Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 826
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time? Page 34 of 54    (14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54)

In GA where I was living during both my marriages the cost of CS for one child of a NCP making $4000.00 gross is $860.00 per month average.
The NCP is also responsible for ALL health insurance and any bills said insurance doesn't cover. So as you can see the NCP is responsible for far more that 29% of their income. Now lets see what happens when there are two children. CS only goes up $140.00 a month,to a average of $1020.00. Clearly showing the cost of the first child shows a substantial amount for providing a home, for not only the child but the CP as well.


Not to add fuel to the fire, but the costs of one child ARE more, relative to income, than the incremental costs of each additional child, whether one is a single parent or a couple.
Your example above equates to 21%, and this does seem reasonable to me. Without using specific numbers, I can tell you that I pay just over 10% of my gross income for after school care for one of my three children. I am quite sure, absolutely certain, in fact, that allocating the additional costs of housing, electricity, clothing, food, transportation etc. for that child alone is in excess of 21% of my gross income. In NY, having 3 children means that a cp is allotted 23% of the ncp's income to care for their children. Again, this seems more than fair to me. If I am able to support myself, delegating that same portion of my income to my children, why shouldn't an ncp be expected to? Of course, each person's particulars may vary, but there has to be a starting point, and I do believe that the percentages relative to income seem equitable.




Both parents have to have a place to live, why should either have to pay a percentage of that for the other?
In joint custody each parent is responsible for half of everything including a home for themselves and the children.
With women getting the children over 90% of the time the current system favors them heavily.


Because, prior to the split, it is assumed, and correctly, far more often than not, that the parent who earns more contributes more financially. The percentage of income doesn't change the percentage of income, relative to total income of the couple. Do you really think it more fair to expect that a cp who earned less be expected to suddenly double their income? It's not as if were not known that that parent made less. No blindsiding there! Perhaps in Ga., joint custody disallows for cs, but not in NY, and honestly, I think that is fair. To expect circumstances to change simply because two people split is not realistic. Your statement that the courts favor women is a bit misleading; in truth, they favor cp's. That the cp's are more often than not women isn't the reason why the courts allot them funds. Funds are allotted to the cp based on total income & percentages earned, not gender. You may not think it fair that more women get custody than men; then say that! It is not, however, valid to argue that cs favors one gender due solely to their gender, based on the statistics of which gender are cp's. Another argument, for sure, but it remains a separate argument.




While I certainly agree that both parents should have equal access to their children, to state that women who have sole custody, or better yet, 24/7 custody is merely an "advantage", when it is also involves sacrifice, is misleading. Just as often it is the non cp who chooses not to have contact. As much as I love my kids, I have envied those who have every other weekend free (hell, once a month would be like a vacation!). The courts are not the sole determining factor, for the majority.





I pointed out the advantages above.


All of the advantages you point out relate to pure finances. Having full custody, especially sole custody, also has personal disadvantages, such as the infringement on one's personal freedom, even if they are often seen as opportunity costs to the loving parent.



There is standard custody guidelines in all states if that was changed to joint custody with each parent sharing everything it would level the field.


To my knowledge, custody is agreed upon in the divorce agreement signed by both parents. Disputes are settled by the courts, after hearing arguments from both sides. Children (most often) 12 and above have the ability to make a statement, which bears weight relative to their age(s) as that age increases. Again, you may believe that reality is that the court works in favor of one gender, but please say that, then. Custody does not revert to the mother, in the absence of agreement, as a legal norm.



Again I say NO ONE would be FORCED to stay in a marriage they don't want to be in.


Of course they would! There are still some of us whose morality prevents them from "moving on" whilst within the confines of the marriage contract. There are those whose refusal to agree to any agreement at all, out of bitterness, vindictive natures, or the desire to have a punitive effect on the one who no longer desires to be with them. You would hand over all power to them? Your argument is based purely on the financial cost of children, really.



However it would take any advantage the system now gives to the CP. No-fault is not changed only the way the cost of raising the children.


See?




In a case with no children the 5-7 year waiting period would assure the time to work out a agreement between the parties involved.
Negating the high cost of having the courts do it.
Again an advantage to the one with the least amount of cash to spend on attorneys. Reducing the cost of divorce for both parties.
Looks like a win/win to me.


5 Years is a dam long time! Those reasonable enough to work out an agreement do so in far less time than that. The cost of the courts aren't effected, only the cost to the individual of attorneys fees. Divorce, especially where children are involved, is rarely a win/win, and I can't see how you have made it clear that postponing it would change that at all.



This has not been my experience the ones doing the blindsiding are the ones, I have seen do this over and over.
This is just one of the problems the joint custody and the waiting period would address.


They must be quite good at it , then, as are their "victims" good at being victimized.



I do not wish a gender war either however anyone saying the current system is not loaded in the favor of the CP which over 90% of the time is women, is just not being realistic.


My problem with that is that there are two distinct arguments there. As far as cp's, not favoring, necessarily, merely allowing them to remain able to feed their children. I think it unrealistic to assume that simply because most cp's are women, men are victimized. There are men who feel that their children are "better off" residing with their mother, many, as far as I can tell.



Also the current no-fault laws that do force a speedy divorce without spending a large amount of money on both sides are not doing a good job of being fair.
Any attorney will tell you the one that strikes first has a advantage.
One of the lawyers that is a friend of mine says "strike first strike hard


I live in one of the few states that does not have no fault divorce. As I see it, though, no fault divorce spares both parties, and was enacted in the interest of avoiding "having" to use less than ethical means to initiate the end of a marriage. If what you say is true, and women have such an advantage, however would you explain that women initiate so often? One would think that any man with even half a brain would run to an attorney at the the first argument! Something surely doesn't smell right in your scenario.



Thank you for the reasonable statements and questions while I do not see eye to eye with you.
You have been polite in your response.

As have you. You see, I empathize with your passion regarding your feelings. I only wish to see that all would open their eyes a bit wider when it comes to reality. There are men who make great dads, many, many of them, and there are women who are deceiptful liars. But the majority of men don't seek custody because, frankly, they don't want it! Many men see their role as financial provider rather than nurturing parent; they identify with it, and they cry about it when they no longer reap the benefits for their performance in that area. Less than in the past, but still a majority. I honestly believe that, and I hear men admit it more often than not. Even here, where so many contend that they are just as interested in having custody, the arguments are nearly always centered around finances. I contend that even with all the changes in society, things haven't really changed all that much, as far as attitudes go.

Joint custody, while in theory remarkable, can be quite difficult, for the child. Are we to mandate that the coparents live within. say, 20 miles of each other, so as not to interfere with their child's activities, social life, etc., and not to burden either with exorbitant travel expense? As kids get older, it gets even more difficult. For the very young child, the difficulty of having no sense of home" can be quite discomforting. I am not sure it's the best solution, although I do wholeheartedly believe that every child is better off having the security that comes from the knowledge that both of their parents love & care for them. That can be attained, however, by other means. It doesn't involve the courts at all. No judge can effect a non selfish attitude, or legally prohibit bitter or vindictive behavior, no matter how often a child spends the night at a particular parent's home.

This doesn't seem to me a black & white issue, and to base this argument on the contention that men have no idea that their wife is intent upon leaving them seems a bit ridiculous, if you ask me. Not to mention insulting to men. If you haven't had a decent conversation with your spouse in months (years, whatever), and your sex life is nearly non existent; if your spouse is dismissive of you or your opinions, distant or suddenly less present physically than was previously the case, I'd say it's a safe bet that there's a problem. Choosing to ignore it, no matter your gender, then claiming to be "surprised" when papers are served upon you, is nothing more than choosing avoidance, not evidence of someone else "scheming" or "blindsiding" you. I appreciate that every one brings their experience to the forefront when proposing problems/solutions, but I don't see the negation of one's responsibility as proof of a valid argument for postponing anyone's freedom from a relationship they want out of.


Because most men have learned that many seemingly sane women are only one "I don't want to see you anymore." away from a restraining order.


Curious; what does THAT mean? No one should have to utter those words more than once.
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 827
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/13/2010 12:50:36 PM
I've been researching this issue and things that might be a contributing factor to it. Not sure if people are interested in exploring it. For example, John Gottman, and others, have some very interesting work into why relations fail. Gottman's team predicts relationship success/failure with a 90% accuracy.
 zangie
Joined: 5/30/2007
Msg: 828
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/13/2010 1:36:00 PM
I, for one would be interested itsmargo...

Does anyone know why all my forum screens are now wrapping around? I can't read any of them without scrolling left and right..thought it was my browser settings, though I didn't change anything..but, it's the same at work where I have Explorer...and home where I have Firefox....
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 829
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/13/2010 4:43:19 PM

Same here... It is annoying... Hope it's just a glitch and Bigfish will fix it.


Du-uuuuuh.... Markus has a new deal with the monitor companies that sell monsterously wide viewing screens.....

@itsmargo:

Geez... tryin' to inject some semblence of reality and factishness into the biatching, whinging and ass.holery....

... get a grip, woman. You clearly have too much time on your hands....

... but, if you can find time between morning coffee, afternoonish martinis and late-night special libations, not to mention fending off sexual advances from The Stud, I'd like to peruse your ickle linky.....

... thanks....

 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 830
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/13/2010 9:35:58 PM
"sacrificial lamb or martyr?"

Neither, I believe I would rather cry with the sinners, than die with the saints!

As for "turd tossing" yeah maybe, does it make a difference in this sh1t heap? Not like anyone side is listening to the other. Nor will they, what is it they say, "women are from Venus and men are from Mars".

I prefer to think that neither side can communicate as it is, they are incapable of seeing the other sides position. One savy poster in this thread sent me some numbers. They said that women start 80% of relationship discussions as well. I doubt that is true. I think the number is far closer to 100% than either side would be comfortable enough to admit!

It is the difference between the types of things men and women base most of their judgements on. Men think very plane, women think in emotional levels, very different.

A man wants a solution, not a discussion. Now he may not like the agreed to soution, but having it makes him happier, than not. Women want the discussion, the feelings behind it. Sooo the beat goes on. Further when a divorce happens, most men, will guard their feelings, see discussions as the enemy, not a long term solution. Why? Because it means she sees flaws that will be exploited or debated, not with a reasonable end, but an emotional one, so little common sense, from a man's point of view.

Women want things to be more fluid, men want concrete. THIS is how, we as genders are wired, not the sex, not the children, not the home, just the concept of how we view our lives. Don't understand it? Then great, stop looking, cause if you can't grasp this simple difference, then you are lost.

That is my final say on all this garbage. Not the numbers, not the sex or sex of the person who commits the initial breakup act, just who we are.
 zangie
Joined: 5/30/2007
Msg: 831
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/14/2010 6:24:04 AM

Oh My God. If it were a woman getting cheated on wow it would be viewed so differently by these same women. More crap for sure. ABSOLUTLY NEVER WILL THERE EVER BE A LEGIT REASON FOR CHEATTING. LEAVE THEN DO AS YOU PLEASE. This is just stupid.


Um Cowboy..itsmargo..who you quoted, is a woman, and she was cheated on...no double standard there...

I don't think you get what is being said...no one said there is any good reason to cheat, that it is a proper response to being unhappy..what people are saying is that most often when cheating evolves ( not a serial cheater) over a period of time...something wrong in the relationship probably triggered that, or made the temptation easier..this is not about excusing their behavior..it is about looking to your own to see how you may have contributed to what happened, or how you may have been able to avert it...that led to the dissatisfaction the happened...from a female point of view..while again, I don't think this is an excuse..but, say I was married and cut off the sex , no explanation, no attempting to fix it..and just got more adamant as time went on...while the proper response to this isn't for someone to cheat...I can't say with a straight face that my cutting off the sex( if I did) did not help faciliate this very thing from happening...

It isn't about the cheater..you can't control another persons behavior..however, you certainly can behave in ways that are conducive to getting along, fixing problems..self reflection is a good, healthy thing..it ideally keeps you from making the same mistakes over and over..and it doesn't absolve the other person from their part..it just helps you from creating a situation where your behavior helped facilitate what went wrong..or, at the least, failed to help fix it...

MR Evil: I have said similar things a few times on here, but, no one ever addresses it, particularly the few men who have even posted...I think your commment that men want action and women want process is very accurate..and that's the part we all need to undertand and learn to compromise about...IMO..I , for one, would love to hear more men talk about how they see this instead of blaming women for just being "wrong"....
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 832
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/14/2010 6:55:15 AM
Although it's more often the fault of both partners in a relationship's demise, from observation as a third party to some, I'd have to say it's generally more one person to blame than the other; one wants to work on it, knowing there's problems, and the other refuses to acknowledge there's a problem or refuses to attempt to work on it.

I also do believe that there are cases where for one person, they are operating in a loving, functional way and the partner is totally to blame for cheating because they're simply a snake. When I was dating online, for instance, I couldn't begin to tell you the number of men who would contact me who were married and would say they had no intention of leaving their wife, loved them dearly, but were looking for the thrill of something outside of their marriage. This type of individual works in a very deceptive way, and while with their SO, treats them wonderfully well so they are entirely oblivious to the fact there is anything wrong and the thing "wrong" is the person who is just out for a thrill.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 833
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/15/2010 9:16:04 AM

Not to add fuel to the fire, but the costs of one child ARE more, relative to income, than the incremental costs of each additional child, whether one is a single parent or a couple.
Your example above equates to 21%, and this does seem reasonable to me. Without using specific numbers, I can tell you that I pay just over 10% of my gross income for after school care for one of my three children. I am quite sure, absolutely certain, in fact, that allocating the additional costs of housing, electricity, clothing, food, transportation etc. for that child alone is in excess of 21% of my gross income. In NY, having 3 children means that a cp is allotted 23% of the ncp's income to care for their children. Again, this seems more than fair to me. If I am able to support myself, delegating that same portion of my income to my children, why shouldn't an ncp be expected to? Of course, each person's particulars may vary, but there has to be a starting point, and I do believe that the percentages relative to income seem equitable.


Only if the NCP is expected to pay for part of the CP's house. Which they would need for themselves if there were no children evolved.
Again tell me why any the CP which is mostly women need the NCP mostly men to pay for a house for them.
The NCP Has to have a house but the CP doesn't have to help pay for it!!!!
Again Backdoor Alimony!!!!
I raised two Children without ANY Child support form there mothers. Yet was paying it to the mothers before I won custody.
I saved money once I got the children.
To be plain I was able to pay everything for my kids with less money than I was paying to there mothers!!!
And was still responsible for all medical!!!!!


Because, prior to the split, it is assumed, and correctly, far more often than not, that the parent who earns more contributes more financially. The percentage of income doesn't change the percentage of income, relative to total income of the couple. Do you really think it more fair to expect that a cp who earned less be expected to suddenly double their income? It's not as if were not known that that parent made less. No blindsiding there!


So let me get this straight......The NCP (mostly Men) are expected to continue to keep the CP(mostly women) in the "lifestyle they are accustom to" even though they are getting a divorce?
As I said before each person has the same chance at education and getting a good paying job.
Why should either parent expect payment from the other?


It is not, however, valid to argue that cs favors one gender due solely to their gender, based on the statistics of which gender are cp's. Another argument, for sure, but it remains a separate argument.


BULL BUTTER!!!!
The whole archaic system was set up when women didn't work at all. Then the no fault was brought in but the out of date custody laws were never changed.
When women did not work it was assumed by the courts they would be the better parent to take care of the kids.
With both parents working. Tell me isn't the genders equal in there ability of caring for the children now?
Why would anyone assume a woman is better equipped just because she is a woman.
I can tell you I have two well adjusted children that are now young adults.

The combined fact of the no fault and archaic CS laws have a huge advantage for the female.
The proof is women don't want even a equal system. What if the tables were turned? We would be hearing outcries and lamentations for women everywhere!!!


All of the advantages you point out relate to pure finances. Having full custody, especially sole custody, also has personal disadvantages, such as the infringement on one's personal freedom, even if they are often seen as opportunity costs to the loving parent.


Did we forget we are talking about joint custody?
I am not just talking about equal responsibility in finance but time spent with the children as well.
Rendering your point moot as the time is shared. So now the time you desire and fuss about not having is yours.......The money however no longer goes to the CP but straight to the kids, with the parent that is spending it making the decision, on where and how to spend their money on their child.


My problem with that is that there are two distinct arguments there. As far as cp's, not favoring, necessarily, merely allowing them to remain able to feed their children. I think it unrealistic to assume that simply because most cp's are women, men are victimized. There are men who feel that their children are "better off" residing with their mother, many, as far as I can tell.


I find it hard to believe that. I believe most men would jump at the chance to Have true joint custody and spend time with their children.
Again the fact that women work as much as men has taken away the one time advantage of the woman.


I live in one of the few states that does not have no fault divorce. As I see it, though, no fault divorce spares both parties, and was enacted in the interest of avoiding "having" to use less than ethical means to initiate the end of a marriage. If what you say is true, and women have such an advantage, however would you explain that women initiate so often? One would think that any man with even half a brain would run to an attorney at the the first argument! Something surely doesn't smell right in your scenario.


You actually answered your own question here.
The woman that you have already said normally makes less divorces taking halve of everything accumulated during the marriage.
And that is but one of the advantages the women have if their are kids involved that brings another advantage altogether.


They must be quite good at it , then, as are their "victims" good at being victimized.

Most of them are very good at it.
Tell me do you have the same contempt for a "victim" of rape?


Joint custody, while in theory remarkable, can be quite difficult, for the child. Are we to mandate that the coparents live within. say, 20 miles of each other, so as not to interfere with their child's activities, social life, etc., and not to burden either with exorbitant travel expense? As kids get older, it gets even more difficult. For the very young child, the difficulty of having no sense of home" can be quite discomforting. I am not sure it's the best solution, although I do wholeheartedly believe that every child is better off having the security that comes from the knowledge that both of their parents love & care for them. That can be attained, however, by other means. It doesn't involve the courts at all. No judge can effect a non selfish attitude, or legally prohibit bitter or vindictive behavior, no matter how often a child spends the night at a particular parent's home.


Ok so you are saying now that this is just too hard for the kids that it would damage them.
Funny you should say that, because just one page back you stated.....


I've no idea what kind of emotional benefits nesting is supposed to provide the kids, but I think this is a rather extreme solution. Kids are pretty resilient and while they shouldn't suffer hardship by being unreasonably or maliciously deprived of either parent or reasonable financial support from both, neither do they need to be protected from every bump in the road. Given that parents are also lost due to death, that homes are lost even when parents do not divorce, it seems to me that part of kids' learning to handle life means also learning to handle adversity. I think the most important aspect would be that the parents behave reasonably: CP does not use visitation or access to "control" or "punish" the NCP and the NCP does not begrudge financial contribution, or use it to "punish" or "control" the CP. Supportive, reasonable and loving parents are more important, imo, than where kids actually live. Bitter, angry & bickering, backstabbing parents are a problem, whether kids shuffle between them or they shuffle in and out of the kids' house.


So now are we to believe that kids are only resilient when cared for by a woman? Because it seems you think they are resilient then, but would be damaged by even a joint custody that involves a man having equal, say and control over the kids and the money he spends on them!!!

As far as being the fault of women it is actually the system at fault here if it was balanced. With no automatic gender bias you would see a change in behavior.
In the jurisdictions that the new laws have been enacted the rates have dropped.
Again show the advantage women have and when there is no advantage they seem to rethink the quick split.


Because most men have learned that many seemingly sane women are only one "I don't want to see you anymore." away from a restraining order.


Curious; what does THAT mean? No one should have to utter those words more than once.


I don't know why don't you ask the one that said it instead of piling it in with my comments?
It looks like you are arbitrating it to me!!!
Please in the future when quoting someone make sure people know who you are quoting!!!!


Zangie said.....

MR Evil: I have said similar things a few times on here, but, no one ever addresses it, particularly the few men who have even posted...I think your commment that men want action and women want process is very accurate..and that's the part we all need to undertand and learn to compromise about...IMO..I , for one, would love to hear more men talk about how they see this instead of blaming women for just being "wrong"....


Zanagie I would love to hear a woman actually give a answer here too. Very few have been honest enough to give a answer, that is not in code or so vague that it has no meaning to anyone but them!!!!

As far as the men wanting action and women wanting process. Tell me when at work when a problem arises do your bosses want you to look for the process or a answer to that problem fixing it as soon as possible?
So if problems at work require immediate action to fix why would it make any sense to think a problem in a relationship should be treated any different?
Or is it that in the "process" you claim women want that you find a way to teach us men a lesson?

chameleonf said....

Although it's more often the fault of both partners in a relationship's demise, from observation as a third party to some, I'd have to say it's generally more one person to blame than the other; one wants to work on it, knowing there's problems, and the other refuses to acknowledge there's a problem or refuses to attempt to work on it.

I also do believe that there are cases where for one person, they are operating in a loving, functional way and the partner is totally to blame for cheating because they're simply a snake. When I was dating online, for instance, I couldn't begin to tell you the number of men who would contact me who were married and would say they had no intention of leaving their wife, loved them dearly, but were looking for the thrill of something outside of their marriage. This type of individual works in a very deceptive way, and while with their SO, treats them wonderfully well so they are entirely oblivious to the fact there is anything wrong and the thing "wrong" is the person who is just out for a thrill.


I am sure I wrote a answer very similar to this a few pages back and was told how stupid I was for thing this and that it had to be my fault if a woman cheated on me!!!!
Where is the outcry now?
This is actually a very reasonable statement because more often than not one person is the author of the demise of the relationship.

If you look back at the whole thread you will see a few that will not accept ANY responsibility for their own actions and the fact that their are advantages that favor the women to do what they do.
That does not change the fact it is true.

nicecowboy7
Sorry you had to set out but at least you spoke your mind. The ones I have had the biggest diatribes on here with are the ones that will contradict themselves sooner or later.
I caught one above doing it and exposed it.
When this happens their credibility is shot. It is best to remain calm and on point and let them do your dirty work for you!!!!!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 834
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/15/2010 3:30:39 PM

So let me get this straight......The NCP (mostly Men) are expected to continue to keep the CP(mostly women) in the "lifestyle they are accustom to" even though they are getting a divorce?
As I said before each person has the same chance at education and getting a good paying job.
Why should either parent expect payment from the other?


That is your contention; I contend that both parents are responsible to maintain their children, with as little sacrifice on the part of the children as is possible. The fact that more cp's are women than men is incidental. Agreed, though, only to an extent, and that extent makes it relative that women tend to earn less than men. No one, neither man nor woman really has the same chance at education at a good paying job when they are a custodial parent. Certainly a parent who made less prior to splitting with their partner isn't magically able to increase their income simply because they have become a cp. A custodial parent certainly should have the right to expect that the coparent of their child provide money for the children; why should they not? If it estimated that parents spend approximately 21% of their income specifically to meet the needs of one child, why should that percentage change, relative to income, simply because the parents are not together?



The whole archaic system was set up when women didn't work at all. Then the no fault was brought in but the out of date custody laws were never changed.
When women did not work it was assumed by the courts they would be the better parent to take care of the kids.
With both parents working. Tell me isn't the genders equal in there ability of caring for the children now?
Why would anyone assume a woman is better equipped just because she is a woman.
I can tell you I have two well adjusted children that are now young adults.

The combined fact of the no fault and archaic CS laws have a huge advantage for the female.
The proof is women don't want even a equal system. What if the tables were turned? We would be hearing outcries and lamentations for women everywhere!!!


It seems to me, based on the above, that you equate cs with alimony. I can tell you that I didn't work once I had children, for 12 of the 15 years of my marriage, yet I don't get alimony. The court expects me to contribute an equal percentage of my income towards the support of my children, and I do. I am not necessarily assuming that either gender is better equipped to raise children, but more often than not, it is agreed b both parties that the mother have custody. It may be archaic, but there certainly exists a majority who feel that their ex wives/female ex partners are indeed better suited. Equal, as in percentage of income, is what cs is based upon. I have three well adjusted children, big deal! No fault divorce is a separate argument, and our posts are already verbose, so......
You have every right to feel that women don't want an equal system, if you feel that all women are the same, but as far as I am concerned, that's your problem, not based on any "proof" I have seen.


Most of them are very good at it.
Tell me do you have the same contempt for a "victim" of rape?


Not a comparable instance. I will tell you this, though. If a woman is the victim of date rape, over & over, I certainly do!


Ok so you are saying now that this is just too hard for the kids that it would damage them.


No, I am saying that logistically, it can be impossible, especially when kids get older & have more freedom. Having said that, I feel no need to address your subsequent statement. Reasonableness as far as access of a child by a responsible parent isn't inconsistent with my statements.

With the exception of the below:


So now are we to believe that kids are only resilient when cared for by a woman? Because it seems you think they are resilient then, but would be damaged by even a joint custody that involves a man having equal, say and control over the kids and the money he spends on them!!!


I referred to a cp, NOT a woman!


As far as being the fault of women it is actually the system at fault here if it was balanced. With no automatic gender bias you would see a change in behavior.
In the jurisdictions that the new laws have been enacted the rates have dropped.
Again show the advantage women have and when there is no advantage they seem to rethink the quick split.


I acknowledge that many men see the system as gender biased, but I contend that "favoring" a cp is based upon income, as it stands, not gender itself. We are all part of the system, and the it is not a fact that a majority of men seek custody. Of those who do, more than half receive it. Your assumption that women may be more reluctant to leave if custody is joint is purely financial is simply that, your assumption. I guess we would have to ask them, wouldn't we?


I don't know why don't you ask the one that said it instead of piling it in with my comments?
It looks like you are arbitrating it to me!!!
Please in the future when quoting someone make sure people know who you are quoting!!!!


I never meant to insinuate that this quote was attributable to you. I simply assumed that the participants in this thread can read.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 835
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/15/2010 7:32:10 PM

Certainly a parent who made less prior to splitting with their partner isn't magically able to increase their income simply because they have become a cp. A custodial parent certainly should have the right to expect that the coparent of their child provide money for the children; why should they not? If it estimated that parents spend approximately 21% of their income specifically to meet the needs of one child, why should that percentage change, relative to income, simply because the parents are not together?


And why is the "richer" parents problem to support the other parent?
With joint custody there need to be know child support. Both parents keep a home that they can afford and share the cost of the child.
Letting each parent decide where and how to spend the money they see fit on the child.
When the child was born it took both parents to conceive them. The birth certificate has both names on it why should it be that anyone be sole custodian?
This is the 21st century and women and men have equal rights the dads I know would love to have the chance to have joint custody!!!


You have every right to feel that women don't want an equal system, if you feel that all women are the same, but as far as I am concerned, that's your problem, not based on any "proof" I have seen

Equal? and you think I see child support as alimony?
I have said it was backdoor alimony!!!!
The fact that some jurisdictions are going to joint custody and have good results is a precursor to the coming change. As the courts systems see the benefits of having the father in the children's lives the change though slow will happen.



Not a comparable instance. I will tell you this, though. If a woman is the victim of date rape, over & over, I certainly do!

Not the same instance?!?!?!?
Have you ever had someone brag about how good a actress she is having been cheated on by this same person. Never once questioning them because you love and trusted them?
And in the same night have them walk out of your life?
Let me put it in perspective.... I was abused sexually when I was 8. It took me just a few weeks to get over that.
It took about a year for me to wrap my mind around my last divorce.
So having experienced both the latter was the worst.
The divorce was caused by someone I deeply loved and trusted the abuse by someone that hardly knew me.
Tell me which person can do the most harm?


Ok so you are saying now that this is just too hard for the kids that it would damage them.


No, I am saying that logistically, it can be impossible, especially when kids get older & have more freedom. Having said that, I feel no need to address your subsequent statement. Reasonableness as far as access of a child by a responsible parent isn't inconsistent with my statements.

With the exception of the below:


So now are we to believe that kids are only resilient when cared for by a woman? Because it seems you think they are resilient then, but would be damaged by even a joint custody that involves a man having equal, say and control over the kids and the money he spends on them!!!


I referred to a cp, NOT a woman!


First as kids get older they do not spend as much time with either parent they are spreading their wings so to speak.
So please tell me how that makes it harder?
You did refer to them as a CP however in the same post you said that most of the time the CP is a woman yourself.
The only reason you don't have a answer to this is there is no good answer from the point of view you hold.
There is no reason to continue a out of date lopsided custody law like most places have. Luckily it is changing already the new law has show promise of fairness and the fact the fathers are present have made a impact on the kids and society as a whole.

The fact is you contradicted yourself from one post to the next!!! That is very apparent to anyone that can read!!!


I acknowledge that many men see the system as gender biased, but I contend that "favoring" a cp is based upon income, as it stands, not gender itself. We are all part of the system, and the it is not a fact that a majority of men seek custody. Of those who do, more than half receive it. Your assumption that women may be more reluctant to leave if custody is joint is purely financial is simply that, your assumption. I guess we would have to ask them, wouldn't we?


The old custody laws is set on nothing but gender!!!
The joint custody has already shown that it reduces the divorce rate. In jurisdictions it has been used in the rates have went down and further more it was the number of women filing that dropped the number for the men remained unchanged!!!
So no we don't have to ask them anything it is apparent what the motive is by the drop in numbers!!!

In 1229 itsmargo posted
I've been researching this issue and things that might be a contributing factor to it. Not sure if people are interested in exploring it. For example, John Gottman, and others, have some very interesting work into why relations fail. Gottman's team predicts relationship success/failure with a 90% accuracy.


Then it was said
Du-uuuuuh.... Markus has a new deal with the monitor companies that sell monsterously wide viewing screens.....

@itsmargo:

Geez... tryin' to inject some semblence of reality and factishness into the biatching, whinging and ass.holery....

... get a grip, woman. You clearly have too much time on your hands....

... but, if you can find time between morning coffee, afternoonish martinis and late-night special libations, not to mention fending off sexual advances from The Stud, I'd like to peruse your ickle linky.....


I looked up me Gottman found something very interesting about his rates!!!


In 2010, journalist Laurie Abraham claimed that Gottman's assertion of 81% or 90% accuracy is misleading, however, because the accuracy is measured only after fitting a model to his data. There is no evidence that he can predict the outcome of a marriage with high accuracy in advance. As Abraham writes, "For the 1998 study, which focused on videotapes of 57 newlywed couples . . . He knew the marital status of his subjects at six years, and he fed that information into a computer along with the communication patterns turned up on the videos. Then he asked the computer, in effect: Create an equation that maximizes the ability of my chosen variables to distinguish among the divorced, happy, and unhappy. . . . What Gottman did wasn't really a prediction of the future but a formula built after the couples' outcomes were already known. . . . The next step, however—one absolutely required by the scientific method—is to apply your equation to a fresh sample to see whether it actually works. That is especially necessary with small data slices (such as 57 couples), because patterns that appear important are more likely to be mere flukes. But Gottman never did that. Each paper he's published heralding so-called predictions is based on a new equation created after the fact by a computer model


Hummm not very scientific there is he.
Now one more point it to all of one minute to find a problem with these stats.
Yet I begged for anyone that said my stats were bad to find a problem with them or even ones that showed a different outcome none were brought forth.
It is not really that hard to find true info and be able to back it up.
it is very funny when some one can post stats that are questionable and people believe them but good stats are posted and they are dismissed even though not one could post anything wrong with them!!!!
 *topchef*
Joined: 8/2/2008
Msg: 836
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/15/2010 8:48:30 PM
Jinx...not just men, this concern is not specific to a gender, but I guess, if the 80% rule is valid, it is the case with men over women 80% of the time.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 837
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/15/2010 9:01:27 PM

And why is the "richer" parents problem to support the other parent?
With joint custody there need to be know child support. Both parents keep a home that they can afford and share the cost of the child.
Letting each parent decide where and how to spend the money they see fit on the child.
When the child was born it took both parents to conceive them. The birth certificate has both names on it why should it be that anyone be sole custodian?
This is the 21st century and women and men have equal rights the dads I know would love to have the chance to have joint


It is only you who are relating the calculation of cs to supporting a parent, at all. Only one parent is deemed cp, even in joint custody. The ncp pays cs, based on a percentage of income that is assumed to be consistent with the percentage of income applicable to the support of a child. It seems you have a problem with this, but please say so, rather to indicate that it is otherwise. I am glad that the dads you know would love to have joint custody. There are not, however, a majority of men who do, if the records relating to the fathers who request it are any indication at all. Either way, what I suggest is merely that cs is related to custody, not gender. and not the support of a parent, but rather a child.


Equal? and you think I see child support as alimony?
I have said it was backdoor alimony!!!!
The fact that some jurisdictions are going to joint custody and have good results is a precursor to the coming change. As the courts systems see the benefits of having the father in the children's lives the change though slow will happen.


I am not quite sure what you are saying, and I don't know what "good results" are, but, I, for one, certainly see the benefit of a child having their father in their life. Have I ever suggested otherwise? I have never heard that the system was inclined to disallow fathers to be involved with the lives of their offspring, unless, of course, they were proven to be a danger to them.


Not the same instance?!?!?!?
Have you ever had someone brag about how good a actress she is having been cheated on by this same person. Never once questioning them because you love and trusted them?
And in the same night have them walk out of your life?
Let me put it in perspective.... I was abused sexually when I was 8. It took me just a few weeks to get over that.
It took about a year for me to wrap my mind around my last divorce.
So having experienced both the latter was the worst.
The divorce was caused by someone I deeply loved and trusted the abuse by someone that hardly knew me.
Tell me which person can do the most harm?


I am truly sorry that you were abused as a child. The fact, however, that you say it took only a few weeks to get over is evidence that you have been a bit in denial, if you ask me. Perhaps that is what led to your being an easy victim. In any case, a rape victim is not the same as the victim of trickery, in general. I was comparing those who claim to have been blindsided by their s.o. announcing that they wanted to end a relationship to rape victims; actually, YOU were comparing them. Being victimized affects victims in different ways, but to continually choose those who prey on one's weaknesses is not sufficient defense against consistently playing the victim. OF course, someone in whom you place your trust does harm to you, but it would seem to me that, having been victimized, one would learn to exercise more care as far in whom to place their trust. Evolution?


First as kids get older they do not spend as much time with either parent they are spreading their wings so to speak.
So please tell me how that makes it harder?
You did refer to them as a CP however in the same post you said that most of the time the CP is a woman yourself.
The only reason you don't have a answer to this is there is no good answer from the point of view you hold.
There is no reason to continue a out of date lopsided custody law like most places have. Luckily it is changing already the new law has show promise of fairness and the fact the fathers are present have made a impact on the kids and society as a whole.

The fact is you contradicted yourself from one post to the next!!! That is very apparent to anyone that can read!!!


It makes it more difficult, certainly, if the parents don't live close enough to each other to afford their children to continue to interact with those they spend a lot of time with. If you recall, I specifically mentioned mandating a distance between households, as it would certainly become more difficult, if not logistically impossible, for one parent or the other to transport a child to school/sports activities, parties, etc. Of course I admitted that the cp is most often a woman; that was part of the discussion I was responding to!;moreover, it is a fact. How would most men feel, given that the mother is most often the cp, being forced by the system to live within a certain distance to her? Or being inconvenienced, even having to cut their work hours, in order to provide transportation for their children's various activities, or attend school functions? Do you think, perhaps, they might lose their jobs, or be forced to take less lucrative positions, or decide between doing so & not being there for their children? We might find more men living closer to the poverty level, no? Do you deny my allusion to the fact that it is these very things that contribute to cp's earning less? That more fathers are present is, as I see it, a testimony to the increased appreciation of men for the importance of involvement in the lives of their children. Still, I fail to see a contradiction. The jist of the argument of most in this thread has been purely financial in nature. There is far more to parenting.


The old custody laws is set on nothing but gender!!!
The joint custody has already shown that it reduces the divorce rate. In jurisdictions it has been used in the rates have went down and further more it was the number of women filing that dropped the number for the men remained unchanged!!!
So no we don't have to ask them anything it is apparent what the motive is by the drop in numbers!!!


What do old custody laws have to do with this discussion? I am quite sure, and I have stated, that it may depend upon where you reside, but in most of the US, custody is based upon the separation/divorce agreement, not imposed as a matter of law. I disagree that the numbers make motive apparent, as it may well be that men don't care. It is to the advantage of an abusive man to remain married, or a man who has a woman on the side, to force his wife to remain betrothed to him out of fear that her children will have to deal with his cruelty/indiscretions as a matter of law, especially if he views cs as merely monies paid to a woman he has little regard for. Not saying that I feel this way & I am fully aware that there is certainly valid argument against this; still, without input from the woman who declines to file, we have no way of measuring. If one were to assume based on numbers alone, well, then, most men don't care to share custody. It is not enough to use numbers only when convenient to your argument. Numbers are nothing but numbers; they don't make anything "apparent".
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 838
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/15/2010 9:06:24 PM

I referred to a cp, NOT a woman!

Not only that, but I was the one who posted the original comment he attributed to you; either way, he completely missed the gender neutrality of the comment.

I simply assumed that the participants in this thread can read.

I think that's a fair assumption; it's the comprehension level of some participants that is in question, I'm thinking.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 839
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/15/2010 9:19:36 PM
Thank you, forum learner. It is obvious that men & women view this topic differently, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even so, opinion & fact are two different things. It is inane to make assumptions based on quantitative statistics. The only way to ascertain why women initiate breakups more often than not is to ask the women who have initiated breakups. Not being able to accept their responses doesn't prove anything except that there exists the possibility that men are extremely obtuse. Gee, perhaps that is why?
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 840
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/16/2010 2:05:18 AM
Hey Evil, I'll comment on your stuff soon. Capitano, hold that martini! I've been occupied with a massive garden overhaul and digging in the dirt has prevented me from dishing the dirt in the forums.

MJ, whew, I normally sidestep posts like yours but as you're questioning Gottman's credibility I'll make an exception. MJ, I advise you that I decline to get into a protracted battle over methodology and research validity. I intend to address this once and consider the matter complete. I apologise if that seems high-handed; my concern is to discuss the issue rather than methodology.

In 2010, journalist Laurie Abraham claimed that Gottman's assertion of 81% or 90% accuracy is misleading, however, because the accuracy is measured only after fitting a model to his data. ... What Gottman did wasn't really a prediction of the future but a formula built after the couples' outcomes were already known

Although I’d like it, I doubt Gottman will respond to her criticism as he has already addressed them in peer review critiques over a decade ago.

Abraham, who seems to be a smart cookie and an engaging writer, is an editor with Elle magazine. I speculate she became aware of it when she read the peer review critiques and responses while researching her book (she followed a group in couples therapy for a year and wrote a book about it). In particular, Gottman’s response to the critique by Stanley, Bradbury, and Markham (2000) addressed the points (and more) Abraham reported, namely “The main themes of the critique massed by Stanley et al were that we stated our results too strongly, that these results were based on data analyses that did not fully address the hypothesis being tested, and that the results were based on non-replicated findings.”

You’ll note Abraham is not questioning his work, she feels how he presents 90% accuracy is misleading; her reasoning is “Gottman's "predictions" are not exactly what most of us think of as real predictions. And the way he reports them in all likelihood makes them seem much more robust than they really are.”. In simple terms, it seems her largest concern is the way they "worked backwords" post divorce to determine/predict the factors that lead to divorce, rather than working forwards in "making a prediction" that this marriage will end in 6 years.

The research observed differences between marriages that lasted and marriages that ended in divorce. Finding distinguishing characteristics between the two was part of the research. In other words, by tracking couples over extended periods, Gottman developed a model for what made marriages last or end in divorce.

Each research methodology has strengths and weaknesses and I can’t tell you if Gottman’s methods are generalizable to the total population. (I also can’t tell you, because I haven’t read her book, if Abraham's concern with "predictions" is really the issue of generalizability presented in a consumer friendly manner). Generally speaking, the strength in small qualitative studies is they get at the ‘why’ of an issue in depth and their weakness is usually/often generalizability.

From the Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques, Volume 2 by John Touliatos, Barry F. Perlmutter, Murray Arnold Straus
“Observation coding schemes represent the most objective and scientific of the observation procedures. (Discussion of advantages and disadvantages)... Another disadvantage of coding schemes is that the precision gained in measurement is at the expense of comprehensiveness. Coding schemes, therefore, typically have had less predictive validity than methods, such as rating scales, which capture more molar level behavior. In summary, observation coding schemes are most relevant to the scientific investigation of well-focused, theoretically based research for which the goal is describing and analyzing the contingent behavior of family members. Excellent examples of this are provided by the research of John Gottman (e.g. Gottman, 1993; Gottman & Levenson, 1992) and Gerald Patterson (e.g. 1982). For additional information on reliability and validity of family interaction coding schemes, the interested reader is referred to Grotevant and Carlson (1987, 1989)”

My interest in Gottman’s work is not whether he can predict with 90% accuracy the demise of a marriage, rather I find what his extensive research has uncovered about the problems in relating and what can be done with it invaluable. He has found factors that are present in some 90% of divorced couples. Unlike the off topic discussion on custody and child support, while important issues, I believe his findings are germane to this topic.

As you feel Abraham’s book negates Gottman’s work, I will use additional excerpts from her book to illustrate she may question his ability to accurately predict the outcome of every marriage, but she does not question the impact of his work:

“Undeniably, Gottman has made enormous contributions to the study of marriage. ... To back up the idea that it was the relationship that mattered, it was necessary to step into the flow, or muddle, of couples interaction—and Gottman embraced that task wholeheartedly.

When he and a handful of other research teams began videotaping couples in conflict in the 1970s, the approach was revolutionary. Instead of just asking people how they argued or resolved disputes, researchers could see and hear them in action. A math major at MIT before he switched to psychology, Gottman developed a coding system that not only tracked the content of speech but the emotional messages that spouses send with minute changes in expressions, vocal tone, and body language. Using facial recognition systems, Gottman's code accounts for the fact that, for instance, in "coy, playful, or flirtatious interactions," the lips are often turned down. "It looks like the person is working hard not to smile," he writes. Conversely, "many 'smiles' involve upturned corners of the mouth but are often indices of negative affect." Such meticulous parsing allowed Gottman to coin the phrase "negative affect reciprocity," because he saw, frame by frame, the vicious emotional circles that characterize clashing spouses.”

I find I have now spent so much time addressing the issue of predictions at length that I don't have the time to write about the factors Gottman uncovered. If the thread is still alive and people are still interested, I'll find the time when I've finished digging in the dirt.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 841
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/16/2010 2:30:32 PM

You’ll note Abraham is not questioning his work, she feels how he presents 90% accuracy is misleading; her reasoning is “Gottman's "predictions" are not exactly what most of us think of as real predictions. And the way he reports them in all likelihood makes them seem much more robust than they really are.”. In simple terms, it seems her largest concern is the way they "worked backwords" post divorce to determine/predict the factors that lead to divorce, rather than working forwards in "making a prediction" that this marriage will end in 6 years.


As you feel Abraham’s book negates Gottman’s work, I will use additional excerpts from her book to illustrate she may question his ability to accurately predict the outcome of every marriage, but she does not question the impact of his work:


I am going to shock you I agree that his work was not the question. I never said her book negated his work. It was his stats that he skewed, mostly to get more people to sign up for his workshops I would guess.
Now lets look at some of the people that went through his workshops and see what they think.

DR. Gottman said.

And once again we’re achieving some exciting results. Our studies show that 86 percent of people who complete our marriage workshops say they make significant progress on conflicts that once felt “gridlocked.” And after one year, 75 percent of husbands and 56 percent of wives who attend our workshops and therapy sessions feel their marriages move from a broken state to a functional one.


Notice 75 to 56% split in the results.
If it is as most women on this thread have claimed, that it is the men that are happy to stay in a marriage in any state broken or functional.
Why did the workshop work better for the men? 75% said that it helped move their marriage to a functional state compared to only 56% of the women that went to the same workshop.
I will even bet in most cases, that the wife was the one to suggest the workshop in the first place.
Looks like the husbands are willing to work at the marriage when the wives are more inclined to just give up.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 842
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/16/2010 2:56:36 PM

Why did the workshop work better for the men?

Because ...

it is the men that are happy to stay in a marriage in any state broken or functional.

___________

Looks like the husbands are willing to work at the marriage when the wives are more inclined to just give up.

or ...

the men that are happy to stay in a marriage in any state broken or functional.

 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 843
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/16/2010 3:04:19 PM
So I see progress has been made? Now we will debate the merits of CS and CP, NCP and more horsesh1t that takes us further afield from the thread topic.

"I simply assumed that the participants in this thread can read."

That was your first mistake, your second is that any of them care about or even try to read your response.

If you prefer to argue CS, CP and NCP, may I strongly suggest starting a thread in the single parents forum, you'll get lots of opinions there.

For all the rest of the few who simply wish to include the fuking kitchen sink, the subject is:

"how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?"

NOT who gets custody, who gets child support, who pays for fuking coffee, what percentages are cited from what source, NOR any of the other side effects of the debate. JUST STAY ON TOPIC!!!!! That would generally mean reasons, thought processes, yes laws, but limited to divorce, NOT THE KIDS! It would also cover relationships such as cohabitation.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 844
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/16/2010 3:41:51 PM
So I see progress has been made?


The thread reached a critical point, oh ...30 pages ago, I invented a new word for this point:


ignolibrium


Noun

The point at which obtuseness (willful or otherwise) exceeds the ameliorative effects of reasoned discourse to create an dialectic balance.
~ Grazeland TCB Dictionary 2010


"how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?"

Um, ...they realize that the relationship has reached an ignolibrium?
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 845
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/16/2010 4:42:22 PM

It is only you who are relating the calculation of cs to supporting a parent, at all. Only one parent is deemed cp, even in joint custody. The ncp pays cs, based on a percentage of income that is assumed to be consistent with the percentage of income applicable to the support of a child. It seems you have a problem with this, but please say so, rather to indicate that it is otherwise. I am glad that the dads you know would love to have joint custody. There are not, however, a majority of men who do, if the records relating to the fathers who request it are any indication at all. Either way, what I suggest is merely that cs is related to custody, not gender. and not the support of a parent, but rather a child.


I will try this one more time.
If the child stays with each parent a equal amount of time.
Letting each supply the childs needs while they are with said parent and the cost of medical is split 50/50.
Then their would be no reason for either parent to pay the other.
The needs of the child are taken care of and the respective parent is able to decide for themselves what is right for the child while the child is with them.
Why should the CP be able to control the money of the NCP?



I am not quite sure what you are saying, and I don't know what "good results" are, but, I, for one, certainly see the benefit of a child having their father in their life. Have I ever suggested otherwise? I have never heard that the system was inclined to disallow fathers to be involved with the lives of their offspring, unless, of course, they were proven to be a danger to them.

I am saying:
That the child having to do without a father in their lives except for two out of fourteen days is causing problems.
Having the father in the lives the same amount as the mother would balance this out.

Here is a quote from a post that a woman put on this very thread.

Unfortunately with or without marriage, procreating with women that a man doesn't love or want to be responsible for has many negative effects on society.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)
80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes --14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)
70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)
85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)


Now she frames it as men having children with women they don't love or want.
However with 70% of women filing for divorce shouldn't some of this fall on them?
So true joint custody would fix these problems with a absent father.
Seeing as the current standard custody agreement that most states have now, effectively keep the father away most of the time.
Now seeing as there was no out cry that these stats were bad or faulty when posted by a woman I will assume they are good stats!!!


I am truly sorry that you were abused as a child. The fact, however, that you say it took only a few weeks to get over is evidence that you have been a bit in denial, if you ask me. Perhaps that is what led to your being an easy victim.


First I did not ask you, however this does intrigue me. How is me being able understand the abuse I suffered in a few weeks evidence that I am a easy victim or in denial?


In any case, a rape victim is not the same as the victim of trickery, in general. I was comparing those who claim to have been blindsided by their s.o. announcing that they wanted to end a relationship to rape victims; actually, YOU were comparing them. Being victimized affects victims in different ways, but to continually choose those who prey on one's weaknesses is not sufficient defense against consistently playing the victim.


I never defined myself as a victim. You and others on here did.
I don't see myself as a victim at all.
Just that in both of my marriages my wives had more fault than me. That does NOT make me a victim. Did I have faults in the marriage of course was I ready to throw in the towel in either marriage nope.
Though in the first one I was relived when she filed!!!


OF course, someone in whom you place your trust does harm to you, but it would seem to me that, having been victimized, one would learn to exercise more care as far in whom to place their trust. Evolution?

I am leaning to see the red flags that are the forerunners to the behavior you are speaking of here.
You can believe a woman will have to prove she is worthy of my trust in the future.


It makes it more difficult, certainly, if the parents don't live close enough to each other to afford their children to continue to interact with those they spend a lot of time with. If you recall, I specifically mentioned mandating a distance between households, as it would certainly become more difficult, if not logistically impossible, for one parent or the other to transport a child to school/sports activities, parties, etc. Of course I admitted that the cp is most often a woman; that was part of the discussion I was responding to!;moreover, it is a fact.


Most of the divorced people I know live in the same town just a few miles apart. That would make it easy to have the children, spend equal time with each parent.
When a married couple plan a child I am sure they also plan on staying together to raise said child.
So wouldn't it be prudent to say that they should stay within close proximity of each other till the child reaches adulthood? Studies show it would be in the childs best interest for both parents to be evolved in their lives.


How would most men feel, given that the mother is most often the cp, being forced by the system to live within a certain distance to her? Or being inconvenienced, even having to cut their work hours, in order to provide transportation for their children's various activities, or attend school functions? Do you think, perhaps, they might lose their jobs, or be forced to take less lucrative positions, or decide between doing so & not being there for their children? We might find more men living closer to the poverty level, no?


NO not at all.
I know many women that do this same thing and keep very lucrative jobs. Why would it be any harder for a man to to so?
I ran my own business and done all the things you are speaking of, so I take offense to you sexist attitude.
I guess these things never come up with a couple that stays married?
People deal with these things all the time to infer that a woman can not do this and keep a good job is ludicrous!!!


Still, I fail to see a contradiction.


Ok I will show your quotes again to show you your contradiction.

First you said:
I've no idea what kind of emotional benefits nesting is supposed to provide the kids, but I think this is a rather extreme solution. Kids are pretty resilient and while they shouldn't suffer hardship by being unreasonably or maliciously deprived of either parent or reasonable financial support from both, neither do they need to be protected from every bump in the road.


Then you said:
Joint custody, while in theory remarkable, can be quite difficult, for the child. Are we to mandate that the coparents live within. say, 20 miles of each other, so as not to interfere with their child's activities, social life, etc., and not to burden either with exorbitant travel expense? As kids get older, it gets even more difficult. For the very young child, the difficulty of having no sense of home" can be quite discomforting.


Now is it the first statement you believe....That kids are resilient or the second that kids will be damaged by having no sense of home?
Seems to me the stats above show what damage a child suffers w/o a father in the house or at least around equally to the mother.
Would it be any harder on the child to shuttle from house to house every week or two more so than it is to spend every other weekend with the same father?
Your statements are clearly contradictory!!!


The jist of the argument of most in this thread has been purely financial in nature. There is far more to parenting.


You seem to be enthralled with the financial part ignoring the fact that I have said, the father would be spending equal time with the child as the mother.
He would be just as responsible for the same support as before, only he would be spending the same money,not sending it to the CP to be spent.


What do old custody laws have to do with this discussion? I am quite sure, and I have stated, that it may depend upon where you reside, but in most of the US, custody is based upon the separation/divorce agreement, not imposed as a matter of law.


It has everything to do with it. The current laws that assume the CP will be the mother enable the woman to divorce and not loose the financial security she has with the husband. So you saying it is not a matter of law is just not correct.


without input from the woman who declines to file, we have no way of measuring. If one were to assume based on numbers alone, well, then, most men don't care to share custody. It is not enough to use numbers only when convenient to your argument. Numbers are nothing but numbers; they don't make anything "apparent".


Well call the odd makers in Vegas and tell them to shut the place down then.
Because the whole city is built on the fact that numbers mean something!!!

Besides the fact that I backed the original stats with polls that were asked of first filers and the reasons they filed. Most said they filed because they though they would be better off!!!
Or that the fact when the women that were asked if they could go back to the point when they filed would they do it again or was it a mistake. 45% said they made a huge mistake and would stay in their marriage and work on it instead of filing!!!
I have never said that all women filers did so for selfish reasons, or even that most did.
Just that more women filed for selfish reasons than men filed for selfish reasons.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 846
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/16/2010 6:54:47 PM
MREvil, while I think the discussion regarding cps, ncps & cs arose out of the contention that women divorce their husbands more often than the other way around is because they are guaranteed to keep their children, and receive money because of it, I do agree that we have strayed off topic, so...

I'll not continue a point by point discussion, but there is one point, in response to one of my quotes, that may hint at at least an acknowledgment that men seem unable to act, even if that is out of what sync as far as what is generally considered to be the nature of males:


Though in the first one I was relived when she filed!!!


Why then, did you leave it up to her?

Since women do initiate the breakup more often than not, it would seem to make the most sense to address the question to these women. I filed for divorce from my husband because he refused to address the problems that caused life to become a living hell for the last five years of our marriage. Attempts to discuss a particular issue resulted in nothing more than anger on his part, or refusal to acknowledge that that were problems at all. One week, he wanted a divorce & would call an arbitrator, then cancel the appointment days later. One week, he loved me & wanted to work on the marriage, the next week he despised me & couldn't wait to get away. One week, he would agree to try marriage counseling. I went for almost a year, he never showed. The tension in the household negatively affected our children. I had enough, so I went to an attorney & filed for divorce. So, there's your answer. There are a myriad of answers, I imagine, if every woman were to tell her story, but I suspect that, in the end, inaction of the part of the man filed against, is the reason breakups are initiated by women.
btw, I am, in fact, "better off", albeit much less financially secure.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 847
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/16/2010 7:05:29 PM

I wonder, what would be the name of the short stop?


I DON'T CARE

ohwhynot46 asked me.

Why then, did you leave it up to her?


Because I was still willing to work it out. I did make vows and was trying to honor them.
 DrummingNut
Joined: 4/26/2010
Msg: 848
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/16/2010 7:18:52 PM
Haven't read anything on this thread other than the subject line,
No rule says I have to, only that I 'must' address the subject..
and so that's what I'll do.

I'll keep my post very simple...


how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?

Because the guys would rather just let things go on as they are.
It's easier.
 RAMPERBILL
Joined: 2/16/2010
Msg: 849
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/17/2010 1:36:27 PM
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe because those men didn't get life sentences without parole like the other 20%. Only kidding.
 Red Fish GF
Joined: 12/3/2009
Msg: 850
view profile
History
how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?
Posted: 5/17/2010 2:37:47 PM
Wow, I haven't read a lot of these long boring posts about statistics and arguing who is right or wrong but this simple two sentence post says it best. The OP asked "how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time"?




Because the guys would rather just let things go on as they are.
It's easier.


I couldn't live with him any longer when his emotional abuse turned physical. It wasn't hitting so his defense was he's not THAT bad. However, at first he begged me not to file for divorce and try to work things out. I was confused and needed time to think. As soon as I moved out he could no longer keep it a secret from his parents that we had been living separately in the same house for awhile. After less than a month and no trying to rebuild just asking over and over if I was ready to come crawling back because I couldn't possibly be happier without him, he filed for divorce. According to him it's all my fault so I guess he would say I initiated the break up.

I wasn't after money and settled for less than half for the marital home so I could sign off and purchase my own. I also agreed to less child support the day before more court hearings so we could settle out of court. He by order is suppose to get the kids three weekends a month plus 6 weeks in summer and alternate holidays. We don't always go by this though although he used to say is it in the papers.


If it was up to him we would still be together. He was happy as long as I was taking care of the house and his kids were there. I needed companionship, he was content living in his own world.

I have way less money than when I was married but have found a wonderful man who proved to me they are not all the same.

Just to add in his case she would threaten divorce but never follow though with it. He filed once then gave it another try for the kids. The 2nd time a few years later, he filed and he wasn't reconciling this time. Originally he had planned to try to get full custody and had thought it might hurt his case to be dating me. He found out at the final divorce hearing she was already engaged.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > how come women initiate the breakup 80% of the time?