to the guy
to provide the rest.


> As we deride men for being BEASTS.......... Try to remember that 99% of
> the love songs, those truly from the heart have been written by MEN.. Also
> factor in that those many love sonnets were also written by MEN! Men have
> been inspired forever to do great things because of their love for their
> wives and children. Including surrendering their lives. That is what makes
> the slander of Feminism about the male gender so totally EVIL!

Well, the average woman and a feminists are two different things. They
are totally different women.

Feminists have an education and usually that means a good job and
independence in every way. The average woman does not have a good
academic education and as such looks to their man to help or provide in
that reagard.

~ krp

unread,
Jul 6, 2005, 9:32:09 AM7/6/05
to

"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:11cndrq...@corp.supernews.com...

> As long as most women date, mate and marry
> men who make more money than they do,
> men will continue to expect women to put
> their careers on hold when they decide
> to have children.

I wonder when women will marry men who earn LESS than what they do.... I
mean in general not just exceptions.\


~ krp

unread,
Jul 6, 2005, 10:00:59 AM7/6/05
to

"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42CBC505...@telus.net...

>> > It is a mute point if everything is split 50/50. But often husbands
>> > don't want to split their pension, half the house and assets of the
>> > marriage with a woman that is leaving.
>>
>> (You meant MOOT point)

> Embarrassed, yes, I did. Thanks for the correction.

Heh heh heh. Just m,eant to tweak your nose a little. It wasn't serious.
:-)

>> WHY should we split everything with a person who violated the
>> contract
>> by screwing every male in North America?

> Well, in the absence of any other written agreement, the courts take the
> position that
> it is an even split becaues their combined efforts, in the absence of
> evidence to the
> contrary would suggest that.

I am sorry, but marriage (when we STRIP the spiritual aspects of it
which the secularists DEMAND we do) is an economic enterprise. Let me liken
this to a business. John and Frank start the XYZ company on a shoe string,
John puts up the money. John works his ass off, comes up with new inventions
and is the driving force of the company in the trenches. Frank stays in the
office and generally keeps things humming, but soon Frank is attracted to a
job at the ABC company. So he begins giving ABC all their secrets, and
starts stealing clients and embezzling funds. Then Frank says he wants out
and wants HIS HALF of the company. is it FAIR that Frank gets 90% of the
stuff? Maybe ALL the assets of the company, and an ORDER that John pay him
75% of ev erything he makes FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE?

> It is not that different from estate law. In the absence of evidence or a
> will to the contrary, the estate
> is divided amongst all children of the marriage evenly regardless whether
> one child did more or less, lived
> closer or further away.

Ah but there ARE covenants in the marriage contract.So it is different.
You take certain "vows" but in an ATHIESTICLY DRIVEN society "VOWS" have
absolutely NO meaning whatsoever! We have come to TOTAL secularization in a
legal sense. So how we interpret the VOWS is open only to the winds of the
politics of the moment. As we type they blow in favor of women. This may not
always be so. I wonder what you'd say if the political wisdom shifted to
making the law command women to continue to provide husbands with domestic
and sexual services after the divorce?

>> This image of the selfless wife in
>> the life of drugery makes fine PROPAGANDA for Peter Jennings to repeat
>> like
>> a robot - but it is NOT reality. The FACTS are that WOMEN seek over 90%
>> of
>> the divorces in America, despite what professional MAN HATERS like Ms.
>> Hemingway claim (lies) the men WERE holding up their end of the marriage
>> contracts.

> I totally agree that women are the ones seeking most of the divorces.

Good thing because ther Health Statistics show it as over 90% of the
divorces are initiated by women. I wa sin the other 10%.

> But it is mainly that they have more to gain. Women want babies and to
> get babies they have
> to marry a guy in most cases.

Not in 2005. It would see, on thew surface, that marriage is security, A
safety net, or in PLAIN English - a MEAL TICKET!

> When they don't need the guy any longer or he is a pain in the butt,
> they can easily and cheaply divorce him. No argument with
> that.

What man is NOT a pain in the ass at times? What women seem unable to
understand is that THEY are also pains in the ass at times. Men are just not
eager to throw themselves into the jaws of death (divorce court) unless it
has gone beyond the limits of tolerance. Women divorce on WHIMS... There
have been TONS of studies and polls on that. Ann Landers did it again and
again for 50 years.

> The problem is that men watch way, way to much sports on television and
> not nearly enough
> chic flicks. Men don't really understand women until they have lived with
> them and by then
> it is way, way, way too late.

Oh come on. I agree that men and their channel changers are inseperable.
I watch the chic flicks, my wife loves the guy flicks like Matrix, Predator,
and the like. The more violent and blood and gore the better for her. Her
redeeming quality is that she loves Sci-Fi. We are both addicted to Stargate
SG-1.

> No man in his right mind would ever call a woman stupid but guys do it all
> the time. Why?

Because when they are abusive to women they get laid. New age sensitive
guys don't get any!!!!

> Very simple. They don't know women very well. If you don't know
> something like a culture or
> custom very well you are likely going to call it stupid until you have it
> explained to you.

WHo can EVER understand women? It's impossible. Women don't even
understand themselves! That is a FACT! My ex's first marriage was extreme
violence. Our marriage was totally NON-violent - even ANTI-violent. BUT
there came a time when she had a mid life break. She wanted "excitement."
She got involved with a guy at work who was a VERY BAD guy. Pistol whipped
his first wife, was abusive as hell to her and she LOVED it. She's married
now to a Federal cop some bigwig in Homeland Security who is one of the most
CONTROLLING SOB's in the world. And she LOVES it. Tell me, HOW do I
understand THAT? There is NO WAY IN HELL I am going to abuse a wife. *I* am
not going to live like that EVER!

>> Only a very SMALL number of men abuse their wives.

> Absolutely correct.

And those that do are not REALLY men at all.

>> Those men are often working jobs that place their health at risk. Why?
The sad part is
>> that MOST men are devoted to their wives and families.
>
> That is true.


>> They struggle to survive for the sake of the families, and then comes
>> divorce because SHE
>> wants a NEW STUD!

> A woman is apt to divorce for money more than love because she can get
> love
> from any guy she wants. Money is usually the answer.

Would that that statement held up to inspection. It doesn't. They
divorce for all sorts of silly reasons, but typically for SEX.... Sorry they
see the new guy as a "STUD" and the old husband as BORING.. Again my ex got
into things with the boyfriend I would NEVER have suggested to her because I
had too much respect for her. It is funny but lots of women seem to LIKE
being treated like a whore. When the husband has her on a pedestal - - well
they look for EXCITEMENT! Knind of like the man in his 50's who gets
involved with a 19 year old air head. Sexually exciting, but that ALWAYS
wears off. That why the rate of second and third marriages for divorce is
much higher than the first.

>> Give us a break here. This picture of the POOR POOR POOR
>> 50 year old drudge woman MAY have been a reality in 1945 or even 1955,
>> but
>> does NOT exist in any significant numbers in 2005.

> Well, yes and no. You see technically you are correct, but when divorce
> time comes,
> women claim back problems, and a host of other problems like osteoperosis
> and say they
> can't work or can only work a few hours a day. That is why no guy should
> ever let his
> wife not work.

Oh shit, women claim LOTS of things in divorce courts. Perjury is an art
form in divorce courts. They don't call them "Perjury Palaces" for nothing.
From my viewpoint what I find AMUSING AS HELL is the woman who is singing;
"I am WOMAN, I am invincible" all the way up the courthouse steps. The
INSTANT she his the courtroom, she is the HELPLESS VICTIM...

>> Marriage is all about money and commitment and yet little is put in
>> > writing - when all of it could be spelled out and put in writing.
>
>> For FEMINAZIS Marriage is ALL about money. KAAAA CHINNNNNGGGGG!!!
>> KAAAAA CHINNNNGGGGG!
>> Commitment? To most men it is about LOVE.....

> Oh, no question that men marry for love. Men have everything else so a
> beautiful sexy
> woman who desires them is the only thing a guy doesn't have.

Not trophy wives. We men are such hopeless romantics. Like I said 99% of
all the love songs were written by men NOT women. Same with poetry

> Women on the other hand have nothing but beauty and a sexual willingness
> and they look to the guy
> to provide the rest.

Well women have lots more than looks. Marriage fall apart when WOMEN
believe that's the only reason that keeps us with them. Women don't
understand men at all.

>> As we deride men for being BEASTS.......... Try to remember that 99%
>> of
>> the love songs, those truly from the heart have been written by MEN..
>> Also
>> factor in that those many love sonnets were also written by MEN! Men
>> have
>> been inspired forever to do great things because of their love for their
>> wives and children. Including surrendering their lives. That is what
>> makes
>> the slander of Feminism about the male gender so totally EVIL!

> Well, the average woman and a feminists are two different things. They
> are totally different women.

Yes they are. But the average woman today has bought much of the BS of
feminsts.

> Feminists have an education and usually that means a good job and
> independence in every way. The average woman does not have a good
> academic education and as such looks to their man to help or provide in
> that reagard.

Oh Feminists, at least the nominally heterosexual ones are just like any
other woman. Manipulative. To women - when a man says he doesn't want to go
to see the drapery show men are CONTROLLING! Any time we don't want to do
something they want us to do WE are controlling.


MEN ARE RANK AMATEURS AT CONTROL ISSUES! WOMEN OWN THE FRANCHISE TOTALLY!


Bock

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 7:49:55 AM7/7/05
to

Actually, professional women almost always marry men who make less than
they do, if they don't marry a professional equal. Examples of women
who often marry men who make less than they do are teachers and nurses.
I can't think of any others but those two come to mind.

~ krp+

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 7:51:35 AM7/7/05
to

"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42CD1784...@telus.net...

>
>> > As long as most women date, mate and marry
>> > men who make more money than they do,
>> > men will continue to expect women to put
>> > their careers on hold when they decide
>> > to have children.
>>
>> I wonder when women will marry men who earn LESS than what they do.... I
>> mean in general not just exceptions.\
>
> Actually, professional women almost always marry men who make less than
> they do, if they don't marry a professional equal. Examples of women
> who often marry men who make less than they do are teachers and nurses.
> I can't think of any others but those two come to mind.

Actually the data I see on marriage and divorce say the opposite. That
powerful women still seek men MORE powerful than they are. The examples of
women marrying "boy toys" are not all that statistically significant in any
of the data I have seen.


Honor

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 8:44:09 AM7/7/05
to

First, he has a right to self-defense. He should not be a wimp. The
judge is assaulting him with unreasonable orders backed by guns.
Therefore, he should kill the judge. By the way if only twenty men
will kill the criminal, under the color of law, judges, this shit will
stop in a hurry. If he can keep his mouth shut other than saying I
don't recall, there is less than 10% chance of getting caught. Then
go back to court with a different judge.

Second, if that doesn't stop it, he needs to vanish. A new ID would
help. Otherwise, he can hand out cards and advertise in the newspaper
to do certain trades or jobs for home-owners. There is plenty of work
and no record of payments. If he doesn't tell anyone where he is going
and doesn't contact his parents, family, or anyone else, he will not be
caught. Even if he is--so what? They don't want to keep him in jail.
It costs too much. What ususlly happens they keep him in jail for a
bit then release him and greatly reduce the child support payment.
Otherwise, after two years, when his ex has lost her home because she
can't keep up mortgage payments and is barely surviving she and the
courts will be reasonable.

Truth and Honor

~ krp+

unread,
Jul 7, 2005, 1:55:00 PM7/7/05
to

"Honor" <worn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120740249.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>
> First, he has a right to self-defense. He should not be a wimp. The
> judge is assaulting him with unreasonable orders backed by guns.
> Therefore, he should kill the judge.

That is NO answer at all.


Honor

unread,
Jul 8, 2005, 3:06:40 AM