Jenee Sexbot 2063 tangent from MC

I want them treated exactly like men, regardless of how that works out for them. Nobody gives two shits if some man ends up working three jobs and sleeping in his car to keep up with his support payments. Not until he drops dead from a heart attack, anyway.

You telling this to someone who's nephew was in that same position.

The two got married young because both are Christian and couldn't sleep together (get to know each other intimately) prior to marriage.
She moved back in with her mother
He's still paying on the house.
She took all the furniture
He's still paying on the furniture
His entire paycheck is going to his ex wife who talks shit about him to his kids. HIs kids get child support and are waiting until adulthood to legally change their name to their step dad's last name.

Yea, that shit is bullshit.

But, that is not the norm.

We don't make laws for one-offs.

Laws should be based on the 80/20 rule.

Bullshit.

One of the reasons women have lower paying jobs is due to ‘women’s work’ being lower appreciated and compensated. Teaching, healthcare, administrative work, etc. etc.

Another big part is that these professions and even in other one’s women are more highly represented in the public sector than private. ESPECIALLY single mothers. Why? Because those jobs are more stable and have better health benefits even with lower pay.

Let’s get universal healthcare up and running and guaranteed housing (your kids aren’t homeless if you get fired) and THEN let’s see what kind of decisions women make in an actual free market (not having their childrens’ lives literally held over them).

In short, her choices.

Still sounds like choices.

Let's get personal accountability up and running, stop making babies you can't afford and stop making commitments you won't honor.

Is that in favor of or in opposition to true gender equality?

yea. that's gonna happen.

As long as ANYthing is based on gender, there will always be discrepencies. Therefore, gender should not be taken into consideration in divorces.

What needs to be taken into account is - how will the children be supported. If no children are involved, everyone walks away with what they entered the marriage with.

wealthy men buying "hot" wives ... fuck 'em. They put themselves into that situation, they can deal with it. but, no, when a woman is too old to start a career and has never had to learn or do, then yea, that fat fucker can pay till she dies.

Second option. Make your choices and take full accountability for them, without expecting your employer or collective society to subsidize it.

Humans have been making babies long before modern first world problems and will continue long after it descends into anarchy in some post apocalyptic dystopian future.

Well that would be a drastic change.

The presumption is usually in favor of the mother, no matter how well or how poorly she runs her life.

Perfect. Sold. I'll take your entire stock.

Nope. Both of them made their choices. If she has no ongoing obligation towards him, he should have none to her.

Any solution that involves dismantling, or even weakening the patriarchy is gonna make UA go "nnnaaaauuuuaaaoooooo!!! ".
Just a heads up.

That doesn't mean they can't be expected to be practical about it.

As usual, you support that with absolutely nothing.


"I want men an women treated exactly the same."

"Patriarchy! Reeeeeeee!"

This seems.... unnecessarily cruel. Our dreams for society shouldn't involve a race to the bottom.

That's an easy paradox to solve.
You're a lying sack of shit.
See how easy?

As long as ANYthing is based on gender, there will always be discrepencies. Therefore, gender should not be taken into consideration in divorces.[/quote]

I've told you before, if you only just READ RBG's court responses, you'll find you agree with MUCH of what she says.

This simply is not true.

:-)

Which is why there is an abundance of pre-nups. Because women got sick of men screwing them over.

Either way, it's not as if any of us would ever even remotely be involved in such a situation - with the possible exception of FF, but he's already divorced and bitter, so my guess is he didn't get that pre-nup. or, he did and is pissed he has to abide by it.[/quote]

And you support it with absolutely nothing. That ought to be easy to prove.

14thdoc put it pretty well for me in post 74.

I've told you before, if you only just READ RBG's court responses, you'll find you agree with MUCH of what she says.

This simply is not true.

:-)

Which is why there is an abundance of pre-nups. Because women got sick of men screwing them over.

Either way, it's not as if any of us would ever even remotely be involved in such a situation - with the possible exception of FF, but he's already divorced and bitter, so my guess is he didn't get that pre-nup. or, he did and is pissed he has to abide by it.[/quote][/quote]

It is true, usually. There's a term for it, but I'm drawing a blank.


No, prenups exist because men were tired of losing their asses to gold diggers. But now the tactic is to argue in court that she was coerced into signing it.

Neither should one half be favored over the other.

I don't see post numbers in this mobile view. Make your own point, you lazy fuck

Buy a better phone, you lazier fuck.

It is true, usually. There's a term for it, but I'm drawing a blank.[/quote]

I know there is a lot of outrage on social media most by men and incels who have no idea how their bad behavior drove away their wife and therefore must rail about it on you tube, but I personally have never seen this happen.

Again, this is propaganda designed by wealthy men to make you sympathetic to their poor misfortunate circumstances with evil women.

Seriously, for 99% of of us, this is a non issue. and I won't make any further comments on it. if you want to continue bitching about it, have at it.

Is anyone else getting hot? I’m getting hot. I think they’re about to fuck.

Can someone please get UA some salsa for that chip on his shoulder?

That fucker only deserves ranch, and that's all it's getting.

So if a couple agrees that one of them will put their career on hold to take care of the kids, and the stay-at-home parent severely reduces their future earning potential as a result, and they get divorced ... the stay-at-home parent should live in poverty?

‘Make better decisions’ is a nice bumper sticker slogan and all I could expect from someone of your intellectual capacity but in the real world doesn’t work out.

Sometimes you don’t have all the info needed to make an informed decision.

How was I supposed to know my FIL would wrap himself in a shower curtain, lay down in a bathtub and suck start a .38 Special two days before my youngest was born, sending my soon to be ex-spouse into postpartum depression that would eventually cause me to have to leave my job to take care of things?

When I went back to school (software development, my hope was I could make enough to have to only 20-30 hours a week and so be able have more time to take care of my family) it would have been nice to know that COVID would hit and that not only would I go to online only but so would my 5 and 7 year old and my spouse would relapse back to only coming out of the room an hour or two a day so I had to drop out with 5 weeks to go until graduation in order to home school my kids.

Or that a few years later the physical abuse would build up to the point where I had to leave which pushed them even further off the edge to making threats against the children so I had to go to full on single parent.

But unlike you, the Oracle of Omaha, I didn’t foresee these things so I am where I am.

Now luckily for me and my kids I own my home that I will hopefully be moving back into soon (the mortgage for the four bedroom, three bath, two kitchen house purchased in 2013 is actually LESS than my one bedroom apartment I share with the kids literally across the street) and have some other support so I’ll be okay. However I am torn between finishing up school in tech (bit in flux right now) or going back to the public sector, because, yeah it is stable and has great healthcare benefits. Including mental health which me and the kids totally need.

But because I’m not an amoral sack of shit completely lacking in any positive qualities including just basic empathy I understand that not everyone is as ‘lucky’ as me. And so I DEFINITELY have nothing but contempt for absolutely worthless excuses for human beings that have contributed exactly zero with their life so sit back all bitter and yet smug looking down on those who have tried but struggled.

{{hugs}} I totally understand. I have a 40 year old child in desperate need of mental health services and because he refuses to acknowledge anything is even wrong, trying to get him to see a doctor is near impossible. and, like you, I did not prepare. I've lost all my savings and within 3 years - 20k indebt. I won't be able to retire if this continues.