jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 977
|
|
=========================================================== Who is standing exposed for who and what they really are... YOU ...can't respond to legitimate questions instead of contrived ones? ===========================================================
I'm not sure what "legitimate questions" you would like me to answer. If it is the question of "who stands exposed...", then I have already answered it; the answer remains you and all other women who insist that the divorce laws be biased in their favor. If the questions are the supposed "real" ones which you claim to have actually heard, then I don't know the answers. Perhaps you were simply naive at the time you divorced your husband, and thought that you could "do it yourself". Squeezing the life --and life's savings--out of a man in a divorce, is something which lawyers get paid a fortune to do and, although a "slam dunk" for women under modern divorce law, should never be attempted by amateurs.
As far as some of the supposedly child-abusive behaviour you described is concerned, there are three schools of thought about the most productive way to handle impudent, disrespectful behaviour by children toward their father. The "modern", liberal approach is to threaten a "time out". This may have some success if the parent has enough self-discipline to adhere to whatever this implies to the child, including loss of certain privileges. Unfortunately this method, of course, requires that the child be in the custody of the offended parent at all times--hardly the true scenario for a divorced man who seldom gets to see his child, is it? The other two approaches involve either a reasoned, methodical form of physical punishment --such as "spanking"--which would no doubt be amplified by the child in the retelling, while his own culpability is diminished. This really leaves only the type of frustrated, "at the end of his rope" behaviour you described, as the only viable alternative to allowing the child to behave in any way he may wish.
Yes, I have personally known of many scenarios such as the one described by "Uncle Joe" in my allegory. This very thing actually happened to my own uncle, when I was a child, and I actually asked my own mother the very question I phrased, hypothetically, to you. She answered that she thought that it was wrong, and that no one--especially a court or judge--had the right to assume that anyone owed anything to anyone else, and that everyone is not guilty, and not liable to anyone else, until clearly proven so. Of course, she had been raised in a time when people were taught morality and ethics as they grew up, and not to selfishly grab anything they can from people, even if a stupid law allows them to!
Any other questions?
Edited by jbar (05/17/08 01:10 AM)
|
numbnms
Platinum
 
Reged: 10/18/07
Posts: 642
|
|
You two, meaning Jbar and Mistake, cra ck me up. I agree with some of the points Jbar makes from time to time, ie the system is blatenly pro-woman in divorce, but for the most part what could be an open and enlightening discussion instead becomes a name calling 3rd grade playground fight.
-------------------- Forget waiting for the storm to pass
Learn to dance in the rain
|
mistake#2
Platinum
 
Reged: 07/19/06
Posts: 3116
Loc: Florida
|
|
[quote]=========================================================== Who is standing exposed for who and what they really are... YOU ...can't respond to legitimate questions instead of contrived ones? ===========================================================
I'm not sure what "legitimate questions" you would like me to answer.
**You made up contrived scenarios about kiddie questions...I gave you true questions that my kids have asked, yet you ignored ALL of them.
If it is the question of "who stands exposed...", then I have already answered it; the answer remains you and all other women who insist that the divorce laws be biased in their favor.
**REally, when have you ever heard me insist any of that? You haven't cause you are just lumping women into one category. Good thing a lot of women don't do that in regards to men like you...
If the questions are the supposed "real" ones which you claim to have actually heard, then I don't know the answers.
**...no not just claimed, it's documented in court documents and my ex has admitted saying certain things to the kids (including the one about bringing my then 14 year old daughter to the doctor to have her hymen examined)
Perhaps you were simply naive at the time you divorced your husband, and thought that you could "do it yourself". Squeezing the life --and life's savings--out of a man in a divorce, is something which lawyers get paid a fortune to do and, although a "slam dunk" for women under modern divorce law, should never be attempted by amateurs.
**No, not naive nor divorced without an attorney nor tried to take my ex's life savings (that's a complete joke considering that I made more money for a lot of the marriage while being responsible for the kids & house) yet I walked away with no equity (gave him the full-furnished house without a fight), no cash money, the car with the negative equity. Again you must not remember the conversation you and I had in regards to my particular case.
As far as some of the supposedly child-abusive behaviour you described is concerned, there are three schools of thought about the most productive way to handle impudent, disrespectful behaviour by children toward their father. The "modern", liberal approach is to threaten a "time out". This may have some success if the parent has enough self-discipline to adhere to whatever this implies to the child, including loss of certain privileges. Unfortunately this method, of course, requires that the child be in the custody of the offended parent at all times--hardly the true scenario for a divorced man who seldom gets to see his child, is it? The other two approaches involve either a reasoned, methodical form of physical punishment --such as "spanking"--which would no doubt be amplified by the child in the retelling, while his own culpability is diminished. This really leaves only the type of frustrated, "at the end of his rope" behaviour you described, as the only viable alternative to allowing the child to behave in any way he may wish.
**Supposed child abuse, I guess you don't think smacking a kid upside the head, holding one up by their throat and calling them degrading names is abuse? This isn't spanking. So now your saying that kids are liars too. No child deserves to be abused regardless of their behavior. Interesting to think that my son who was playing with his dad's head phones deserved to be smacked in the head, and that my daughter who couldn't move fast enough to get her shoes on deserved to be dragged through the house. I'd love to hear what behavior by a 6 year old makes being called a little b!tch warranted, a shithead, a ratfink or a dipshit...we are not talking about disrespectful kids, we are talking about a father who thinks that as long as he hasn't laid the kids out with his fists then whatever else he does is just fine. I'm not lumping all non-custodial fathers into one category as you do with all women, cause most men would not treat their children this way. So the little comment you made about how a man who doesn't have full-time with their children are doing (oh and justifibly so) this is false...first my ex did a lot of this when we were married which is part of the reason we got divorced but also as I said before the majority of non-custodial fathers Do NOT abuse their kids. Can't blame women (or children) for this one. Why am I not surprised to hear that you think abuse of a child is justified...
-------------------- **4 weeks to go**
|
mistake#2
Platinum
 
Reged: 07/19/06
Posts: 3116
Loc: Florida
|
|
[quote]You two, meaning Jbar and Mistake, cra ck me up. I agree with some of the points Jbar makes from time to time, ie the system is blatenly pro-woman in divorce, but for the most part what could be an open and enlightening discussion instead becomes a name calling 3rd grade playground fight. [/quote]
The problem with agreeing on one point with JBAR is that he then assumes that you agree with ALL he has to spew.
I don't think that divorce laws are pro-woman in property (aren't they ALL 50/50?) but I do believe that they are pro-woman in custody. I think a lot of states are catching on to the 50/50 in regards to custody arrangements.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 977
|
|
=========================================================== The problem with agreeing on one point with JBAR is that he then assumes that you agree with ALL he has to spew. ===========================================================
You apparently assume that one-half of everything someone has should belong to his spouse, and based upon only ONE CLEARLY KNOWN FACT, the fact that he got married. Why should I then not assume that a person agrees with everything I have said, if their agreement with even ONE THING I have said is a CLEARLY KNOWN FACT, by virtue of their having admitted so? At least, in the case of points I have made with which you don't agree, I have made an argument; in the case of this 50-50 split you speak of, no argument in favor of it is necessary to be made, as such a split is REQUIRED BY LAW (at least in "community property" states and, in all likelihood, in others as well). This is comparable to, and as ridiculous and arbitrary, as your being required--by law--to believe everything I say, if you believe ANYTHING I say.
Merely having a vague document saying that you are "married", and which contains a few "promises" which are already nullified by (no-fault divorce) law as soon as they are made, is no excuse for stealing one-half of everything a person has. This works against the man in ninety percent of cases, but is no less outrageous when it works against the woman. Any country which smugly and arrogantly implements such legalized theft against its people deserves the Wrath of God.
"Keep everything as simple as possible--and no more simple"
...A. Einstein
Edited by jbar (05/17/08 06:30 PM)
|
malone
Platinum
 
Reged: 12/30/07
Posts: 1855
|
|
[quote] You apparently assume that one-half of everything someone has should belong to his spouse, and based upon only ONE CLEARLY KNOWN FACT, the fact that he got married.
...This works against the man in ninety percent of cases, but is no less outrageous when it works against the woman. [/quote]
When you get married, it's for better or worse. What's yours becomes theirs, what's theirs becomes yours. In almost all cases, one person probably contributes more than the other. I contributed 90% more than my husband.
But I'm not making a lifetime of bitterness out of it. Oddly enough, after 16 years of marriage, I guess he should walk away with half, even if it was almost all of my making and paying. I gave the commitment upfront that it was for richer or poorer. Sadly, it's just turned out that's it's for a lot poorer. But I've accepted it and have chosen to try and rebuild what I've lost. Or at least work towards a good lifestyle for myself and my children.
What I don't understand is why you've chosen the path you have for yourself, where you will make yourself truly demented...over money.
Is it worth losing the joy of living over, or have you always been this way? (In which case that it explains why your ex-wife was content to take you to the cleaners.)
Edited by malone (05/17/08 09:39 PM)
|
ATVILLAS
Platinum
 
Reged: 05/12/07
Posts: 2283
Loc: Lost in the post D maze!!
|
|
"MONEY" is the root of all evil!! My EX got more than half, but guess what!! I have a "life" that I am in the process of learning how to enjoy again!!
-------------------- Help someone smile today!!!
Welcome to paradise!!!
|
mistake#2
Platinum
 
Reged: 07/19/06
Posts: 3116
Loc: Florida
|
|
So now that we are able to get back to the topic of the thread...
Do any of you think that having more openness in your conversation in regards to sex could have had a positive impact on your relationship? I relate ability to communicate on all levels, so I feel that intimacy is just one area that many probably could improve on which then would correlate into other aspects of ones relationship.
|
jbar
Platinum
Reged: 12/16/06
Posts: 977
|
|
=========================================================== When you get married...What's yours becomes theirs, what's theirs becomes yours. ==========================================================
If you were foolish enough to specifically agree to this, in front of witnesses, then yes--you have no excuse for complaining. In my case I made NO SUCH AGREEMENT, but later found that I had been, somehow, credited with having made it anyway.
I think that you simply allowed yourself to be snookered into not only being ripped off, but into thinking that there was nothing wrong with it. At least I understand and realize the outrage that this represents!
=========================================================== Is it worth losing the joy of living over, or have you always been this way? ===========================================================
I wasn't born aware of the lengths to which people will go to finesse legalized theft but, unlike most (and especially most women) I had some experiences as a young man, which made this clear to me. Nonetheless, I was unable to imagine the brazenness with which this is practiced, in divorce law, until I had already been married once, divorced, made my fortune as a single man and then married again. After all of this, then, I had to hear my second wife insist that one-half of everything I had was hers unless I could prove that it wasn't, by providing a meticulously detailed record of the location and seperate status of every dollar I had, since I first made it or it was first deposited to any of my accounts. At first I laughed at such a ridiculous and impossible suggestion (I couldn't even remember how many accounts I had since marrying her*), but THEN I STARTED RESEARCHING THE LAW. It turned out that she was right!
NO ONE should be rewarded for years of struggle and sacrifice by being robbed!
*Financial institutions THROW AWAY all records as soon as they are no longer required, by law, to be maintained. Tax returns, even if still available, are insufficient to prove seperate property.
Q. What happens to a lawyer or a politician if you give them Viagra?
A. They get eight inches taller!
Edited by jbar (05/18/08 01:12 AM)
|
|