patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Men are also becoming more unhappy, though not to the same degree.

Well, maybe we are not, but it could also be that that men, the very same men that are being chastised for NOT expressing their feelings by women everywhere, will immediately get the full silencing shame treatment if they express their feelings about how mistreated they have been.

I'd say most 20-something women are pretty happy, the real unhappyness sets in when they hit their 30s and their self-induced singledom suddenly becomes both unavoidable and permanant. Of course, women also take much more anti-depressives than men do, so that they keep up a fairly good front, most of the time

thunderlips11 says

He is then federally taxed on $4142 income, but she is only taxed on $2,029. The man loses dependent exemptions, whereas much of the woman's state and federal tax burden is much less.

The calculator is after tax. You can see this by looking at the take home amount.

YesYNot says

you just seem like a cry baby.

Case in point.

you are who you hang with...

justme says

YesYNot says

Is this even a thing? Do many women say they are going to have a career, then after a few years of marriage just decide to become a freeloader and hold the guy hostage? I've literally never seen this.

Whoa, you have never seen this? It is rampant!

justme says

I think you live in the UK, and divorce laws are already bad enough there (ex-wife demanding and getting millions 20 years after divorce when the ex finally got on his feet and developed a successful business)

I don't.
The other side to the story you mentioned was that the ex-husband didn't have to pay any maintenance at the time of the divorce and she had to raise their child without any financial help from him. And contrary to what you claim, she hasn't got millions (she hasn't received anything), and from what I just read, the current situation is that the Supreme Court judges have allowed the case to be heard in the High Court and say she'd only be in line for a comparatively modest sum if she wins the case, presumably some kind of recompense for the cost of raising their child. Somewhat different to what you were claiming.

justme says

Men are disposessed of their house for years by false accusations of abuse and ensuing "protection orders" (which make it illegal for a man to live in his own house, because, well his wife is there and he has to stay XXX yards away from her, you get the idea how this works), I *personally* know cases where this has happened.

Anti-male bias is so bad that when a guy found out his girlfriend, who insisted on total sexual loyalty while claiming she was utterly faithful, slept with half a dozen men, including her boss as well as several VIP Game Reviewers who reviewed her (shitty) product, while lying and committing multiple acts of manipulation on him, including calling him multiple times to insure he was sleeping alone, then when he found out the truth and published it on the internet, he was slapped with a Gag order.

In America, a woman calling her lover a serial, hypocitical dishonest cheater who also had romantic relationships with the people in charge of reviewing his product in the media (without disclosure of the conflict of interest), would be heralded as a hero. A man doing the same is called a sadsack evil, shaming cuck who humiliates poor depression sufferers - and he's a criminal if he violates his Gag Order.

https://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Eron_Gjoni

The allegations of Gjoni, before his Gag Order, set off the Gamergate situation, where the cronyism of the "Game Review" industry came to light. These honest "Journalists" then turned to hating on their own customer base (nerdy white males).

justme says

Case in point.

Is this an attempt at a CIC rebuttal? He does it better.

YesYNot says

justme says

Case in point.

Is this an attempt at a CIC rebuttal? He does it better.

BTW, for those not following the flow on the thread, the remark "case in point" was referring to what I wrote about how men will be shamed (in this case, called a crybaby) if they express any feelings. Notwithstanding a whole industry of magazines and websites demanding on a daily daily basis that men must "share their feelings", and the like.

justme says

YesYNot says

you just seem like a cry baby.

Is it too much to ask that you include the sentence to which I was responding?

SoftShell says

you are who you hang with...

justme says

YesYNot says

Is this even a thing? Do many women say they are going to have a career, then after a few years of marriage just decide to become a freeloader and hold the guy hostage? I've literally never seen this.

Whoa, you have never seen this? It is rampant!

In feminist circles, what you just did is called "blaming the victim". Oops. I forgot. Only women can be victims. (Sarcasm alert)

YesYNot says

The calculator is after tax. You can see this by looking at the take home amount.

I quote without arsing myself to format (Male first, Female Second): emphasis mine

Monthly Net Disposable Income After Support: 2618.00 4434.00
...
Monthly Federal Taxable Income: 4142.00 2029.00
Monthly Federal Tax Liabilities: 685.00 83.00
Monthly Federal Self-Employment Tax: 0.00 0.00
Monthly FICA (Social Security and/or Medicare): 383.00 291.00
Monthly State Tax Liabilities: 218.00 0.00
Monthly CASDI: 50.00 38.00

His Federal Taxable Income is more than half again his actual after support income; Her Taxable Income is less than half her actual Income after support.

thunderlips11 says

quote without arsing myself to format (Male first, Female Second): emphasis mine

Monthly Net Disposable Income After Support: 2618.00 4434.00

...

His Federal Taxable Income is more than half again his actual after support income; Her Taxable Income is less than half her actual Income after support.

You started with an income of 5000 + 3800 per month. That is 8800/month. Then, somehow they split 7000 per month net. That is because the taxes have already been subtracted.

No, he makes $5000/month or $60k year. The $3800/month is what his wife makes (It should be $3750 for a $45k/year income, but I couldn't be arsed and guessed, not that the extra $50/month would change anything much) from her job.

There is no "Used", I plugged these numbers into the California Calculator with two kids and all the settings on default, and this is what it spewed out. He pays taxes as a single person for close to the amount he actually earns, while the wife gets both his money with no controls or restrictions on the spending, along the lion's share of the tax writeoffs.

This is the best the man can hope for, the bare minimum financial pain by law, again not including lost payments on a house he gave up to the ex-wife or any other decisions the court reached, contributions towards a college fund, nor alimony or anything else.

thunderlips11 says

No, he makes $5000/month or $60k year. The $3800/month is what his wife makes (It should be $3750 for a $45k/year income, but I couldn't be arsed and guessed, not that the extra $50/month would change anything much) from her job.

You seriously think that with $8800 monthly income between the two of them, that the $7052 they split is before tax? Where did the other $1748 go? Do you think it is a coincidence that all of those taxes add up to $1748? His money in that example is after tax. It might not be a great take-home, but it is after tax.

YesYNot says

My wife and I have been very happy this way for the 12 yrs we've been together.

I have to ask: are you a lesbian?
You seem to be implying that you are a man, but everything you say is so one sided that it only makes sense if you are a woman.

Bigsby says

I don't have any idea what the statistics are for quitting jobs and seemingly neither do you, but you do seem to be making a habit of throwing out these sweeping generalizations and claiming them as fact.

I have an explanation as to why women quitting or reducing hours prior to divorce is: People consult attorneys before they file for divorce. Attorneys recommend courses of action.

Most divorces are initiated by women, and (if) all things were equal, that means we have an legal incentive problem, or that men are morally inferior to women across the board. Believing that crap human behavior are roughly equally distributed between genders, I'll go for the former.

thunderlips11 says

I have an explanation as to why women quitting or reducing hours prior to divorce is: People consult attorneys before they file for divorce. Attorneys recommend courses of action.

Most divorces are initiated by women, and (if) all things were equal, that means we have an legal incentive problem, or that men are morally inferior to women across the board. Believing that crap human behavior are roughly equally distributed between genders, I'll go for the former.

Fine, that may be a reason (would that not also be a possibility for the man as well?), but as neither of you can supply the percentages, it would be better to frame it as such, rather than throwing out words like often (etc...)

Heraclitusstudent says

I have to ask: are you a lesbian?

You seem to be implying that you are a man, but everything you say is so one sided that it only makes sense if you are a woman.

Heraclitus would be ashamed to be such a poor teacher. I am a man. I've recently learned that the red pill folks would call me a mangina or white knight. I have a wife and daughter to think about as well as myself. I wouldn't even call myself a feminist, but am put off by the prevailing attitude towards women on this board.

Bigsby says

So you are now comparing your insights to the 2 decades of meticulous work Charles Darwin did? I see.

He has a BA in biology I think. That's close enough.

Bigsby says

Fine, that may be a reason (would that not also be a possibility for the man as well?), but as neither of you can supply the percentages, it would be better to frame it as such, rather than throwing out words like often (etc...)

Bigsby says

Fine, that may be a reason, but as neither of you can supply the percentages, it would be better to frame it in that context, rather than throwing out words like often (etc...)

25 datasets spanning more than a century; women have always been the majority filers.
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf

UK is also about 2/3rd of filings initiated by women:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10357829/Why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.html

thunderlips11 says

25 datasets spanning more than a century; women have always been the majority filers.

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006fall/econ/586/001/Readings/Brinig.pdf

UK is also about 2/3rd of filings initiated by women:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10357829/Why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.html

You've lost me now. I didn't question who filed for divorce more often. The issue was about women quitting employment at the time of a divorce.

Bigsby says

You've lost me now. I didn't question who filed for divorce more often. The issue was about women quitting employment at the time of a divorce.

My bad. I have no idea about the stats on it. However, I'm sure divorcees share advice with each other (and get it from the internet, and their own attorney consults).

Paradise says

The problem with that narrative is that unhappy people will complain 10 times more frequently than the happy people. It's the same way with companies, services, etc. If you're going to search the web for Red Pill references, it's only common sense you'll find more examples. The happy guys won't be sitting on a message board bashing woman, they're out enjoying their lives and their woman.

You see you can do it CiC (make a reasonable point that is).

Bigsby says

I don't.

The other side to the story you mentioned was that the ex-husband didn't have to pay any maintenance at the time of the divorce and she had to raise their child without any financial help from him.

So what? Either she didn't ask for support or he had none to give her. In either case, that does not entitle her to a payoff later. If she wanted to get that, she should have stayed with him and not divorced him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2991193/Hippy-tycoon-facing-2m-divorce-payout-ex-wife-30-years-split-claims-comfortable-life-home-says-bought-washing-machine.html

Bigsby says

And contrary to what you claim, she hasn't got millions (she hasn't received anything), and from what I just read, the current situation is that the Supreme Court judges have allowed the case to be heard in the High Court and say she'd only be in line for a comparatively modest sum if she wins the case, presumably some kind of recompense for the cost of raising their child. Somewhat different to what you were claiming.

Well, hooray, maybe there is hope still. BTW, London has a huge rate of divorce tourism, were as many as 20% of divorce cases are brought by women flying in from other countries to get the preferential treatment that the UK provides to them.

Reference: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2015/feb/24/divorce-rich-husband-london-english-law

Paradise says

Heraclitusstudent says

His arguments on women on this forum are just not so easily refuted.

The problem with that narrative is that unhappy people will complain 10 times more frequently than the happy people.

He's not complaining, he's giving logical arguments.
I guess to a woman they may sound like complaining.

Paradise says

The happy guys won't be sitting on a message board bashing woman,

Do you want to argue that, objectively, nothing at all: no laws and no cultural attitudes are ever unfair to men?
Is that your point?
Assuming it isn't, then why would it be a sign of maladjustment for men to talk about it.

justme says

So what? Either she didn't ask for support or he had none to give her. In either case, that does not entitle her to a payoff later. If she wanted to get that, she should have stayed with him and not divorced him, which is what she did. It was her divorce, not his.

I imagine that will be for the courts to decide, but I suggest you would be better served by actually getting your facts straight first.

justme says

Well, hooray, maybe there is hope still. BTW, London has a huge rate of divorce tourism, were as many as 20% of divorce cases are brought by women flying in from other countries to get the preferential treatment that the UK provides to them.

I don't get your point. Presumably they have some legal basis for having their divorce settled in the UK.

Paradise = CIC/Call it Crazy or Captain Shuddup or Ten-Pound-(B)ass, or all three or what?

Paradise says

Heraclitusstudent says

Paradise says

The happy guys won't be sitting on a message board bashing woman,

Do you want to argue that, objectively, nothing at all: no laws and no cultural attitudes are ever unfair to men?


Is that your point?

What's your point of reference?

The point of reference for something "objective" is the real world.

justme says

Paradise is CIC. He's not YesYNot's alt account. I am. Our wife's lizard brain needs to have her rape fantasies fulfilled

You have a time sharing agreement with CIC?

Heraclitusstudent, please fix/edit the attribution. ISwaRP, not I, said that.

The misattributions are getting more and more funny. Now *I* am suddenly the one fulfilling YNY wife's purported rape fanatasies. Anyway, good work with reverse-(self-)satirizing (or should that be satYrizing? :-)) the red-pill/PUA/MGTOW/whatnot amalgamation that is embodied in the alt-alter-ego of the alter-ego of .... who is it again? Shit I'm confused (yeah by all means quote me on that, but leave in the context).

Now y'all go and satyrize yourselves, back in 5 (minutes, not seconds, you bastards).

thunderlips11 says

slapped with a Gag order.

A gag order is a violation of the First, the Fifth, and the Fourteenth Amendments and is more than sufficient justification for violent revolution. Any judge who issues a gag order is guilty of undermining the republic and rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. Such judges should be shot as the traitors they are. And since they took away another person's voice, they should have none of their own.

Furthermore, it should be impossible to incarcerate anyone until after they have been convicted of a crime, and only those who have committed recorded acts of violence should be restrained and isolated from public before conviction -- yes, I'm distinguishing that from incarceration because incarceration also restricts a lot of other freedoms.

The same goes for national security letters.

Dan8267 says

Only a crazy person or a pathological liar would claim that the family court system even remotely considers fathers to be equal under law to mothers when it comes to custody and visitation rights. The discriminate is so great that it is painfully obvious. It's as obvious as Nazis think that Jews have no rights.

The next time someone claims there is a pay-gap between men and women and refuses to provide the data, show them this graph. There is a custody-gap that cannot be explained by anything other than outright discrimination. And it's not subtle or disputable.

Wouldn't you actually need to know what was requested and what was given (and the reasons for it) to know how severe the discrimination is? And is that a graph showing who got full custody? Primary custody..? What do you actually expect non-discriminatory rates to be?

Paradise says

..and the level of experiences and encounters that you have.

So, based on the real world, please tell us where you currently stand in your relationships or past relationships. This will help us understand where your "objectivity" comes from.

Hummm... nope sorry, I don't feel the need to discuss my personal life on Internet. And I don't particularly care about yours.
If you had a concrete argument on the subject of this thread, I could try to answer that, but obviously you don't.

I Swallowed a Red Pill says

You are such an omega. I take what I want, while you sit on the edge of the couch like a bleary eyed drunk and high 20 year old philosophy major trying to get up the courage to go on a walkabout. Some people are doers. You are not one of those people.

My janitor is a doer.
You are just an imbecile creating profiles on internet forum to insult people.
You're not even an omega, more like a plain Z.

Bigsby says

Wouldn't you actually need to know what was requested and what was given (and the reasons for it) to know how severe the discrimination is?

If you are talking about an individual case, yes, but not if you are talking about systemic discrimination. I may not be able to prove racial discrimination in any particular drug case, but the fact that blacks are highly disproportionately convicted and sentence for drug use when whites use the same drugs in the same proportion does statically indicate undeniable bigotry. Yes, math can tell you things with 100% certainty.

Dan8267 says

If you are talking about an individual case, yes, but not if you are talking about systemic discrimination. I may not be able to prove racial discrimination in any particular drug case, but the fact that blacks are highly disproportionately convicted and sentence for drug use when whites use the same drugs in the same proportion does statically indicate undeniable bigotry. Yes, math can tell you things with 100% certainty.

I don't really follow that argument. If you had a situation where most men weren't seeking primary of full custody, then you would get the results shown, but that wouldn't demonstrate discrimination, rather the fulfillment of the request. Now I'm quite sure there is bias, after all women are viewed as more suited to child rearing, but I still don't see how that graph demonstrates anything except the percentages it shows.

Bigsby says

If you had a situation where most men weren't seeking primary of full custody,

then it would be because men realize they have no hope of achieving that.

The fact is that most married fathers want to be fathers. That's why they got and stayed married. It is not the case that the typical American father is happy to leave his children after divorce. Most dads are very doting. If you ever worked in an office that had a new father, you'd see every single time that guy is every bit as into his kids as a mother is. Dads like talking about their kids as much moms do. I know this because it's a damn easy way to strike up a conversation with any coworker when you're new at the company.

Now, I don't know if this applies to other countries or generations, but certainly in America since the 1990s it does.

Dan8267 says

then it would be because men realize they have no hope of achieving that.

Possibly, or possibly that men don't want to be full or primary care givers.
Dan8267 says

The fact is that most married fathers want to be fathers. That's why they got and stayed married. It is not the case that the typical American father is happy to leave his children after divorce. Most dads are very doting. If you ever worked in an office that had a new father, you'd see every single time that guy is every bit as into his kids as a mother is. Dads like talking about their kids as much moms do. I know this because it's a damn easy way to strike up a conversation with any coworker when you're new at the company.

Sure, but that doesn't then mean they want to be the person who looks after little Johnny 24 hours a day.

YesYNot says

Jesus, I leave for an hour or two, and you've turned another thread into a false rape allegation thread.

In fairness, you were the one who brought it up again.

justme says

Given its inadequacies, much of the current research literature cannot be used to determine the rate of false rape allegations.

is NOT even about Kanin. It is Rumney's opinion about studies in general.

Yeah, I know. That is why we are reading a review article, and not following some red piller's take on one particular study.