One of the best anti-marriage papers Ive read

[rushx79]

"This is the most idiotic response I think I've ever read on these boards"

stop smoking crack. it was a well written response that was far more even handed than the initial article. if you can not see that it was skewed in mens favor than you are clueless.

p.s. if i ever get married it will include a prenup, and if the woman isnt cool with it than i am not cool with the commitment.

 

[puddlemonkey]

**bunch of quotes**

Two of those were mine, yay me! It would have been nice for you to quote everything I wrote, instead of cutting it off write before I said that I wasn't bashing women.

 

[AristotleBC]

it was a well written response that was far more even handed than the initial article. if you can not see that it was skewed in mens favor than you are clueless.

It was a very poor response.

 

[unclebully]

"This is the most idiotic response I think I've ever read on these boards"

stop smoking crack. it was a well written response that was far more even handed than the initial article. if you can not see that it was skewed in mens favor than you are clueless.

p.s. if i ever get married it will include a prenup, and if the woman isnt cool with it than i am not cool with the commitment.

You said yourself that you will get a pre-nup. Therefore the whole idea of marriage(without a pre-nup to ensure it is fair) is flawed.
If you cannot see that the legal agreement of marriage is skewed in a womens favour then you are clueless.

 

[Spartacus]

why do you guy's bother arguing here?
spending time tossin' shit like this is like marriage

 

[velvett]

Sure but that doesn't change the fact that the courts are heavily biased in favour of the women. The man nearly always ends up getting raped in these situations.

The point is it's not 50/50 when things go to court. The judges heavily favour the women most of the time.

Marriage is an unfair legal agreement. Hence why you suggest a pre-nup. Thats what this thread is about for me.

I've answered this already so I'll just quote myself - and yes I am agreeing with you.

"Men get hammered by the system in the event of a divorce and stand a higher chance (40-1 chance) of losing their children! Men get hammered by the system simply because they are men. Odds aren't in a man's favour so why the hell should he get married? Matt Weeks' article is thus quite an accurate depiction of the situation men face and would explain why they are apprehensive about taking the plunge."

It's not just simply because they are men it is simply that when married a man's traditional place in society has always been considered the bread winner, the provider and the master of the house while the woman is traditionally weak, the homemaker and the child raiser.

Until traditional values of marriage change this situation "men" face will never change.

In most cases, in marriage the wife either doesn't work or works part-time and the man is the bread winner. If there are children involved then you have to add the above with the material responsibilities of caring for the children.

If there ever is a generational shift where the 20 something's now become the 50 something judges 30 years from now there might be a change in a judge's standpoint based on the experiences observed throughout his or her profession.

It IS unfair and it will stay that way until what I have already said above about society changes - it's that simple.

The article is clearly one sided and the response here easily be twisted to be one sided (isn't that the beauty of new reporting?). Imagine someone an article that X% of men will cheat on their wife and destroy their lives and the livesof their children during the course of their marriage. It would be so simple to trash men as a whole and make it look like all men are predisposed to behave in such a way - even if that is untrue, just as this article can do for women.

 

[velvett]

Two of those were mine, yay me! It would have been nice for you to quote everything I wrote, instead of cutting it off write before I said that I wasn't bashing women.

Are you mad?

Because you should be - that is what is so evil about "reporting" and taking "information" in any context (including "studies") and using it to make whatever point you wish to make. Abusing facts for personal gain - which is what Weeks article is based on.




My apologies for putting you in the middle.

 

[velvett]

Editing because I saw your edited post.... I never bashed you, nor twisted your words around. You clearly imply that because of Weeks' age his article lacks any relevancy since you assume he doesn't have the necessary life experience. You don't understand the dude wrote an article that has much truth to it for goodness sakes. Who the freak cares if he used data from a study? If it's true it's true. That's the point. Sheesh.

Did you read the original article where Week took all of his "words", oh sorry information from?
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/3604644.htm?1c

That article, from Jul. 05, 2002 'A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss' was written by Dianna Thompson, the founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children AND Glenn Sacks who writes about gender issues from the male perspective.

The article is clearly one sided and how could it not be - look who wrote it? There no real statistical information from the women's prespective it's all hypothetical from the man's point of view. Where are these studies? Where are they cited? NO WHERE.

Now in Weeks's article he says:

Over five million divorced men in America are currently experiencing the situation I just outlined. Without a doubt, their stories and experiences are heard by unmarried men. Can anyone truly blame the men for having apprehension? They stand to gain little and lose everything they've worked for in their entire lives should they "take the plunge", so to speak.

Five million men - interesting number - where did he get that number?
He does not state where that data came from which by the way is not a part the information that is a rehash of 2 1/2 year old article by Diane/Glenn

Weeks is just some kid inspired by someone eles work to state his "opinion" in conjunction with someone elses OP-ED which was already bias to start.

At best these articles (and I'm being generous here) are as they said themselves "plausible explanations" as to why the rate of marriage has decreased over the past 40 years.

 

[Ulcasterdropout]

I take it that this is a topic of interest, of Velvett's...

 

[velvett]

I take it that this is a topic of interest, of Velvett's...

You want to report something and call it FACT then make sure you cite your sources and present a picture of those "facts" from all perspectives, otherwise at best all you've done is expressed your opinion.


All of a sudden everyone thinks they're FOX news.