patrick.net

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.

Yeah, except as has already been pointed out, that is for misidentification by the accuser or the police, not a 25% rate of false rape accusations by the women.

Bigsby says

Yeah, except as has already been pointed out, that is for misidentification by the accuser or the police, not a 25% rate of false rape accusations by the women.

Nice try, but no cigar. If 83% of rapes are supposedly committed by non-strangers, how can the complainants manage to to misidentify over 25% of all arrested suspects?

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders

I believe that there are police and prosecuters who believe the number is that high. You don't find it in peer reviewed literature, which is what i was referring to.

justme says

Yup. Watch some old 1930s-1950s movies on Antenna TV and anyone can see that film at that time had a much more realistic view of women. Ever since the 1980s (or maybe before) it has been nothing but burning-bed-victimhood 24x7.

You know what else is bullshit? That every housewife in the 50s and 60s was popping happy pills and totally miserable with their Mimi Eisenhower Pink kitchens and Frost-free refrigerators. It's a complete Media Myth with no backing. They didn't even do widespread mental health surveys back then; the first weren't until the late 70s/early 80s.

justme says

But as always it is hard to distinguish good satire from the rants of a lunatic, which I guess is exactly the point.

"Poe" is the word you're looking for.

Bigsby says

What do you actually expect non-discriminatory rates to be?

Damn close to 50/50. Women hold up aggregate of all pay, regardless of career fields to that of all men, and scream the much smaller difference is undeniable proof of Patriarchy.

The Custody chart is so skewed that it is irrefutable evidence of bias.

Here a psychologist fakes rape, because she wanted her husband to move!!!! Yup she is a prison psychologist who counsels prisoners-in CA-tax payer funded.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/7GpcDvLWK_U

justme says

Nice try, but no cigar. If 83% of rapes are supposedly committed by non-strangers, how can the complainants manage to to misidentify over 25% of all arrested suspects?

https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders

So? That still doesn't remotely translate into your claim of a 25% base line. The data was, if you hadn't noticed, for rapes and rape-murders. There is nothing in that passage that indicates it is a representative sample. Every single one of those samples could relate to cases of rape by a stranger as there is no way of knowing otherwise from what was written. The text is what it is. I am not the one misrepresenting it.

Here's some reading to balance out posts by the idiots who post anecdotal stories hoping to sway people.
This woman was gagged, bound with shoelaces, and raped. After reporting, the police convinced her to recant, charged her with false reporting, and fined her $500. Two and a half years later, a guy was caught for raping a few women. He had a picture of the woman who had been coerced to recant.
http://old.seattletimes.com/text/2021161550.html

This is a story about a woman working the cash register at a gas station. She was held at gunpoint and made to give oral sex, then the rapist made off with all of the money in the register. Police didn't believe her, charged her with taking the money, and put her in jail. She lost her job while in jail. The rapist was caught raping again a year later, and he confessed to both crimes.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/15/sara-reedy-rape-victim-wins-police-payout

YesYNot says

Here's some reading to balance out posts by the idiots who post anecdotal stories hoping to sway people

So someone posting something that is different than your opinion is an idiot. But you posting some story about your position makes you a ???? Marcus is that your alt account?

lostand confused says

So someone posting something that is different than your opinion is an idiot. But you posting some story about your position makes you a ?

I've tried getting people to lay off of the anecdotal crap, but they like to do it. I don't know if it's usually you or not, which is why I didn't call you out on it. For shit's and giggles, I figured I'd try to balance out the steaming pile of crap with one on the other side of the issue. In case there are people reading along who are easily swayed emotional button pushers, at least they will have a chance to have their other button pushed.

And that's about it for me for a few days. I need to get some more work done.

This is a damning conclusion...

YesYNot says

He is saying that the conclusion you should draw is that we just can't tell, because the research is shoddy. This is contradictory to the conclusion that you came up with.

YesYNot says

I've tried getting people to lay off of the anecdotal crap, but they like to do it. I don't know if it's usually you or not, which is why I didn't call you out on it. For shit's and giggles, I figured I'd try to balance out the steaming pile of crap with one on the other side of the issue. In case there are people reading along who are easily swayed emotional button pushers, at least they will have a chance to have their other button pushed

Typical pseudo intellectual crap. All high and mighty, oh I care about the great unwashed masses, oh you can't talk about those issues-even if they are in public record-blah, blah , blah. Basically reality is starting to bite, so turn into some defense mechanism to try and not accept it-red pill, blue pill, anecdotal crap, idjits blah, blah, blah. Accept reality-much easier
LOL

You conveniently dance around the topic that it is the law that allows these gold diggers their treasure. A whore who slept with 100 men and married to a guy who worked his ass off, did not cook, clean, contribute anything gets half of the fortune of the time they were together and alimony on top-even though she slept with a different dude every week-that is the no-fault divorce laws and treating women as children laws. They are equals-no alimony, split-go on your way and make your own destiny.

YesYNot says

Here's some reading to balance out posts by the idiots who post anecdotal stories hoping to sway people.

Both your examples are from the minority of rape claims, against total strangers; whereas the majority of claims are pointed at people known to the alleged victim.

YesYNot says

He is saying that the conclusion you should draw is that we just can't tell, because the research is shoddy. This is contradictory to the conclusion that you came up with.

Since we just can't tell, and our system should be biased more against false positives than negatives, we should assume the higher numbers of false rape allegations.

YesYNot says

It's a parody of lost and confused, and other dunces that spend their time rounding up stories of a false rape accusations and / or illegal immigrants murdering or raping someone.

So false rape accusations and illegals murdering people are a joke to you. You can't comprehend something, so you are trying to turn it into some sort of starnge explanation-red pill, the matrix, a parody. That you devolve into insults-marcus you must be-that is his ammo, when he can't come up with a counter .

YesYNot says

No. Posting anecdotes and thinking that it proves a point is idiotic

Blah, blah, keep twisting to justify your position.

lostand confused says

Blah, blah, keep twisting to justify your position.

That's been my only point with you. There was never any other point.

YesYNot says

That's been my only point with you. There was never any other point.

Cute.