Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths

Men's News Daily ^ | July 22, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[Alkhin]

et al...

I am willing to believe that there *ARE* plenty of men who got divorced from bizarre and even abusive and unfaithful women and who do have a much more solid relationship with their children, and are truely the ones shafted by a court that favors women...

but unless the woman is an utter skank, I am hard pressed to believe as well that men who are divorced are all that persecuted...considering that the men I know who got divorced are ones who A) cheated and got caught and decided to make a go with the one they were unfaithful with and are angry because the ex-wife refuses to just lay down and die over it ie make it easy for him or B) are utter scum-bags themselves and are not telling the truth about how they brought about the demise of their own marriage through drug and alcohol abuse. My sister-in-law at this very moment is going through counseling and re-establishing herself as an independent person after three years of a HORRID marriage to a guy who is a verified alcoholic and has been forced through re-hab three times already. The only reason he refuses to let her go and let her live in peace is because he doesnt want to pay the child support.

to which I have to ask all the men who are upset about how the court rules: if you have a history of alcoholism and drug abuse and you dont want to pay the ex any child-support, would you be willing to just not make any claim to the children at all? As far as I can see, this guy will be utterly worthless...and suspiciously dangerous to the female child in teh future....woudl you blame the mother for wanting to protect them from that???

[Alkhin]

You have to understand that there is a segment of male FR posters who are lost somewhere in time, and who long for the good old days when women were chattel, and could not compete in the job market, and were not equal under the law.

AIN'T THAT THE TRUTH!!! When I first started reading the FR posts and all the 'conservative' men and what they thought about the way things should be, I thought my head would explode with all the concepts of perfection they wish to foist on their private little worlds...most of which contradicted itself and followed such strict controls that I knew I would go nuts trying to live up to those kinds of expectations.

Fortunately, I was blessed to meet up with a REALLY FINE and wonderful man...he has his teeny tiny little faults, but I know there is none better out there for me, and I know he loves me deeply and passionately. His expectations of me are no more than mine.

So bring it on, those of you who wish to criticize my point of view. I KNOW what being a conservative is all about, and it has nothing at all to do with having your meals piping hot when you walk in the door, and standing there waiting to rub your stinky smelly rotten feet and purr about how grateful I am to be in your house.

And after witnessesing what an absolute JERK my sister-in-laws husband has been to her, and still is, I can only conclude that those who would get vile with me are of the same worthless drunken character he is.

[Violette]

You want to know the interesting thing? All of my male friends are liberal. I am the only one who is conservative among my male friends. They appreciate my independence and my free-spirit. And many of them do not understand how I can be Republican. It's really funny, but you are SO right.

[Harrison Bergeron]

The point Mr. Gay is trying to make is that your personality problems and your voluntarily attaching yourself, via marriage, to an eccentric latent homosexual have no bearing on national divorce statistics. Your story is interesting, in a "Lifetime TV for Women" kind of way, but it is irrelevant.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"In a perfect world, women would be bought and sold, with an ID number on their foreheads so every male would know their ownership. "

Dabble in "Women's Studies" did we?

[maxwell]

You have to understand that there is a segment of male FR posters who are lost somewhere in time, and who long for the good old days when women were chattel, and could not compete in the job market, and were not equal under the law. They cannot deal with equals, so they go on about how wretchedly stupid and silly women are--and if you claim to be a woman who is not stupid, silly, and who furthermore is a conservative, they'll say you're lying. All manner of (undeserved) insults will be chucked your way once they figure out you're female, because some of these guys LOATHE women deeply, and don't camouflage that hatred with any subtlety.

Hmmmmm... Self-fulfilling prophesy?

[Harrison Bergeron]

Get help.

[Cyber Liberty]

"You have to understand that there is a segment of male FR posters who are lost somewhere in time, and who long for the good old days when women were chattel, and could not compete in the job market, and were not equal under the law."

Name one.

[maxwell]

Some of the men here are so warped they have no idea when they are expressing hatred...it just comes out freely...

Typical feminist line. "Whether you know it or NOT, you're just OOZING SEXISM, you MALE CHAUVINIST PIG of a FOOTLOUSE!" It's the perfect irrefutable argument, because how can you argue about someone else's personal perception?

Which is why it should hold no validity at all as an argument, because it IS so durned subjective, and cannot be supported by additional outside evidence. That bites my hairy Republican arse, excessive reliance on subjectivity and anecdotism does...

[agarrett]

The trouble is, I'm not unique. I know a woman who got divorced from her hetero spouse and all she left with after years of marriage was her clothes and her cats

  Like many of the other men here, I can probably match horror stories as to what some divorced men have gone through. But it's not the point I really want to make...

  I think the question of who got the worst of the divorce depends on who you talk to. I have more divorced men as friends than I do divorced women, and tend to think the men get the worst of the deal. However, I have never yet met anyone, man or woman, who thinks they got the good deal in a divorce. I'm coming to suspect that both sides get bad deals regularly (or I've just got a bunch of sad sacks as friends ;-) )

Drew Garrett

[maxwell]

I think the question of who got the worst of the divorce depends on who you talk to. I have more divorced men as friends than I do divorced women, and tend to think the men get the worst of the deal. However, I have never yet met anyone, man or woman, who thinks they got the good deal in a divorce. I'm coming to suspect that both sides get bad deals regularly (or I've just got a bunch of sad sacks as friends ;-) )

I'll second that. Le Chatelier's principle.

[maxwell]

So, it becomes possible to hurl any manner of insult at a woman who is not docile, submissive, and stupid, because sorting out boorish conduct from that which is gentlemanly is subjective...and you declare your conduct perfectly civilized, no matter what you say.

Huh?

What I DID try to say was, our perceptions are colored, nay biased, by our experiences, and nothing but a truly logical and scientific investigation can divine the truth. What you personally may take as a slap in the face for all woman-kind, others may interpret differently, not having their corset strings pulled so durned tight. Who is in the right? Not necessarily you.

[agarrett]

Go back through the threads and you'll find them aplenty.

  Sorry, can't find any. RogerFGay had an argument with you, where it looked like he was trying to claim something specific through statistics, or maybe that you were lying because your life disagreed with the statistics, or something. Truth is, I'm not sure what he was getting at, but it seemed a poor argument. But I wouldn't say it showed hatred so much as poor debate (or writing) skills. And it was certainly the worst I've seen on this thread.

  The courts in most states presumptively assume that women should gain custody of children in a divorce case. Along with that comes a measure of child support, and in many cases it's a large measure. Men have very limited recourse in reducing that amount when their circumstances change (as when they lose their job, for example), and also in enforcing any of the agreement on their wife, basically visitation rights.

  I remember a great quote by a family court judge, where he was explaining that he does not show favoritism to women in his court. He had a man who failed to pay child support for several months, so the judge threw him in jail for (I think) a week as an example. Then he had a woman who had refused her ex-husband several visitation weekends, and the judge gave her a stern talking to. And this was supposed to show that there was no favoritism. (The story comes from the judge's diary entries on Slate Magazine, but I don't have a link handy)

  Anyway, here's hoping we can get back to discussing the article,

Drew Garrett