Samson Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 It has ocurred to me how unfairly I have been treated by an unbalanced society that has left me with fewer opportunities to "pursue happiness," one of my "unailable rights" along with the equally important "life and liberty." While the wealthy find it a simple matter of living without part of their disposable income after they become divorced, many underprivalaged including minorities, as well as members of both genders, and a growing part of the married gay community can only afford divorce when they also must give up essential income needed for living expenses! [color=red]THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS INEQUITY THAT OUR GOVERNMENT HAS IGNORED!![/color] With food stamp programs and MANY other government sponsored "entitlements," it is difficult to comprehend how this has not been addressed. Just like any educational experience divorce should not be ignored any more than student aid! Many will say: "OH, YOU EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR YOUR MISTAKES!!! HA! FORGETTABOUTIT" OK, I'll agree with you, BUT ONLY AFTER WE LIQUIDATE EVERY OTHER GOVERNMENT SPONSORED PROGRAM DESIGNED FOR THOSE THAT MADE THEIR OWN MISTAKE (farmers that planted the wrong crop, most of the incarcerated, etc.) Those of seeking divorce should have at least the equal rights, and be allocated the same funding as a prisoner at Levenworth! WRITE YOUR CONGRESSPERSON TODAY Link to post Share on other sites
StartingAgain Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Samson, whatever are you talking about? I hope you mean this to be tongue-in-cheek. But just in case you aren't... There are already little-known federally funded programs to help people after they divorce. For example my ex, who makes less than $40,000/yr and has debt out the wazooh was able to buy a $140,000 house? I thought it would be impossible. But as it turns out there's a little known program where private lenders can loan money at very low interest rates, through a program underwritten by HUD. Who's eligible? Divorced women only. Ah, she was thinking that it might be nice to get one more degree. Who's paying for it? The taxpayers. Seems there's a program for, you guessed it, divorced women only to help them get further education and job training. Let's see ehat else is there... Oh, what about those student loans? Those have to be paid. But she can't afford to pay those and the student loans. The solution: put the student loans into deferral INDEFINITELY. The taxpayers will continue to pay the interest for her. You are mistaken about the programs where farmers are paid a fee by the government to not grow certain crops. This program is to keep too many farmers from growing too much of the same things. This prevents critical shortages of some agricultural comodities, while glutting the market with others, cause prices to fall so low that farmers can't make a profit on their investment. If we incarcerate someone, we must feed, house, clothe him, provide him with medical care, and keep him safe from harm. This is a tenent of common law that dates back to the Magna Carta. If we have them work, they must be paid a small wage. Free prison labor is unconstitutiuonal. Inasmuch as most people in jails cannot read or write, have marketable job skills, and have lead lives that pushed them to criminal behavior, it is in the country's best interest to invest into educating them, so they will at least have a chance to become productive citizen when they are released. We have done an abominable job in our penal system in the U.S. And let's not forget that our prisons are overcrowded with people who have done nothing more wrong than get caught with a bag of dope and have hit up against absurd minimal sentencing guidlines. You seem to forget that the Clinton administration completely overhauled welfare and food stamps are much harder to get these days. You can only be one welfare for a limited amount of time and are required to take job training. The Bush adminstration wants to cut it back even further. We still have American children going to bed hungry every night thoug. The examples you state as the government pandering to those who have made mistakes are nothing of the sort. They are things the government does for the benefit of the country as a whole. Sure, they screw it up half the time, but at least it is trying to help. What the government panders to is business. You can get tremendous tax breaks for closing your plant in Illinois, laying those 3000 workers off, and moving that plant to Vietnam, where the labor cost is only $30/worker/week. In the interest of global market development (a bad idea), the government is giving business enough tax breaks anbd incentive to fully fiund every social program in the U.S. The government absolutely should not come up with any entitlement programs to make it easier to divorce. Indeed, we need to back up a bit and make it harder to divorce, since divorce is destroying our society and most divorces are for the most frivilous of reasons. You want a divorce? You pay for it. You make your bed and you have to lie in it. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Stands up and applauds! Link to post Share on other sites
judy Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 Samson: where is the website for no interest loan for divorced woman? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Samson Posted July 25, 2004 Author Share Posted July 25, 2004 Samson, whatever are you talking about? I hope you mean this to be tongue-in-cheek. Yes, of course, I'm not absolutely serious. Nevertheless, I did appreciate your serious response, StartingAgain. Of course you could have left out the facts that divorced women are the only ones qualifying for the low interest loans for education, training, new housing! Apparently when You want a divorce? You pay for it. You make your bed and you have to lie in it. we're not talking about women. Link to post Share on other sites
StartingAgain Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Your point is well taken. We read so much about how after a divorce a woman has such a tough time. I think this is probably true for the poor, but it certainly isn't for the middle and upper middle class. All the women I've known who've dumped their husbands have come out smelling like a rose. This is especially true if the man makes good money and there are childen involved. Of the six women I know who have divorced there husbands over the last two years, the first thing that all but one of them did was quit their jobs. ex-hubby is giving them so much money that they don't need to work. Just last week, I overheard a 20-something woman in my office tell another "...Oh, no, I would never marry him. I'm going to snag myself a guy who makes a lot of money. Then when I get the kids I want, I will divorce him and retire. That's what my mom did." She was serious. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Am I the only divorced woman on the planet who didn't want alimony? What is up with these people? I'll make my own way, thankew very much. I'm all grown up, intelligent, and employable. Why should I live off someone else like a leech? Don't women have any self-respect? Now, I can see if they had quit their jobs, lost time in their careers they couldn't really make up, and were 'wifey at home' to their spouses that a little $ might be in order, but if you're already working why not fend for yourself? Link to post Share on other sites
Author Samson Posted July 25, 2004 Author Share Posted July 25, 2004 Each state has a different idea about what we here call "maintainance." "Leeches" here must not have worked for 10 years, and have looked for work, but have bee unsuccessful. Only then cann they take 20% of their spouse's net, for a maximum of 3 years (with the exception being if their is a mentally or physically handicapped child). I don't know Moimeme, reading StartingAgain's description of the 20somethings plan, I was struck by it as yet another example of how much more advanced women are than men! Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Yes, Samson. It's always a smart idea to judge all of womankind by an isolated group of bad examples. Then, if I am to take your example, I must declare that all men have disorders. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Samson Posted July 25, 2004 Author Share Posted July 25, 2004 must declare that all men have disorders You mean that you hadn't decided this already! Link to post Share on other sites
CurlyIam Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Okey, guys, I found the first aproximately 4, maybe 5 posts really funny. Until the sixth one. So yeah, there are women out there who will "snag themselves a guy who makes a lot of money". Just like there are lots of men who think of getting married as a good solution for not paying a maid. You know what? It's their spouses problem. It's your fault if you marry someone like that. You guys have to accept that some of the responsability is yours too. Just think: if a girls wears the latest Zara or Mango or whatever's hot and trandy in your own country, well, that does give some signs. Then there are the friends, the people they hang out with, etc, beside the communication part in the couple which should make all the bells ring.... Please do not tell me that all men who ended up in this type of situations got 'tricked' by the 'mean old lady' in marriage. Moi: my answer to your question is that it is not only problem of self respect, but also of how valueble they think they are. Should one choose to live off their ex, that makes them really cheap, even if they got 100.000$/month. It's not even funny, it's pittyable. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Samson Posted July 25, 2004 Author Share Posted July 25, 2004 Wow Curley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Had to go back to post #6 to make sure it wasn't me! WHEW! Yes, I agree, that the gullible guy deserves the gorgeous gold-digger. AND certainly its not like the topic is gender specific. After all, I'm just waiting for some rich European chick to sweep me up, carry me off to her chateau so I can become a "kept man" the rest of my life! Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 You mean that you hadn't decided this already OK, that does it, dude. You'n me. Outside. Dr. Phil videos at dawn. We'll count up the 'what the HELL were you thinking?'s and the battle will be won by whichever gender gets the least. Link to post Share on other sites
CurlyIam Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 After all, I'm just waiting for some rich European chick to sweep me up, carry me off to her chateau so I can become a "kept man" the rest of my life! Woow, up until the rich part, I almost fitted the category... But since we are talking about dreaming, let's make it "young, rich European chicks'', ok? Link to post Share on other sites
StartingAgain Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Not always Curley. It has long been known that men preferentially chose younger, prettier women as mates and women choose older men with a higher earning potential. Evoutionary psychologists have found this to be true in all cultures. It makes sense, since a woman wants a mate who'll be able to provide well for her and her offsrpring. I can't find anything on the damned net anymore! I was just trying to find this, but since Google changed their search engine, most of what I find anymore is crap. I read an a peer reviewed paper last fall on a study where women in college were asked among other things what the single most important factor in choosing a husband was. Over 50% said MONEY. Love was down around 12th on the list. When asked if they would divulge to a potential mate that earning potential was their primary reason for marrying them, 68% ansewered no. So these college aged women are admitting that they are looking for a man who will earn a lot of money, that actually loving him isn't so important, and they are quite willing to deceive him in order to acheive their goals. Pretty scary stuff! I hope for the sake of our society that the study is seriously flawed. So if around half of these women are willing to deceive a man, how is he to know that he's hooking up with a golddigger? Link to post Share on other sites
CurlyIam Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 You know, StartingAgain, it's very tricky about the surveys.... one can make lots of stuff from it, without necessarily changing the truth. For instance, you say:the single most important factor in choosing a husband was. Was it the criteria of selection as in those who are able to make a decent living in, the others out, or was it the fact that they were willing to marry the richest guy? I mean, money is damn important, most coulpes end up because of it (that or cheating...). Do you blame a girl for not dating a guy who can't make a living? Not really... Who thinks money are important? They are, especially if you want your kid to be able to go to Harvard. It's not the money that matters for our debate, it's what one is willing to do for it that matters, Start! I say it's all in the way the questions are being asked. For instance there was this survey in the Sweden 3 years ago about the European Union. They were asked if they thought the EU was a good or a bad thing. The majority of them said it was a bad thing, talked about the misfits, etc. Then thye were asked if they were against or for the enlargement. The majority was for it. Interpretation: does it make sense to want to give other a thing that you think it's a bad thing in the first place? Answer: it's all in the question. Questions are asked to serve a certain purpose, so if they want to prove a pointm they certainly have the meanings to (btw, something tells me they did not quote exactly the question they asked in their study)... Link to post Share on other sites
CurlyIam Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 It has long been known that men preferentially chose younger, prettier women as mates and women choose older men with a higher earning potential. You are 200% right. My ex was so incredibly poor you could not believe. He had a stunning personality and dispised the "Earthly" posession. He would spend his years in college with his friends studying philosophy and religion, and then I tried to make him use his brain by also making a decent living. We were having a strong relationship, he was starting to make pots of money and finally the success got to his head. He turned into a bastard with whom after 4 and a half years I had nothing to talk about but business. Who changed. So I left him. Was he high earnign potential? You bet he was! I trusted him from the start. I knew he could do it. He was winner material. Girls like that. Unfortunately he was bastard material too. Some girls don't care for that. So these college aged women are admitting that they are looking for a man who will earn a lot of money, that actually loving him isn't so important, and they are quite willing to deceive him in order to acheive their goals. I agree to the part in bold, the one in italic is speculation. Was there a question like ''Would you lie to convince a married men to take you into marriage?" So if around half of these women are willing to deceive a man, how is he to know that he's hooking up with a golddigger? First: You do not know that they are willing to deceive the men. You do not know the percentage and you do not have the certainty if they a priori decide to deceive a man. Second: let's assume they are materialistic. More then the average.More than the usual. Let's call them all gold diggers. What about the men? Can't you tell? Are there no warning signs? Do you think that should the couple be communicating and talking about set of values, regarding the lifestyle and freinds, they can't tell? People are not capable of changing over the night. I am not saying it cannot happen. But there are signs. That happens to women too, you know. Try being a young, attractive and potentially successful woman. It is the lure of winners that makes most people go crazy, no matter the gender. In that case, no matter the gender, all choices are tough and I dare say that nowadays, failure in sentimental life is almost a certainty. My pov: people settle with very little, when it comes to feelimgs. It's hard to work on a relationship. It's an effort to come back earlier to spend more time with the spouse. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Here are a couple studies with mixed results: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s569046.htm http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/nick/EPlec06.htm I don't know that I'd trust a survey of college women to be representative of all women. They are much less likely to have fully-formed ideas of what constitutes a good man and a good partner than women who have been out of school for a while, who have dated working men, and who have developed their own senses of independence. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Samson Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 Curly, Curly, Curly.............................in your case I'll easily waive money.......................at least in the short term................but I thought you were already "off the market?" Moi..........................its a date, I'll be packing all my Louis Buscaglia books, so watch out! Link to post Share on other sites
StartingAgain Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 The survey was specifically about college-aged women and was supposed to represent the attitudes of young women, not all women. And Curley, these women specifically said that they would lie to these men in order to get them. You suggest something that I, being in the business community see on a daily basis. These guys with their high earning potential either have to devote almost all their strength to their work, or they care about nothing but money, money, money. Their trphy wives are mostly for show and they don't have much to do with them. To some of there wives this seems to be perfectly fine an long as there is cash in the bank. But others seem, at least to me, terribly discontented that their husbands know about nothing and care about nothing but their business. Link to post Share on other sites
CurlyIam Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Samson, darling, it's you the one who's married, not I.... Link to post Share on other sites
Author Samson Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 Technicalities, Curly......only a technicality............... Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Moi..........................its a date, I'll be packing all my Louis Buscaglia books, so watch out! Um, that would be 'Leo' but at least you get a couple points for knowing Buscaglia and spelling it right Link to post Share on other sites
Author Samson Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 Louis....................the evil twin of Leo! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts