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  > Science/philosophy  > Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 101
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)Page 5 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
People go wrong because they give insufficient weighting to values and ethics when assessing potential mates.

When you're looking, prioritize similar values and strong ethics over good looks and smooth words. Talk less about random stuff and more about intentions. At the first sign of dishonesty, such as lying to friends or significant debts suddenly appearing when things have gone beyond the acceptable disclosure stage, a loud warning bell should go off in your head and you should start asking the tough questions and be prepared to pull out.

If you have observed someone behave with honesty and integrity over a good length of time, where deeds have been seen to match words, you will gain confidence that it will be a symbiotic rather than parasitic relationship. Not only will it be less likely to lead to a split, but if it does happen you can be sure that both sides contributed equally in blood, sweat and tears, either directly or indirectly via wages.
 Hamilton12345
Joined: 3/29/2012
Msg: 102
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/21/2014 4:09:36 PM
The state shouldn't have authority to decide over basic parental choices unless those parents disagree and need the courts to help resolve the dispute. If they signed a prenup, they agreed beforehand. Unless it can be proven that substantial harm is being done to the child, the state shouldn't be involved


and again did you miss the part where you cannot sign away the rights of your present and future children? The law does not allow it, every child has the right to financial support from their parents and as such it cannot be signed away in a prenup.

as for the house, I think forums1 did a great job of explaining that one.


never said that child support is on average that high. Child support isn't really the issue unless the man earns a lot of money because it's based on income, which I disagree with. Should be based on the child's needs. For instance, a man in Canada earning $100,000 has to pay $921 a month for child support. Really? There's no way any kid costs that much. Not even close.


Couple of things wrong with the above statement. The child of a man/woman who earns $100,000 is used to a certain standard of living and why should they be deprived of that if their parents split. Second, 1/1o of his income toward his child, why would he begrudge that? Still more than enough left for one person to live on. 3rd, you have no clue what it costs to raise a child. A single person could live in a bachelor apartment at about $700/month where I live. The law states that a parent and child must live in a 2 bedroom apartment about $1,300/month. We will be cheap on this one and say that the grocery bill is $250/month for the child (while I can live on rice and beans if need be, a child is going have a proper healthy diet which costs money), $150/month for clothing and shoes (not at all unreasonable for a growing child trust me ever look at the price of good running shoes). While I can live without a car, can't get the kid to the extracurricular activities without one. So let's say transportation costs are $100/month (way, way low). Now how about those activities, that is going to be at least another $100. Now the dentist and prescriptions and all those other miscellaneous things. We have $21.00 left! Double that for my share and guess what? Costs more than 921/month to raise a child.

you posted a whole lot of misdirection in relation to the above quote but i answered it anyway,

what I was addressing was this


You misunderstand. The trap is not that you're stuck with the kid, the trap is that through marriage and kids, whatever women you're with now owns you through the state, can extract all the wealth she wants from you, and can almost certainly take the kid from you


and my answer


Show me some stats to back this up! Most women get nothing more than basic child support if they are lucky enough to get that. Over and over we hear this the woman walk away with every thing but nowhere do we see anyone producing anything other than: a friend of a friend of a friend had this happen to him. Or I know 10 guys that this happened to. Did 9 of those 10 guys tell you that the couple were so deep in debt that once the assets were sold that there was nothing left for anyone to get? That the while he is now living in a bachelor apartment wifey and the 3 kids are now living in a one or two-bedroom apartment? Did 3 of 10 tell you that they rarely bother to pay the child support? That they don't think they should have to pay because SHE bought herself a new purse last month, proof that she is frittering the child support money away on herself and not the kids. Did they tell you that they have ruined the ex's reputation with all their friends because the unreasonable b^tch took me to the cleaners and continues to demand that I give all my money when all they are paying is the basic government mandated child support that barely covers the cost of food, much less clothing, shelter, medical bills and all that fun stuff.


So you haven't shown me the stats, where is all the information about women extracting all the wealth she wants? It is not there, because it does not exist.


I am genuinely happy for you and glad you went out and took an active role in supporting your kid


First that is kids as in plural, and good gawd do you have any idea how patronizing the above was? I get a pat on the back for doing what 99% of woman do? A pat on the back for doing what 99% of custodial parents of all sexes do. You make it sound like most women just sit back and live off of ex's money. Doesn't happen unless the ex is filthy rich.

Now back to the top of your post, I have posted many links, others have posted links on this and other forums, and you have dismissed them because they didn't suit your view.



(And sorry ladies for the misogynistic stuff there, but it's impossible to pose those questions without it coming out that way in some form)


Forums1, we do forgive :). Now as for housing prices, some areas of the GTA have seen those type of increases in the last 20 years. My daughter lives in a basement suite in a NE suburb, the house is one 1/3 of an acre of land, they did a deed search, sold for $110,000.00 in 1995, sold for 1.4 million in 2013.

So back we go to MGTOW, for the men who want to go; go I say, GO!

 ArticLife
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 103
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/21/2014 4:19:19 PM
If she helped to pick out the decorations or amenities/additions to the home, you could say that brings some value to the table, sure. But you can't say it brings half of 1.75 million dollars to the table.

I've no problem with value being injected into what women do around the home, for the home, for kids, but it doesn't seem to be worth a 50/50 split most of the time (really depends on incomes). I mean, are you really saying that being home to keep watch on contractors is worth $875,000?

I understand your point. You feel that women contribute a lot beyond financial assets, though I think the man will still do this too; but that's fine. I don't feel that's an invalid point. Mine is more, again, why does marriage by default have to be a 50/50 split? Why not make that part optional? Again, it makes so much more sense to just keep what both of you earn and only share what both of you agree to share.


and again did you miss the part where you cannot sign away the rights of your present and future children? The law does not allow it, every child has the right to financial support from their parents and as such it cannot be signed away in a prenup.

as for the house, I think forums1 did a great job of explaining that one.


Like I said, if it can be proven that the kid will undergo significant stress and burden by being with the prenuptially agreed upon parent, the state could step in (i.e. that parent has no income at all anymore might be homeless or has become mentally unstable). Besides those extreme circumstances, the kid will be fine, it's none of anyone's business. (Government being the people).


Couple of things wrong with the above statement. The child of a man/woman who earns $100,000 is used to a certain standard of living and why should they be deprived of that if their parents split. Second, 1/1o of his income toward his child, why would he begrudge that? Still more than enough left for one person to live on. 3rd, you have no clue what it costs to raise a child. A single person could live in a bachelor apartment at about $700/month where I live. The law states that a parent and child must live in a 2 bedroom apartment about $1,300/month. We will be cheap on this one and say that the grocery bill is $250/month for the child (while I can live on rice and beans if need be, a child is going have a proper healthy diet which costs money), $150/month for clothing and shoes (not at all unreasonable for a growing child trust me ever look at the price of good running shoes). While I can live without a car, can't get the kid to the extracurricular activities without one. So let's say transportation costs are $100/month (way, way low). Now how about those activities, that is going to be at least another $100. Now the dentist and prescriptions and all those other miscellaneous things. We have $21.00 left! Double that for my share and guess what? Costs more than 921/month to raise a child.

you posted a whole lot of misdirection in relation to the above quote but i answered it anyway,

what I was addressing was this


Rent should not factor into child support. That is her responsibility (to provide for herself). The fact the law forces her to obtain a larger apartment than she needs isn't his fault.

It's not a major percentage of his income, but 10% is still fairly high considering he's likely to be paying alimony too. $250 for food seems a bit high, but okay. $150 for clothes? As a kid, I was lucky if my parents spent $10 a month on clothes. We weren't well off. Now you can say that if the father is well off, that should contribute more to the well-being of his kid. Fine. But $150 is crazy. You don't need new shoes every month. New shoes every year worked fine for me. Transportation, that's fine. Activities at $100 a month? What kind of activities are you doing..

Child support should be for the basics without which the kid would have nothing.

With more conservative estimates, I reach $700 a month, but that's the total cost, which he shouldn't be paying. He should be paying exactly half, or $350. Maybe $400 a month.

Why, just because he's wealthy, should he be forced to pay more? Now, many fathers would likely do so because they love their kids, but I am not into the game of using force to extract wealth from dads beyond the basic provisions the kid requires for survival. The custodial parent should be legally responsible for anything beyond that.


So you haven't shown me the stats, where is all the information about women extracting all the wealth she wants? It is not there, because it does not exist.


Sorry, stats on what?

Women earn less than men on average. Yes?

Marriage is a 50/50 split. Yes?

Pure 1+1=2 logic indicates that women will have a legal claim to the difference in income if you get married. Most of the time. Sometimes the women earns more, and then the man owns the women (though not for kids).

I already provided a source for the imbalance of child custody favoring women (child support payments too).


First that is kids as in plural, and good gawd do you have any idea how patronizing the above was? I get a pat on the back for doing what 99% of woman do? A pat on the back for doing what 99% of custodial parents of all sexes do. You make it sound like most women just sit back and live off of ex's money. Doesn't happen unless the ex is filthy rich.

Now back to the top of your post, I have posted many links, others have posted links on this and other forums, and you have dismissed them because they didn't suit your view.


You get a pat on the back for being a good person. If you think that's patronizing, well that's on you.

What links am I dismissing? What are you talking about?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 104
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/21/2014 6:50:52 PM
Pure 1+1=2 logic indicates that women will have a legal claim to the difference in income if you get married. Most of the time. Sometimes the women earns more, and then the man owns the women (though not for kids).


No one ever said the legal system was logical! That is quite simply NOT how it works.

FYI, it most certainly is not likely that he will be paying alimony, too. These days, if a man is paying alimony it's because the ex wife agreed to accept a reduced CS payment as a substitute, since alimony is taxable income to the recipient & a tax deduction for the payor, while CS is not.
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 105
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/21/2014 10:11:48 PM
I understand your point. You feel that women contribute a lot beyond financial assets, though I think the man will still do this too; but that's fine. I don't feel that's an invalid point. Mine is more, again, why does marriage by default have to be a 50/50 split? Why not make that part optional? Again, it makes so much more sense to just keep what both of you earn and only share what both of you agree to share.


Well, to start I'm gonna say that I agree w/ Hamilton on her daughters example, that's why I said "20yrs" (that was 18 by her dates) for a house to gain that much - discounting the 00's housing bubble where things got a bit insane (I warned a few people I know to think about holding off on buying a few years back in 2006, because I saw it coming - of course none of them listened - although it may work out if they can afford to stay there long enough. That 'experience and wisdom' thing - I'd seen it before where most of them were younger and hadn't. I was looking right at the late-80's housing bubble and waited until '91 to buy, my house (<$200K say) would've been $50K more at the peak of things (although probably $30K cheaper than I paid before the bubble)). I was close to the low, a year later my same home might've been $5K less, but since then has only gained. Housing isn't a "sure thing" in any case, and cases like that are generally the exception not the rule.

Anyways, given that timeframe for your hypothetical $250K house to increase to $2mil, lets say roughly that 20yrs (give or take a few, mine hasn't grown anywhere near that in 23 years but you picked 'the right location' and it did)... what you are saying with your statement that you "only share what you both agree to share" that for *20yrs* you agreed to "share" the home with her, but as soon as things fell apart or whenever you feel like "not sharing" anymore, she's entitled to nothing. TBH, that sounds more like a roommate than a partner. Are you gonna write up a 'rental agreement' for her before she moves in, defining what she pays in 'rent' and bills, and what any of her other contributions are worth (in $/hr) and deduct that from her 'rent'? You seem to want to define a marriage as if it is a business deal, she's worth $X/hr and no more, and when you or her choose to "end the employment contract" then she leaves with nothing other than the "pay" she has accrued. And, of course, any contribution she made to the "company" while in your "employ" is part of your business and not anything she has any claim to, because all of her efforts during her "employment" were property of "the company" (you).

You're welcome to try and get her to agree to all that in a pre-nup "employment contract", but I'm willing to bet you won't find a lot of takers on that deal because that generally doesn't mesh with the idea of "equal partners" in a marriage. Sounds a lot less like an "equal partnership" than it does an "employer/employee relationship".

(Or you could try transferring ownership of the house when you buy it at $250K to an offshore Cayman Island anonymously owned LLC, through a couple of on-shore 'shell' companies, and then you pay 'rent' to said LLC for the 20yrs - hoping of course that it'll be worth that $2mil by the end because if it's only gained $100K in that time you've probably lost your shirt in all the legal/accountant fees it's going to involve to set it up... but if you're *really* that concerned that your "potential" $1.75mil gains might be "stolen" from you, that's probably the way to go.)

BTW, the 50/50 is not "set in stone", it's really the default a court will enforce when the two parties cannot come to an agreement otherwise. A good number of the divorces I've seen weren't anything like 50/50, both parties (or their lawyers) came together and worked out something they could both agree on. A judge might 'comment' that the 40% person in a 60/40 split is "entitled" to a 50/50 split, but if both parties agree they generally won't force anything - in fact I'll bet they're glad to have more 'amicable' agreements rather than bickering in court and having to enforce something on them. Most of the real 'work' in a divorce is not in court, it's between the people/lawyers hammering out something which is acceptable to them, the judge would prefer to be there to just 'rubber stamp' it and make it a legally binding divorce decree. Take ForumFiend's example - he wanted to take 1/2 her house, she countered with going after his retirement (which she didn't really want), he dropped his claim to the house, and they both walked away with what they felt was important to protect (she still lost out overall, but that's what happens sometimes). The judge wasn't there with a gavel pounding saying "she gets 1/2 his retirement and he gets 1/2 the house, 50/50 (BANG!)". The law doesn't really work like that.
 ArticLife
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 106
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 3:11:42 AM

Well, to start I'm gonna say that I agree w/ Hamilton on her daughters example, that's why I said "20yrs" (that was 18 by her dates) for a house to gain that much - discounting the 00's housing bubble where things got a bit insane (I warned a few people I know to think about holding off on buying a few years back in 2006, because I saw it coming - of course none of them listened - although it may work out if they can afford to stay there long enough. That 'experience and wisdom' thing - I'd seen it before where most of them were younger and hadn't. I was looking right at the late-80's housing bubble and waited until '91 to buy, my house (<$200K say) would've been $50K more at the peak of things (although probably $30K cheaper than I paid before the bubble)). I was close to the low, a year later my same home might've been $5K less, but since then has only gained. Housing isn't a "sure thing" in any case, and cases like that are generally the exception not the rule.


Good advice. I feel there's a large bubble in the Canadian Real estate markets now, wouldn't buy into any properties now.


Anyways, given that timeframe for your hypothetical $250K house to increase to $2mil, lets say roughly that 20yrs (give or take a few, mine hasn't grown anywhere near that in 23 years but you picked 'the right location' and it did)... what you are saying with your statement that you "only share what you both agree to share" that for *20yrs* you agreed to "share" the home with her, but as soon as things fell apart or whenever you feel like "not sharing" anymore, she's entitled to nothing. TBH, that sounds more like a roommate than a partner. Are you gonna write up a 'rental agreement' for her before she moves in, defining what she pays in 'rent' and bills, and what any of her other contributions are worth (in $/hr) and deduct that from her 'rent'? You seem to want to define a marriage as if it is a business deal, she's worth $X/hr and no more, and when you or her choose to "end the employment contract" then she leaves with nothing other than the "pay" she has accrued. And, of course, any contribution she made to the "company" while in your "employ" is part of your business and not anything she has any claim to, because all of her efforts during her "employment" were property of "the company" (you).

You're welcome to try and get her to agree to all that in a pre-nup "employment contract", but I'm willing to bet you won't find a lot of takers on that deal because that generally doesn't mesh with the idea of "equal partners" in a marriage. Sounds a lot less like an "equal partnership" than it does an "employer/employee relationship".


About the house, if she paid nothing for it, I really don't see how her living there rent free and helping out with the decorations entitles her to half of it. I just can't place how that makes sense to anyone.

Now, of course, if she helps with the mortgage, utilities, etc... it's a different story. But if she's just living there for free after he bought it? Come on.

You make it sound so cold, but it would solve a whole lot of issues for people in the future if they treated the financial aspects of marriage as just that, cold and to the point.


Or you could try transferring ownership of the house when you buy it at $250K to an offshore Cayman Island anonymously owned LLC, through a couple of on-shore 'shell' companies, and then you pay 'rent' to said LLC for the 20yrs - hoping of course that it'll be worth that $2mil by the end because if it's only gained $100K in that time you've probably lost your shirt in all the legal/accountant fees it's going to involve to set it up... but if you're *really* that concerned that your "potential" $1.75mil gains might be "stolen" from you, that's probably the way to go.)


The fact such accounting tricks can be used is depressing me, it's certainly not something I would try (and not disclosing assets can nullify a prenup anyways).

It's not really about me either. I would never marry someone if my assets and income vastly outstripped them, unless there was a way for a prenup to be written that kept all assets, current and future (for both parties) as sovereign.

Is there something I am missing here? Is there some hidden romance in sharing everything you own and earn, even if you have/will have much more than the other person? If there is, I bet that feels great in the moment, but damn can that blow up in your face down the road.
It's rather annoying to me that it's a legal and societal norm to get married and share everything, oh and don't forget to have kids! Such a structured and rigidly unfair path, I'm sitting here laughing to myself because I really just don't understand it.


BTW, the 50/50 is not "set in stone", it's really the default a court will enforce when the two parties cannot come to an agreement otherwise. A good number of the divorces I've seen weren't anything like 50/50, both parties (or their lawyers) came together and worked out something they could both agree on. A judge might 'comment' that the 40% person in a 60/40 split is "entitled" to a 50/50 split, but if both parties agree they generally won't force anything - in fact I'll bet they're glad to have more 'amicable' agreements rather than bickering in court and having to enforce something on them. Most of the real 'work' in a divorce is not in court, it's between the people/lawyers hammering out something which is acceptable to them, the judge would prefer to be there to just 'rubber stamp' it and make it a legally binding divorce decree. Take ForumFiend's example - he wanted to take 1/2 her house, she countered with going after his retirement (which she didn't really want), he dropped his claim to the house, and they both walked away with what they felt was important to protect (she still lost out overall, but that's what happens sometimes). The judge wasn't there with a gavel pounding saying "she gets 1/2 his retirement and he gets 1/2 the house, 50/50 (BANG!)". The law doesn't really work like that.


Of course, it's not like when a divorce is filed, both the man and women are dragged in front of the judge in chains to have a sentence carried forth. If they can hash out a deal that works for both of them, great. But if the tables are uneven for whoever has more assets/has earned more, he's at an inherent disadvantage because the judge will at least split things 50/50 (or around that). He can't negotiate lower than that unless she allows it. And even with prenups stating that the share from specified income sources or assets will be lower, it can be thrown out for being "unconscionable". Man I really hate when vagaries like that are used in a legal framework. How can you ever feel safe when you can't properly define unconscionable? It's pretty damn stupid if you ask me.

Imagine if ForumFiend had a ironclad prenuptial agreement that had laid out all current (at the time) assets in both hands, and what would be done with all earned income (for both parties). Before even getting married, hashing out all of these details solves the most crucifying moments of divorce. And honestly, none of this would even be much of an issue for me if prenups could not be thrown out (besides being signed under duress). If they were truly ironclad, regardless of whatever some random judge deems to be "unjust" on a whim, then we'd be on a fair level.

Though there is also still this expectation from a lot of women that the man should lead the way/pay the way. I hope that changes too.
 Dee4166
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 6:04:43 AM
The problem as I see it with all of your gnashing of teeth and "railing against the machine" of marriage, is really pretty simple to me, which is why I stopped talking about this to you...

Very simply you, as most MEN felt for MANY years, just don't value what a woman does in the home as it does not contain an inherent monetary value...and you obviously don't value women, period...Your misogyny is showing...

You talk about how a woman "deciding" to stay home and raise BOTH of their children as though that were a choice that she is making FOR HERSELF...
Unless there's some guy out there who is capable of getting pregnant and bearing children, that is something that SHE DOES FOR THE BOTH OF THEM....

So,in essence, what you are saying is that, like a GOOD brood mare,she should be content to have a roof over her head, food in her belly,and the occasional trinket doled out by hubby, and be HAPPY to have that...And then, when say, he decides to trade her in for a younger model one day, because her breasts are sagging or her ass is fat after bearing their children, she should just go off quietly and NOT ask for ANY compensation for all of the years that SHE put in...

Let me put this to you in a "cold" and calculating way seeing as that's where you seem to be coming from....

Say that we calculate all of this based on an HOURLY rate, as though she were working for someone ELSE altogether.

I work at a "live-in" caregiver position and I'm here to tell you that I would NEVER under ANY circumstances factor in my "roof over my head", the food I eat, or any other expenses incurred from my job as a PART of my salary...that is considered to be the basic requirement for someone who is willing to do a job 24/7, or 24/3 + 8 hrs, in my case...It's like having an alarm system...you don't just pay for that ONCE, but there is ALSO a monthly fee for monitoring. The difference is that an alarm system ISN'T going to pick an elderly person up off of the floor if they fall, or mop up a pool of urine if they have an accident or get them OUT of the apartment if there's a fire...
As a matter of fact,my current employer tried to get me to take the position without wanting to compensate me for the nights that I slept here, to which I did NOT agree, for the following reasons...

The very fact that I am HERE and NOT at home, means that I am technically "on-call" and deserve to be compensated for that. If there's an emergency at 3am I AM going to be the one dragging my ass out of bed and taking care of it,so technically, I am ALWAYS working.
Or say one of my elderly couple is just having a restless/sleepless night, again,I am the one who will then be required to forgo MY sleep and deal with the situation. As well as function normally and perform ALL of my normal tasks the next day, when I'm barely able to form a coherent thought due to a lack of sleep.

So now let's look at all of the functions that the average wife performs from a strictly monetary standpoint...

If someone wants to have a child and they don't have the ability for whatever reason, then they can hire a surrogate...because, for argument's sake, let's say that they want a child who is of their blood.
The cost of that can go well into the 100's of thousands of dollars depending on where you live....
Factoring in medical expenses, diet, clothing, prenatal care, as well as the actual birth, lawyer's fees, and let's not forget compensation to the birth mother for being the "vessel" for nine months...
Multiply that by say, two, which is still, I believe the average number of children that people are having....

A conservative estimate for that would be WELL over a half a million dollars EACH CHILD, right there...
So now let's move on to child care....
To hire a live-in nanny who is competent and trustworthy, again you are looking at a MINIMUM of 450$/week for a 40 HOUR WORK WEEK. Now that doesn't include any care that is required above and beyond those 40 HOURS.
And for minimum wage, trust me when I say, you get what you pay for...

But I digress...

The law states that anything above and beyond that is to be paid at time and a half.

Considering that the average mother's work day is RARELY if EVER finished at 5pm, we're now looking at our 450$ + time and a half for the balance of the waking time that the child needs care,until say they go to bed at 8pm.
So now we're looking at 450$ + 15x15, (5days/week x 3 hours per day time +1/2)= 750$/week...

But WAIT!

We've forgotten the week ends....because much as Dad would like to spend time with the kids, he also "needs" to go and play golf in order to "network", AND, he's also SO tired from HIS work week, so let's say, out of an 8 hour day he's going to actually be caring for his own children 2/3 of that time(BIG overestimation in reality!!)....which equals 2.7 hours that will, again, have to be covered by someone else, who has now already worked their 40 hour week, remember, so , again, at time and a half, that's 120$ for both Saturday and Sunday, for someone else to take care of the child for him until 5 pm...Ooops! I forgot to add in those extra 3 hours AGAIN between 5-8pm....So that makes ANOTHER 6 hours x 1.5 of 10$/hour, which comes to an additional 90$.

Now, let's face it, you can't say that I'm NOT being really generous here, as I've NEVER known a golf game to last ONLY two hours, LOL...but bear with me, I'm not finished...

So NOW, we're back to all of the hours between say 8pm when the wee ones are in bed and anywhere between 6-9am when they awaken, so we have to use SOME flexibility and, AGAIN, for the sake of generosity, I'll say that "Mom"/ Nanny is actually "off the clock" and NOT required to address ANY of the child's needs between say, 8pm-12am...NOT that that EVER happens in REAL life, but again, I'm trying to be generous here...

So now, we're left with all of the hours between 12am and I'll say 7am, as that's the time that school age children are usually up...so we now have an additional 2 hours/day x time and a half= 150$/week NOT including week ends...

As I said earlier, the fact that if anything occurs during the night that it will be "Mom's"/Nanny's job to get up and take care of it, as we ALL know how hard Dad works!!,
I'm going to give a LOT of leeway here, because that doesn't happen EVERY day except of course when they're new borns and need to be fed every2-4 hours, so we'll say how about a reduced hourly rate, of 8$/hour x 8= 64$ x 5=320$ again, adding in the week ends that's an additional 128$....

Now, let's see... I think that covers the actual hourly wages for CHILD CARE ALONE....
So that means by my calculations that to pay for child care for 1 child for a WEEK is going to add up to....A GRAND total of : $1408.00/week...(pretty sure I forgot something there, but that would actually only serve to weaken the argument, on your side, so I won't be picky...lol)

Now I'm NOT including anything extra that may be incurred here, as I am going to assume that you would treat your wife/nanny as MOST employers DO, and try to get the MOST "bang for your buck"...so I'm not going to factor in things like laundry 9I've seen laundromats that do laundry and charge BY THE ITEM, so that can be a little pricey), grocery shopping, (services that do this for people usually charge 12-15$/hour), housecleaning (LIGHT housekeeping, which means STILL paying someone else for the heavy stuff), transportation for children to and from extracurricular activities, possibly school, if there's no bus service, don't even KNOW what that costs, not to mention all that was mentioned before by another poster, such as home decorating (avg. cost for a decorator approx. 150-500$/hour), hiring someone to oversee your home repairs, landscaping etc. because THAT is NOT your Nanny's job at ALL, and you would have to hire someone, or else stay home and oversee it yourself, which is STILL lost time from work and the cost of that.
So ALL of that, I'm NOT EVEN FACTORING IN HERE....

Then, as someone else ALSO mentioned, sexual gratification will DEFINITELY cost you some BIG bucks, as last I heard an "out call" for a DECENT escort here in Mtl. is around 200-500$/night. We'll say that Dad is "frugal" in this area and only calls an escort every week ONCE/week, (as IF!!! LOL), or,even if he has a g/f, then there's the "cost" of dating, eating out, movies, trips etc. Also, we now have babysitting costs, cheaper than nanny's overtime, 10/hr x4 hours= 40$
Then there's the catering for special occasions as while Nanny may be able to take care of most of the meals during the week, she is certainly NOT going to be throwing a dinner party for 20 at the drop of a hat, so that Dad can impress his boss/clients/partners...

So far just in child care: 1408/week + escort/dating we'll say he likes the "cheap ones" 200$/week, plus motel, because you certainly aren't going to be bringing her HOME, so, +50$ hourly rate at a cheap one, one dinner party, catered, for, again I'll be generous and say 10 people, probably in the vicinity of 500$, including servers.

Now we are up to :
Nanny....1408$/week
Escort/dating.....200$/week
Motel...50$/week
Dinner/party service...I'll even give you a break on this one...200-500$/week
Housecleaning (heavy and NOT to be done by a Nanny)....100$/week
Babysitting....40$
With ONLY these things and you have to admit, I am NOT factoring all that an actual WIFE will do, as opposed to a nanny...
Our grand total is approx. 2048$/weekx 52=106,000/year....again approx. as I don't want to split hairs, here...

Over a, we'll say 10 year marriage, that's over $1000000....and I have EXCLUDED much more than I included on that "list" of the average wife's responsibilities...
And, in the interest of "fairness", that money should include a reasonable rate of interest earned seeing as it's NOT actually being paid to her during the marriage,as well, right? Let's say we go with even 2%, somewhere between regular savings account interest and potential capital gains from whatever...

And I can already hear you screaming about "What about her CLOTHES and shoes and trips, etc.

Well, every job has it's perks, and while he may have a company car in order to do his job, so should SHE,as turnabout's fair play and all that...and he would have to provide that for the nanny as well...

Even if I deduct things like haircuts, clothing, etc. I think you can see that the numbers start to come up a whole lot more "equal" than I'm sure, even you, imagined...

Let's not forget to go back and add on another 500,000-1 000 000$ for the original cost of "surrogacy" and we now have a situation wherein the scenario presented of a house that has appreciated from 250 000$ to 1.75 million, is,basically ALL hers!!!

Are you starting to "get it" yet?

When two people enter into a marriage, it is a PARTNERSHIP 50/50 as far as assets AND debts, which you seem to forget...the "debt part" that is. I've know MANY women who ended up not only with NOTHING at the end of a marriage but were also in DEBT due to their partner's bad financial decisions...
If you start picking apart the importance of what each contributes, or try to base that on some fvcked up sense of "value" it's pretty clear to any reasonably intelligent person that NOBODY is going to come out the winner....
As others have said here already, the MAJORITY of women don't take their "husband's to the cleaners" at all and often end up in a worse situation than before from a financial point of view, and as for your views on child support, and custody...well, the majority of the time, I personally, haven't seen too many men clamoring for sole custody in the first place and you obviously have NO CLUE with all due respect, as to what it actually COSTS raise a child...

I have to be really honest here and say that every time I read one of your posts, it sounds like the tantrum of a little boy, stomping his foot and claiming" it's NOT fair"!!! Or, "I don't want to SHARE"!!
When you seem to have NO idea about what is required for a true partnership with a woman...
You say that you don't want to get married or have kids and frankly, I think that's the BEST idea for you, because with that pov I really don't see many women really WANTING to be with you...

I know how insulting that may sound and I wish I saw it differently, but there it is...
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 108
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 7:13:59 AM
Even discounting the "nanny" services in that Dee (assuming no kids) that's around $600/wk, $31,200/yr, or over that 20 years it took for the house to gain that $1.75mil - $624,000. And that's probably missing things, but still 1/2 that $1.75mil would be $875K, so it's not hard to imagine over a 20yr period that extra $250K ($25K/yr) coming into play if one had to pay for every "service" she provided on the open market.

(And your escort/dating "service" costs are probably low - I met a woman who was an 'escort' for a few years, she now owns a condo she rents out (for like the past 20yrs) paid for by it, and has a college degree, and even 20yrs ago (when she did it) it was over $200/night - and I have a friend who drives a cab in Reno, NV, (where it's legal) he sees it taking guys to the local 'bunny ranch', they'll drop $1200+ in 4-5hrs).

... and, of course, since we're playing "free market economics" here to figure out what her 'services' are worth one would have to factor in inflation. Seeing as you and I can probably remember sub-$1 gasoline and $50K houses that are now probably worth (at least) 4x that, (and food prices, and all the other things that were *far* cheaper 20+yrs ago) it would be probably be conservative to say that said prices will probably double in the next 20yrs. If he wanted to show up in court 20yrs from now and only pay for a detailed 'list' of all her services, he could well wind up with $0 out of that $1.75mil if you consider all the factors.
 Dee4166
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 7:32:58 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh I TOTALLY agree, and it was , as I mentioned a VERY generous estimation of the duties that she performs...Even sewing on a button, or hemming a pair of pants costs between 10-20$ at the dry cleaners...which I didn't include, among MANY other things....

And yes, I'm aware of the actual costs of an escort, but I was looking at "splitting the difference" between an escort and a g/f...

It's just sad to me that a man, and I don't mean just our friend here, but LOTS of men think this way, even today...
It's even MORE sad that nobody seems to focus on the fact, as I believe you pointed out, that the majority of divorces are settled more or less amicably...and that most men and women are able to at least acknowledge their partner's contributions in a realistic way...if only for the sake of the kids...
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 110
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 8:12:57 AM
It's just sad to me that a man, and I don't mean just our friend here, but LOTS of men think this way, even today...
It's even MORE sad that nobody seems to focus on the fact, as I believe you pointed out, that the majority of divorces are settled more or less amicably...and that most men and women are able to at least acknowledge their partner's contributions in a realistic way...if only for the sake of the kids...


I would say it's a 'sign of the times' when it seems today everyone is 'out to make a buck' and if someone else gets screwed in the deal they don't care (like 'liar loan' $800K mortgages to people making $30K/yr that obviously can't afford them, bundling them into "AAA" rated securities to sell off to people's retirement funds - but 'the bank made their fees' so it's all "good" for them, right?)... but then I know it's been pervasive for far longer than that. For those with that mindset it maybe has gotten worse? Artic sure seems to be 'it's all about the almighty dollar' - in which case yeah, he shouldn't ever even think about marriage (or kids, because they're probably a 'money drain', in strictly financial terms, like no other if you factor in 18yrs + maybe college, etc ).

I dunno, I mean using the 20yr example, for me anyways I'd have to figure at least a good portion of that marriage would have been reasonably happy before things fell apart (why would you marry if you knew you'd be miserable, right?), so the question to me would boil down to - how much is a year of happiness worth? Regardless of how it ended, that doesn't/shouldn't negate those years. Not sure you can ever "put a price" on that really. Yet some people seem to have the attitude that, lets say the last 2yrs were ugly and then divorce, that totally negates the prior 18. I don't really get it.

I'm reminded of when my grandfather died (paternal), a few years after my grandmother died he met this woman who move in with him for the last 8yrs or so of his life (he was around 80 when they met, she was I think 68 or so, he died at 88). She was naturally devastated when he died (not financially - she had her SSI and Medicaid and whatnot - but she suddenly had to find a new place to live, etc). Even though she wasn't in the will, and legally wasn't 'entitled' to anything, my dad made sure she got something out of the estate (after the house sold, finances closed out, etc), I don't recall how much but at least $10K. She kept him company and they were happy until the end, wasn't that worth something? How do you put a price on that? For my dad, it was just "it didn't feel right for her to have spent those years with him and get nothing". Those are the values I was raised with anyways.
 ArticLife
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 4:50:38 PM

The problem as I see it with all of your gnashing of teeth and "railing against the machine" of marriage, is really pretty simple to me, which is why I stopped talking about this to you...

Very simply you, as most MEN felt for MANY years, just don't value what a woman does in the home as it does not contain an inherent monetary value...and you obviously don't value women, period...Your misogyny is showing...


Not sure why you think this when I've stated several times I think there is a quantifiable value that women offer by staying home, taking care of the house and her family. I merely disagree that this value should be an automatic 50/50 split of all assets. I don't think that should be the default.


You talk about how a woman "deciding" to stay home and raise BOTH of their children as though that were a choice that she is making FOR HERSELF...
Unless there's some guy out there who is capable of getting pregnant and bearing children, that is something that SHE DOES FOR THE BOTH OF THEM....

So,in essence, what you are saying is that, like a GOOD brood mare,she should be content to have a roof over her head, food in her belly,and the occasional trinket doled out by hubby, and be HAPPY to have that...And then, when say, he decides to trade her in for a younger model one day, because her breasts are sagging or her ass is fat after bearing their children, she should just go off quietly and NOT ask for ANY compensation for all of the years that SHE put in...


Not at all. When kids are involved, it becomes an actual job in action. Not necessarily as stressful as a real job (for a boss you have no relationship with) but it's definitely not easy, and the job is never done. There is real value in that. Specifying exactly how much is difficult, and of course it would vary significantly by the nuances of each couple's situation. But here I am, stating in absolute terms that I do believe women who stay home to take care of their kids are doing so for both people in the family (herself and the man) and that she is definitely entitled to compensation for this, beyond the basics provided of food, shelter, clothing and so on.

Again, I just don't think this default 50/50 split is sensible and I think it should be hashed out much more prior to entering marriage/having kids. Another issue is that in many states in the USA and I believe here in Canada too, having a kid automatically nullifies any prenuptial agreement (in some states it nullifies the entire prenup). Thus preventing adults from being adults and carefully planning their actions and weighing their choices.



I work at a "live-in" caregiver position and I'm here to tell you that I would NEVER under ANY circumstances factor in my "roof over my head", the food I eat, or any other expenses incurred from my job as a PART of my salary...that is considered to be the basic requirement for someone who is willing to do a job 24/7, or 24/3 + 8 hrs, in my case...It's like having an alarm system...you don't just pay for that ONCE, but there is ALSO a monthly fee for monitoring. The difference is that an alarm system ISN'T going to pick an elderly person up off of the floor if they fall, or mop up a pool of urine if they have an accident or get them OUT of the apartment if there's a fire...
As a matter of fact,my current employer tried to get me to take the position without wanting to compensate me for the nights that I slept here, to which I did NOT agree, for the following reasons...

The very fact that I am HERE and NOT at home, means that I am technically "on-call" and deserve to be compensated for that. If there's an emergency at 3am I AM going to be the one dragging my ass out of bed and taking care of it,so technically, I am ALWAYS working.
Or say one of my elderly couple is just having a restless/sleepless night, again,I am the one who will then be required to forgo MY sleep and deal with the situation. As well as function normally and perform ALL of my normal tasks the next day, when I'm barely able to form a coherent thought due to a lack of sleep.


If you factor it in or not is irrelevant. Your employer absolutely does factor in food, shelter and whatever else they provide you with as part of your compensation because it is. Just because it's basic doesn't mean it doesn't enter into the equation.

Good on you for not accepting the stress of being on-sight for no pay. That would indeed be absurd.


If someone wants to have a child and they don't have the ability for whatever reason, then they can hire a surrogate...because, for argument's sake, let's say that they want a child who is of their blood.
The cost of that can go well into the 100's of thousands of dollars depending on where you live....
Factoring in medical expenses, diet, clothing, prenatal care, as well as the actual birth, lawyer's fees, and let's not forget compensation to the birth mother for being the "vessel" for nine months...
Multiply that by say, two, which is still, I believe the average number of children that people are having....

A conservative estimate for that would be WELL over a half a million dollars EACH CHILD, right there...
So now let's move on to child care....
To hire a live-in nanny who is competent and trustworthy, again you are looking at a MINIMUM of 450$/week for a 40 HOUR WORK WEEK. Now that doesn't include any care that is required above and beyond those 40 HOURS.
And for minimum wage, trust me when I say, you get what you pay for...

But I digress...

The law states that anything above and beyond that is to be paid at time and a half.

Considering that the average mother's work day is RARELY if EVER finished at 5pm, we're now looking at our 450$ + time and a half for the balance of the waking time that the child needs care,until say they go to bed at 8pm.
So now we're looking at 450$ + 15x15, (5days/week x 3 hours per day time +1/2)= 750$/week...


The cost of a kid is quite expensive, yes. The man will be paying all of the costs associated with the raising of this kid, which given that the women in this situation also wants the kid, is of equal value to her. His contribution to the care of the kid through finances is no small quantity.



But WAIT!

We've forgotten the week ends....because much as Dad would like to spend time with the kids, he also "needs" to go and play golf in order to "network", AND, he's also SO tired from HIS work week, so let's say, out of an 8 hour day he's going to actually be caring for his own children 2/3 of that time(BIG overestimation in reality!!)....which equals 2.7 hours that will, again, have to be covered by someone else, who has now already worked their 40 hour week, remember, so , again, at time and a half, that's 120$ for both Saturday and Sunday, for someone else to take care of the child for him until 5 pm...Ooops! I forgot to add in those extra 3 hours AGAIN between 5-8pm....So that makes ANOTHER 6 hours x 1.5 of 10$/hour, which comes to an additional 90$.

Now, let's face it, you can't say that I'm NOT being really generous here, as I've NEVER known a golf game to last ONLY two hours, LOL...but bear with me, I'm not finished...

So NOW, we're back to all of the hours between say 8pm when the wee ones are in bed and anywhere between 6-9am when they awaken, so we have to use SOME flexibility and, AGAIN, for the sake of generosity, I'll say that "Mom"/ Nanny is actually "off the clock" and NOT required to address ANY of the child's needs between say, 8pm-12am...NOT that that EVER happens in REAL life, but again, I'm trying to be generous here...

So now, we're left with all of the hours between 12am and I'll say 7am, as that's the time that school age children are usually up...so we now have an additional 2 hours/day x time and a half= 150$/week NOT including week ends...

As I said earlier, the fact that if anything occurs during the night that it will be "Mom's"/Nanny's job to get up and take care of it, as we ALL know how hard Dad works!!,
I'm going to give a LOT of leeway here, because that doesn't happen EVERY day except of course when they're new borns and need to be fed every2-4 hours, so we'll say how about a reduced hourly rate, of 8$/hour x 8= 64$ x 5=320$ again, adding in the week ends that's an additional 128$....

Now, let's see... I think that covers the actual hourly wages for CHILD CARE ALONE....
So that means by my calculations that to pay for child care for 1 child for a WEEK is going to add up to....A GRAND total of : $1408.00/week...(pretty sure I forgot something there, but that would actually only serve to weaken the argument, on your side, so I won't be picky...lol)


When you factor in the financial support the father brings to the table for the kid, you can easily see this as half of the workload that you obviously resent men for not providing (even though they are out there working for impartial bosses who could fire them at any moment if they screw up or for no reason at all). You realize how huge an investment that is and how the job dynamic is vastly different from a family environment to a cold, competitive private job?

Moving on, a lot of the job aspects a mother will do, will be for the man or the general upkeep of the house. It's bundled together with child care (though I fully concede that early on for the first few years it's hell).

Anyhow, let's just go with your provided numbers for debate's sake, that would clock her salary at $73,216 a year. Minus taxes (the man is robbed every year so I fail to see why she shouldn't be) and you'd be closer to $55,000.

Now lets factor in basic provisions:

Food - $350 a month (Canadian food is so expensive) = $3,600 a year.
Housing - $850 a month (just being generous here and treating it as a roommate situation in a decent house) = $10,200
Clothing - $200 a month = $2,400
Gas - $150 a month = $1,800
Miscellaneous (fun money) $200 a month = $2,400

Total = $20,400, and that's fairly conservative (the values on fun money and clothing can be substantially higher).

But, what happens when you factor in, as mentioned, the man's financial contribution to the kid? Shouldn't that at least match her physical contribution? Remember, he's paying for everything you have and need, as well as the costs of the kid. If that doesn't match her input, how much does it equal?

I honestly don't really know how much it would equal, but it's a significant factor.

I think it's fair that she is both provided for and the kid is provided for, as of course she wants to experience having a kid as much as he does (one would hope anyhow). But I'm entirely willing to accept the notion that even after the man's financial contributions, her effort is still worth a bit more. Maybe as much as $10,000 a year extra, or $180,000 over 18 years. That's acceptable.

But this is all within the context of having a kid. If there's no kid involved, do her contributions to the household even equal his financial input? It's hard to say, depends on the situation, how much she does, how much he is earning and bringing to the table... but it's far more lopsided if she isn't working. And note, I don't see anything morally wrong with that sort of arrangement provided both parties know what they're getting into and know what each other expects.


Then, as someone else ALSO mentioned, sexual gratification will DEFINITELY cost you some BIG bucks, as last I heard an "out call" for a DECENT escort here in Mtl. is around 200-500$/night. We'll say that Dad is "frugal" in this area and only calls an escort every week ONCE/week, (as IF!!! LOL), or,even if he has a g/f, then there's the "cost" of dating, eating out, movies, trips etc. Also, we now have babysitting costs, cheaper than nanny's overtime, 10/hr x4 hours= 40$
Then there's the catering for special occasions as while Nanny may be able to take care of most of the meals during the week, she is certainly NOT going to be throwing a dinner party for 20 at the drop of a hat, so that Dad can impress his boss/clients/partners...


Sorry, what? A wife is not an escort. Are you saying women must be paid to have sex with? It's a mutually beneficial act that supposedly both genders like about equally. If she's having sex when she does not want to, I suppose that's a different story, but if she wants to as much as him, you can't charge for that.


Well, every job has it's perks, and while he may have a company car in order to do his job, so should SHE,as turnabout's fair play and all that...and he would have to provide that for the nanny as well...


Well, no, not at all. Most jobs do not have perks, most physical jobs don't. If he has perks to his job, it's likely at least a middle class job.


When two people enter into a marriage, it is a PARTNERSHIP 50/50 as far as assets AND debts, which you seem to forget...the "debt part" that is. I've know MANY women who ended up not only with NOTHING at the end of a marriage but were also in DEBT due to their partner's bad financial decisions...
If you start picking apart the importance of what each contributes, or try to base that on some fvcked up sense of "value" it's pretty clear to any reasonably intelligent person that NOBODY is going to come out the winner....
As others have said here already, the MAJORITY of women don't take their "husband's to the cleaners" at all and often end up in a worse situation than before from a financial point of view, and as for your views on child support, and custody...well, the majority of the time, I personally, haven't seen too many men clamoring for sole custody in the first place and you obviously have NO CLUE with all due respect, as to what it actually COSTS raise a child...


Marriage does not guarantee kids, and even if it did, it's hardly anywhere near as one-sided as you make it seem to be (by completely neglecting to factor in the man's contribution). The fact that debts are shared is just as absurd that all assets are shared. I don't understand why that is the default. That should be something the couple agrees on before getting married, or it shouldn't even be a factor at all. I've said it many times, just share what you want to share. Why do you need a legal claim to your partner's stuff?


I have to be really honest here and say that every time I read one of your posts, it sounds like the tantrum of a little boy, stomping his foot and claiming" it's NOT fair"!!! Or, "I don't want to SHARE"!!
When you seem to have NO idea about what is required for a true partnership with a woman...
You say that you don't want to get married or have kids and frankly, I think that's the BEST idea for you, because with that pov I really don't see many women really WANTING to be with you...


I only want to share what I feel they deserve, and assessing how much they deserve to have should be a logical and forward process. Why hide it away, only to be discussed when both parties are mad and resentful of each other? It's really strange to me.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 112
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 5:27:54 PM
I'm going to toss out some semi-educated guesses here about the 50/50 split that often occurs when a divorcing couple must ask the court-or an official mediator-to intercede in the material/financial aspects of the dissolution of a marriage.
Many entities consider a married couple as one financial unit. The IRS, banking and credit industries, etc.

The courts/mediation systems do not have endless hours of time to pore over ledgers and listen to who paid for what and why, or arguments about who had it rougher.
So they consider marriage as a partnership, and in the absence of acceptable documentation stipulating otherwise, they will just split everything 50/50. This often includes OBLIGATIONS as well, mind you.

The courts do not want to split up sibling children and they can't very well cut a child in half- King Solomon notwithstanding-so this is where "best interests of the children " comes into play. And I think that the courts do the best they can to serve the best interests of the children-which usually means NEITHER parent is happy.
As far as men going wherever-hell yes. Marriage is NOT an estate to enter into if you are afraid.
Fot the men who rush to MGTOW because they can't GET a decent relationship, and loudly bugle how great it is and all that...
yeah right.
People who are REALLY satisfied and content with how they choose to live their lives don't feel a need to get up on a soapbox and yell about it.
All to often, threads on these forums about MGTOW-men threatening to join it or threatening to go overseas in search of "appreciative" women. seem to be more about somebody having a big ass pout and tantrum, announcing to all and sundry that he's taking his toys and going home.
Here, let me get the door for you...
Cindy O
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 113
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 7:06:53 PM
Realistically speaking, everyone needs to vent their frustrations once in a while, even if it means standing on a soapbox


I agree. That's why we had the Tea Party protests and Occupy Wall Street in recent years, and that's why there were the civil rights protests and anti-war (Vietnam) protests in the 60's. Of course, they were doing them, as the men who want to protest the "unfairness" of the legal system, out in public on the streets. If you want to organize the MGTOW movement to camp out in front of the court houses and even the SCOTUS building if you want, to protest the unfairness you find in the system, by all means do so.

Doing so on a *dating* site, where the majority of the people are here to date, and which is but a small subset of people in the country, and people who aren't the decision/law makers of these things, seems somewhat pointless. Why not start up a MGTOW forum, organize protests against the laws that you feel are unfair, etc? Ranting about it on a site of people looking for exactly what you are against seems... counter-productive? At the very least not very likely to have much, if any, effect on the very thing you want to change.
 ArticLife
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 8:02:58 PM
It's not pointless to discuss something if it hones your thoughts further. That's the whole point of a forum, isn't it? Obviously nothing will change from this discussion in real life, but I enjoy it nevertheless.
 Dee4166
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 1:55:06 AM
@Artic...

And once again, you have taken pretty much everything that I wrote out of context and used it to shore up your own beliefs...not that I didn't see it coming....lol

Even to go so far as saying that room and board should be factored into a live-in arrangement for a caregiver...well, now you're trying to tell ME who has been DONG THE JOB for 25 years. how it's "supposed to be"....not tomention the actual LAW....LOL

In case you missed it, my entire argument was based on the fact that our hypothetical guy wasn't actually married, but wanted ALL of the benefits that a married man gets and what the cost of that would be out in the REAL world, and you ALSO forgot to add in the cost of surrogacy...and yes,an escort/g/f would have to be factored in, because remember,our "guy" ISN'T actually married....

As far as your estimations for food ALONE,well, that there,more than anything you've said tells me that you really have NO clue as to the real cost of things....never mind the rest of your calculations....unless of course,you plan to live on Ramen noodles and tv dinners....lol

I have tried to present a "logical" argument based SOLELY on the cost of a wife's contributions in REAL money and ACTUAL amounts and yet you STILL seem to think that's wildly overestimated...
Just because YOU don't believe the cost of things, doesn't mean that they don't actually, COST that much...LOL

I stick with my original and final statement, I wish you lotsa luck trying to find ANY woman stupid enough to jump on board with that particular thinking. Or as you've said before it's a much wiser choice for you to NOT get married and have kids....

They may just end up being as bad at math as you are...lol

I'm done here...this isn't an actual discussion at this point as it's clear from all of your posts that when you don't agree with what others are telling you is their REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE, that you just invalidate it and continue arguing the contrary,yet you have NO experience of your own to support your own beliefs....nor any actual facts...

I have SEVERAL friends who have had pre-nups and there is AN ENTIRE section that pertains to the splitting of assets in the case of children resulting from the marriage, as MOST pre-nups DO and the judge in the case of 2 of those divorces not only honoured those agreements, but is not able to nullify a legal contract as easily as you seem to think...

Anyway...as forums1...said....Why are you HERE if you believe that women are out for a "free ride" and that the Law is out to "get you" if you DO make the mistake of getting involved with a woman, because they "have all of the rights"?

If I were you and believed all of that, I'd buy myself a sex doll and move into the wilderness somewhere so as to NOT end up yet another inadvertent "victim" of the HORRIBLY biased Legal system, and all of those women out there just WAITING for the opportunity to screw me out of my money...

One more thought to ponder....thank the gods that women have put up with THOUSANDS of years of inequality and still continued to have children, rather than taking OUR "toys" and going home, otherwise the human race would have died out a long time ago. Guess we really ARE, the "stronger sex", huh???

That's okay though,because very soon,men, and all that they can "provide" will soon become obsolete in the child-rearing/marriage game and women will, FINALLY, as has been the "plan" all along, RULE THE WORLD!!!! MUwahahahahaha.....
 ArticLife
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 2:48:02 AM

And once again, you have taken pretty much everything that I wrote out of context and used it to shore up your own beliefs...not that I didn't see it coming....lol

Even to go so far as saying that room and board should be factored into a live-in arrangement for a caregiver...well, now you're trying to tell ME who has been DONG THE JOB for 25 years. how it's "supposed to be"....not tomention the actual LAW....LOL


Right, employers will provide you food and shelter for free. They certainly do not take those costs into account to factor in your salary. That's totally not what employers do.

If you can't tell, that's sarcasm.

I don't know what you think I've twisted. Seems to me like even if I debate with you calmly, if I disagree, somehow I am evil and "twisting what you say".


As far as your estimations for food ALONE,well, that there,more than anything you've said tells me that you really have NO clue as to the real cost of things....never mind the rest of your calculations....unless of course,you plan to live on Ramen noodles and tv dinners....lol


Hmm? The food estimation is by own my costs. I spend $300 a month for myself. I'm an adult. Women probably won't even eat as much as I do, I eat a fair bit.

If you disagree, well that's fine. Let me know what you think the costs ought to me and give your reasoning for them.


I have tried to present a "logical" argument based SOLELY on the cost of a wife's contributions in REAL money and ACTUAL amounts and yet you STILL seem to think that's wildly overestimated...
Just because YOU don't believe the cost of things, doesn't mean that they don't actually, COST that much...LOL

I stick with my original and final statement, I wish you lotsa luck trying to find ANY woman stupid enough to jump on board with that particular thinking. Or as you've said before it's a much wiser choice for you to NOT get married and have kids....

They may just end up being as bad at math as you are...lol


I took your estimations into account, I did the math, and after factoring in the man's contribution to the kid (financially) being quite relevant overall (because the wife also wants to have a kid) it mitigates most of her costs. But hey, I'm not saying this "cold" logic has to apply for everyone. I'm not trying to impose my will or thoughts on you or anyone else. I just don't agree with marriage being defaulted to an unfair split for the person who earns more. That's all. What you think is fair and what I think is fair might not be the same, and that's fine. We aren't getting married lol.


I'm done here...this isn't an actual discussion at this point as it's clear from all of your posts that when you don't agree with what others are telling you is their REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE, that you just invalidate it and continue arguing the contrary,yet you have NO experience of your own to support your own beliefs....nor any actual facts...

I have SEVERAL friends who have had pre-nups and there is AN ENTIRE section that pertains to the splitting of assets in the case of children resulting from the marriage, as MOST pre-nups DO and the judge in the case of 2 of those divorces not only honoured those agreements, but is not able to nullify a legal contract as easily as you seem to think...


http://www.separation.ca/family-law/prenuptial-agreement

In Canada, you cannot factor in any assets related to the child, nor custody of the child. The entire prenup may not be cancelled however, just by having a kid, that is exclusively an American issue depending on the state.


Anyway...as forums1...said....Why are you HERE if you believe that women are out for a "free ride" and that the Law is out to "get you" if you DO make the mistake of getting involved with a woman, because they "have all of the rights"?


Because I don't believe every single woman is a free loader. There are plenty who are genuinely good people. I also don't care much about sex, so that reduces the desire to couple just for resources to have a kid, because I also don't want that, nor do I want to get married. I'm exposing myself to no risk, so why not try to find someone I really enjoy being around?


One more thought to ponder....thank the gods that women have put up with THOUSANDS of years of inequality and still continued to have children, rather than taking OUR "toys" and going home, otherwise the human race would have died out a long time ago. Guess we really ARE, the "stronger sex", huh???/quote]

I'm not sure I follow? Women enjoy sex as much as men do, and they also want kids as much (if not more) than men. Having kids wasn't a sacrifice in that sense, not in terms of desire. The fact women have been mistreated throughout most of history is a painful fact.


That's okay though,because very soon,men, and all that they can "provide" will soon become obsolete in the child-rearing/marriage game and women will, FINALLY, as has been the "plan" all along, RULE THE WORLD!!!! MUwahahahahaha.....


If you mean that they will start to close the wage gap, earning more and more, and being more independent (even within relationships) well I can only hope you're right. That's exactly what I want.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 117
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:51:58 AM

It's not pointless to discuss something if it hones your thoughts further. That's the whole point of a forum, isn't it?


One would think that the point of forum discussion would be to open one's mind, to ponder differences of opinions. I think you might be confusing "honing your thoughts" with donning blinders.

Agreed, for sure it can be enjoyable, entertaining even!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:54:49 AM

If they have the same experience on the job, work the same hours, ask for raises as persistently as men do, have the same education, etc and etc... then yes, they make exactly the same as any man. Again, there isn't this widespread conspiratorial discrimination going on.


In short, no they don't.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 119
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 7:59:59 AM

People go wrong because they give insufficient weighting to values and ethics when assessing potential mates.

When you're looking, prioritize similar values and strong ethics over good looks and smooth words. Talk less about random stuff and more about intentions. At the first sign of dishonesty, such as lying to friends or significant debts suddenly appearing when things have gone beyond the acceptable disclosure stage, a loud warning bell should go off in your head and you should start asking the tough questions and be prepared to pull out.

If you have observed someone behave with honesty and integrity over a good length of time, where deeds have been seen to match words, you will gain confidence that it will be a symbiotic rather than parasitic relationship. Not only will it be less likely to lead to a split, but if it does happen you can be sure that both sides contributed equally in blood, sweat and tears, either directly or indirectly via wages.


Thank you!!!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:12:00 AM

why does marriage by default have to be a 50/50 split? Why not make that part optional? Again, it makes so much more sense to just keep what both of you earn and only share what both of you agree to share.


To an extent it depends upon where you live, but marriage is not simply a "50/50 split". Marital ASSETS are split 50/50. There is a difference, there, a huge difference. Let's remember that this is due to the legal contract that is marriage. Assets acquired during a marriage, just like assets of a business partnership acquired during that partnership, are split evenly.

It would seem to me that if this is the most important consideration, you shouldn't marry. Be careful as well to insure that you don;t provide any "extras" for your offspring ( sports, extracurricular activities, private school, certainly not college!) as you'll find your poor self having to provide them with those things after your breakup.

To be honest, I think this is about selfishness. Certainly there are those who "rip off" their former partners, but the majority seek to be fair, as much as their idea of fair remains after a breakup. If it was "fair" for one partner to stay home & raise children during a relationship, how does it suddenly become unfair? That's not to say that a parent should stay at home full time once the kids go off to school.

Truth is, I am happy to say that I know far more exes who are able to see past "unfairness" and simply do the right thing.
 ArticLife
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:30:50 AM
I suppose it comes down to an even more fundamental question, why is the religions ceremony of marriage a legal contract? I never understood that. It shouldn't have anything to do with the government.
 Dee4166
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 122
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 9:16:19 AM

Right, employers will provide you food and shelter for free. They certainly do not take those costs into account to factor in your salary. That's totally not what employers do.


And most employers let you go HOME at the end of the day, too...you really don't have to take my word for it, look it up....


Hmm? The food estimation is by own my costs. I spend $300 a month for myself. I'm an adult. Women probably won't even eat as much as I do, I eat a fair bit.

If you disagree, well that's fine. Let me know what you think the costs ought to me and give your reasoning for them.


Well, I feed three adults for 4 days a week 3 meals/per day and with shopping the sales and being careful,as well as buying fresh produce and decent food,as in not pre-prepared crap, also including things like , toiletries, toilet paper and paper towels, cleaners, laundry soap, etc...
Yes,my dear it adds up to more than 150$ per week...AND my old folks eat VERY little....
Would you like a screen shot of our last grocery bill as "proof"???
That's ALSO sarcasm, btw..


I don't know what you think I've twisted. Seems to me like even if I debate with you calmly, if I disagree, somehow I am evil and "twisting what you say".



Nonsense....you aren't "debating calmly"and just disagreeing,you're DISCOUNTING things that MANY people on here have said to you, and considering that THEY are speaking from Life experience while YOU are speaking from your own pet "theories",, yes, that IS a problem...
Also you seem to cherry-pick what you WANT to address, as opposed to taking into account the info that's REALLY there....addressing ONLY what "fits" with your particular world view....


Because I don't believe every single woman is a free loader.


That is a DISGUSTING attitude PERIOD, especially in the context of a discussion about marriage....not to mention an ignorant one based on NO experience...

As for the rest of what you wrote, couldn't even be BOTHERED to address that....because yet AGAIN, you ignore the ACTUAL evidence and favour your own,biased views, above all....

Any way...good luck finding that woman who will agree with your views as I said perhaps she'll be able to overlook the misogyny and turn a deaf ear to your uninformed views enough and be smart enough to ensure that HER own assets are protected enough to even DARE to be involved with you....
 ArticLife
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 10:18:56 AM


And most employers let you go HOME at the end of the day, too...you really don't have to take my word for it, look it up....


Sure, but that's part of the deal. A simple example, live-in maintenance personnel for apartment complexes. They typically are paid very little, but they are given an apartment for free. That's a significant compensation in of itself, not to be tossed aside like it's nothing.


Well, I feed three adults for 4 days a week 3 meals/per day and with shopping the sales and being careful,as well as buying fresh produce and decent food,as in not pre-prepared crap, also including things like , toiletries, toilet paper and paper towels, cleaners, laundry soap, etc...
Yes,my dear it adds up to more than 150$ per week...AND my old folks eat VERY little....
Would you like a screen shot of our last grocery bill as "proof"???
That's ALSO sarcasm, btw..


Oh, you misunderstood what I was calculating. I was only referring to her food costs. His food costs, as well as the kids, weren't part of the issue.


Nonsense....you aren't "debating calmly"and just disagreeing,you're DISCOUNTING things that MANY people on here have said to you, and considering that THEY are speaking from Life experience while YOU are speaking from your own pet "theories",, yes, that IS a problem...
Also you seem to cherry-pick what you WANT to address, as opposed to taking into account the info that's REALLY there....addressing ONLY what "fits" with your particular world view....


You keep saying that, yet I don't see you mentioning any examples of what I am not addressing. I do my best to respond to everything you say.


That is a DISGUSTING attitude PERIOD, especially in the context of a discussion about marriage....not to mention an ignorant one based on NO experience...

As for the rest of what you wrote, couldn't even be BOTHERED to address that....because yet AGAIN, you ignore the ACTUAL evidence and favour your own,biased views, above all....

Any way...good luck finding that woman who will agree with your views as I said perhaps she'll be able to overlook the misogyny and turn a deaf ear to your uninformed views enough and be smart enough to ensure that HER own assets are protected enough to even DARE to be involved with you....


Wait, I'm confused? I said I do not believe every women is a free loader. I didn't say I do believe they are all free loaders...

You like to capitalize your words to show how serious you are, but you aren't making any specific claims. What evidence are you talking about?
 forums1
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 124
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 10:48:48 AM
I'm done here...this isn't an actual discussion at this point as it's clear from all of your posts that when you don't agree with what others are telling you is their REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE, that you just invalidate it and continue arguing the contrary,yet you have NO experience of your own to support your own beliefs....nor any actual facts...


Yeah, I keep wondering myself how many of these people he actually *knows*, were friends/coworkers/etc that he has watched actually go through the process?

So how many friends do you have Artic that have been divorced and you've known (or at least met) both of them and watched the process? Have you seen the amicable "we both just want *out* and it over" one in person? How about the "we're going to bicker and fight for 3 months over who gets the living room furniture" one? Have you seen the one where one party is getting a restraining order against the other because they're so angry they're actually seeming dangerously violent (she got run off the road by her now-ex one day amongst other crazy things he was doing)? I could go on with quite a few others, because every story is a little different, but I have to tell you, I've *seen* all of those in action (not just 'read about them' in some paper or "MGTOW" website), known the people involved (in some cases for decades), in some knew them before they married, while they were married, and after divorce.

And I've seen that, quite honestly, *most of the time* the person I hear the most b**ching/complaining from (or one could say is "playing the victim") is the one that, in my view, usually isn't owning their own part in things and wanting to place all/most of the blame on the other person - as in the cheater saying "how could they leave me?" (when in reality they'd "left" the marriage years earlier emotionally with their cheating), or many others... so when I read stuff where people are ranting and raving about how 'unfair' things were in their divorce, I honestly stop and wonder what the 'real story' is and what part *they* played in it all. I know people who are still stuck in the 'victim' role, even years (or decades) later, I guess it serves some purpose for their ego to put it all on someone else.

(In fact I know one 'victim' with a restraining order against him - over a decade later still, and now I think potentially facing jail time - because he just can't let it go, and quite honestly has done a really good job in alienating his own son by threatening his mother all the time (even leaving it on voice mail and posts on FB, she probably has piles of documented 'evidence' of it for court) - yet he refuses to see his own actions as part of the blame (I've given up on pointing it out anymore, he 'acknowledges' it and then keeps doing the same crap to, really, keep himself a victim). They split in many ways *precisely* because of what he is *still* doing... but of course it's "all her fault").

I might suggest you get a copy of "games people play" by Eric Berne. It might help you to understand some of the stuff that actually happens in many divorces. In fact, I might specifically suggest you read up on the games of "Why Don't You — Yes But" and "Ain't it awful".
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 1:51:06 PM

I suppose it comes down to an even more fundamental question, why is the religions ceremony of marriage a legal contract? I never understood that. It shouldn't have anything to do with the government.


Marriage predates written history. Certainly the power of the church played a role, but I believe it was Mass. (in this country) who first decided that they wanted a hand in marriage. Today, a religious ceremony has nothing at all to do with legal marriage. Marriage is a legally binding contract completely outside of the church. An optional contract, so no need to worry, you don't ever have to marry.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)