Unfair Alimony Horror Stories

[Longshot]

> 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]

Longshot@aol.com says...

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.

[Nearl J Icarus]

Longshot@aol.com says...

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]

Longshot wrote:

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

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.

[Bock]

Longshot wrote:

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

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]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C81887.CBCC8BFD@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?

[- krp]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C81887.CBCC8BFD@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]

~ krp wrote:

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message news:42C81887.CBCC8BFD@telus.net...

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 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.

[Bock]

~ krp wrote:

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message news:42C81887.CBCC8BFD@telus.net...

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 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]

~ krp wrote:

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message news:42C81887.CBCC8BFD@telus.net...

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.

Or is it ONLY the men who are obligated to continue honoring the contract?

[Dustbin]

~ krp wrote:

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message news:42C81887.CBCC8BFD@telus.net...

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.

Or is it ONLY the men who are obligated to continue honoring the contract?

[Dustbin]

Bock wrote:

~ krp wrote:

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.

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]

Bock wrote:

~ krp wrote:

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.

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.

[Society]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> ranted in message
news:42C8933D.688997BA@telus.net...

~ krp patiently explained...

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/p...wlik092803.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

[Society]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> ranted in message
news:42C8933D.688997BA@telus.net...

~ krp patiently explained...

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/p...wlik092803.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]

"Society" <Society@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in messagenews:11chfevdqm9u41e@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

[Heidi Graw]

"Society" <Society@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in messagenews:11chfevdqm9u41e@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]

Heidi Graw wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

[Bock]

Heidi Graw wrote:

(snip)

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

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]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in messagenews:42C8F3CF.60A3CC47@telus.net...

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

[Heidi Graw]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in messagenews:42C8F3CF.60A3CC47@telus.net...

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]

Heidi Graw wrote:

...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.

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!"

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.

[Bock]

Heidi Graw wrote:

...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.

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!"

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.

[- krp]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C8933D.688997BA@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.

Horse****! 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.

Bull****! 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]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C8933D.688997BA@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.

Horse****! 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.

Bull****! 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]

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

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]

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

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]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C8F3CF.60A3CC47@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.

BULL****! Just NOT factual.

[- krp]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C8F3CF.60A3CC47@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.

BULL****! Just NOT factual.

[- krp]

"Bock" <electronicmailfixtosend@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42C8F3CF.60A3CC47@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!