Deadbeat Dads?

[robc]

Originally Posted by missing

vasilisa I'm not going to argue against your experience. I'm also done arguing for and defending the male perspective. There's not much else to say, and people can figure things out for themselves. I basically agree that you can't blame an entire gender, and it's pretty pointless to determine who has it worse, because it's very subjective and based on way too many variables. The reason I was being so biased is cause in our society, everyone knows how hard it is to be a woman; juggle kids and career, pressure to have it all, etc. How could we not? Many never shut up about it. And you know they may have a point. But it's no picnic being a man either, we face our own pressures and sometimes our own cruel treatment at the hands of females. It's just less socially acceptable for us to complain about it; we're supposed to "be a man" and keep our mouths shut. And there's something to be said for not being victim, taking control of one's situation, etc. etc. bla bla. Unless of course you really are a victim, but are so used to "taking it silently" you don't nor are allowed to recognize it. Why do you think male suicide rates are so high? I'd say it's cause a lot of men get confused about their situation and need help, but they can't/don't know how to reach out and get it because of the cultural stigma attached to being a male victim. This is a real problem. There is almost always some kind of support group resource to deal with the unique issues a woman might face. Rarely does such a thing exist for a man, and even if it does, most won't be comfortable utilizing it because of how they were socialized.

What we have I think is a situation where women are allowed and even encouraged to acknowledge when they are victims, to what I consider a point of excess. With men it's just the opposite. We need some semblance of balance here, and my biased sounding point of view is an attempt (maybe lousy) to inject some into this topic of discussion.

I know first hand that resources & counselling for men who are victims of some sort of abuse either during childhood or as adults are very weak and this just isn't in my specific location, I'd argue that these resources are on the whole very weak throughout the country (and I'll lump Canada & the U.S. together on that).

Society teaches men to "take it like a man", men aren't supposed to cry, men are supposed to be tough, men aren't supposed to talk about their feelings or become emotional - we're taught that we should act like unfeeling brutes and then when you go through a divorce and there are children involved and issues like child custody are raised, more people will assume the mother should have full custody and the man should have a visitation schedule set up to see his kids. Anyone who wants to argue against the last point, please feel free to but I'm sure my generalization is very accurate for the most part. On top of that men are expected to pay unrealistic child support & spousal support, have slim visitation schedules with their children and at the same time still hold down employment, arrange for new living arrangements and maintain some semblance of a normal life even though they've been dealt a victim card that they aren't allowed to use because men aren't allowed to be victims. It's 2008, spousal support just doesn't make sense anymore when a woman can be just as equal as a man if not more equal considering there are more helpful resources in place for women than there are for men. Plus unless the father rejects it for some reason, child custody should be joint and not a given that the mother has full custody. Where is it said that a father's involvement in their children's growth & development should be limited to a specific visitation schedule. When a man & woman divorce for whatever relationship issues they had, their ties should be severed and there should be no connection between them other than their children. A man shouldn't have an obligation to support his wife when they divorce just like a woman shouldn't be obligated to support her husband if she is the higher wage earner. There only obligation after the divorce should be to their children and raising them in a joint custody environment insures that the children receive a healthy upbringing from both parents which is ultimately what most if not all children would want.

Any women reading this discussion, what do you feel about this last statement, do you feel that you should receive spousal support after a divorce from your husband and if so why? If not, give your opinion on that as well. An honest question that I believe could help this discussion out.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by robc

There only obligation after the divorce should be to their children and raising them in a joint custody environment insures that the children receive a healthy upbringing from both parents which is ultimately what most if not all children would want.

Any women reading this discussion, what do you feel about this last statement, do you feel that you should receive spousal support after a divorce from your husband and if so why? If not, give your opinion on that as well. An honest question that I believe could help this discussion out.

The only time I would consider spousal support amenable (in either direction) is if one parent was a stay-at-home parent because the other wanted them to be or they jointly decided one would stay home for the sake of the children. I have known women who gave up their careers in order to stay home with their children at the request of thier husbands and it was difficult for them to re-enter the workforce (especially when they retain majority custody of the children and have to find daycare -- big expense). I also think that the person who initiates the divorce makes a difference. If there is abuse or infidelity on the husband's part and the wife initiates a divorce, I would be more likely to award her spousal support until she is able to get her footing. If the wife initiates a divorce simply because she decides she no longer loves her husband then I don't see why he should continue to support her. If both parties worked I don't think there should be spousal support at all.

Child support is an entirely different matter. I feel that whichever parent has majority custody should receive child support, and that it be a sliding scale based on the involvement of the non-custodial parent. The more you have your kids (as a non-custodial parent) the less you pay. Also I think above a certain wage you don't need child support. In cases where the custodial parent is a high earner and the non-custodial parent either was a stay-at-home or had a part time job while the kids were in school perhaps, they should not have to pay exhorbitant child support. I also think it's dispicable to attempt to get out of paying child support by taking a crap job on purpose.

I am sure I have more opinions......I will be happy to clarify any of my points since I am sure they are clear as mud.

[robc]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

The only time I would consider spousal support amenable (in either direction) is if one parent was a stay-at-home parent because the other wanted them to be or they jointly decided one would stay home for the sake of the children. I have known women who gave up their careers in order to stay home with their children at the request of thier husbands and it was difficult for them to re-enter the workforce (especially when they retain majority custody of the children and have to find daycare -- big expense). I also think that the person who initiates the divorce makes a difference. If there is abuse or infidelity on the husband's part and the wife initiates a divorce, I would be more likely to award her spousal support until she is able to get her footing. If the wife initiates a divorce simply because she decides she no longer loves her husband then I don't see why he should continue to support her. If both parties worked I don't think there should be spousal support at all.

Child support is an entirely different matter. I feel that whichever parent has majority custody should receive child support, and that it be a sliding scale based on the involvement of the non-custodial parent. The more you have your kids (as a non-custodial parent) the less you pay. Also I think above a certain wage you don't need child support. In cases where the custodial parent is a high earner and the non-custodial parent either was a stay-at-home or had a part time job while the kids were in school perhaps, they should not have to pay exhorbitant child support. I also think it's dispicable to attempt to get out of paying child support by taking a crap job on purpose.

I am sure I have more opinions......I will be happy to clarify any of my points since I am sure they are clear as mud.

I kind of get the message of what you're saying but I'll hold you to a few points:

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

The only time I would consider spousal support amenable (in either direction) is if one parent was a stay-at-home parent because the other wanted them to be or they jointly decided one would stay home for the sake of the children.

The husband & wife also jointly decided to get married I'm assuming.
If they can break that decision, then you have to assume that you're breaking other decisions you made together and unfortunately there are consequences for that decision. If you break one, technically you shouldn't still receive benefits from a relationship that is no longer in place. A parent that is a stay-at-home parent is still making that decision to stay at home, no one is forced to do anything in this world as evidenced by the decision to divorce. I think if you really want to get rid of the nastiness involved with divorce, you need to seriously consider letting go of the other person financially.

[robc]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Child support is an entirely different matter. I feel that whichever parent has majority custody should receive child support, and that it be a sliding scale based on the involvement of the non-custodial parent. The more you have your kids (as a non-custodial parent) the less you pay. Also I think above a certain wage you don't need child support. In cases where the custodial parent is a high earner and the non-custodial parent either was a stay-at-home or had a part time job while the kids were in school perhaps, they should not have to pay exhorbitant child support. I also think it's dispicable to attempt to get out of paying child support by taking a crap job on purpose.

It's also despicable how alot of men commit suicide because they feel so overwhelmed by a system that sucks them dry financially for spousal & child support and no one seems to take notice of the statistics that divorced men are dropping like flies.

Majority custody is also an issue. Unless in a situation where one parent doesn't want joint custody of their children, it should just be assumed that parents have joint custody of the children. As it stands, it's currently assumed that the mother will have full custody and the father will have visitation. Why is that even an option? Why was it decided that the mother have full custody? Why isn't joint custody the normal standard instead of being an option? Those are questions that should be asked.

Plus it's 2008, if you're an adult, don't make excuses about being a stay-at-home parent or having only a part-time job. Those are decisions you make and there are consequences for those decisions. You need to work full-time to pay the bills, mortgage/rent, etc. If you choose not to work or to only work part-time, expect problems when paying bills. I didn't make this rule, stuff costs money, you need money to buy stuff, if you need money, you have to work. Don't blame it on a marriage that has gone sour. If you blame anything else other than yourself, you're using it as a crutch for your current situation and that means you've released yourself from any responsibility and that doesn't fly. In this life you have both power & responsibility over your actions. If you choose not to act, you choose not to exercise your power but the responsibility of that choice is still yours, no one elses.

There should be no sliding scale. Both parents should retain equal custody of the children, provide for them according to their means and make no excuses about it. When you divorce, you choose to be a single parent with kids instead of a family, if you can't be a single parent with kids without support from your ex-spouse, you are pretty much telling the world you can't hack it as a single person and still need your spouse for certain things & support, you just don't need them for marriage.

If men & women are to be considered equal, treatment should be equal across the board, and not more "equal" in some areas for some of us and not for others. If you need support from your spouse although you choose to divorce, you are not equal. If you choose to remain unemployed or work only part-time because that's how it was in your marriage before you got divorced while you ex-spouse has to continue working full-time to support you, you are not equal. If you want to be equal, really be equal and stop making excuses for your situation, let go of the crutch. Stand on your own 2 feet.

The only people in this equation that require support are the children because they are currently not equal: they aren't adults, they can't support themselves and they certainly didn't choose to be born into a family where their parents don't want to be married anymore.

[Vasilisa]

But if everybody was happy when a woman stayed at home - a husband was coming home to a clean and nice house, hot dinner, kids were raised by Mom, not by some kind of facility - who are we to judge?
Why do you think that taking care of the house and kids is less work than holding a job? A woman can be a responsible adult and a full-time Mom at the same time.
Yes, STUFF costs money, but some people choose well-being of their kids over stuff.
And if a woman has ,say, 3 or 4 kids - she should go and work any way, just so her kids could have more stuff?
And in full honesty I disagree with all this equality stuff. Men and women are equal as human beings but not the same. Women are weaker physically and do not have men's stamina, and do not have that much drive for climbing up the social ladder; but they are stronger in social relationships, able to be more compassionate and multitask.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Vasilisa

But if everybody was happy when a woman stayed at home - a husband was coming home to a clean and nice house, hot dinner, kids were raised by Mom, not by some kind of facility - who are we to judge?
Why do you think that taking care of the house and kids is less work than holding a job? A woman can be a responsible adult and a full-time Mom at the same time.
Yes, STUFF costs money, but some people choose well-being of their kids over stuff.
And if a woman has ,say, 3 or 4 kids - she should go and work any way, just so her kids could have more stuff?
And in full honesty I disagree with all this equality stuff. Men and women are equal as human beings but not the same. Women are weaker physically and do not have men's stamina, and do not have that much drive for climbing up the social ladder; but they are stronger in social relationships, able to be more compassionate and multitask.

nobody says it isn't a hard job but in the end you are making that decision to stay at home. No one is holding you at gun point and forcing you to stay at home to do this work. And the reality is that in most home, both partners work and the house is still maintained.

As for the 3 or 4 kids and getting the kids more stuff, I'm not a slave to material possessions and I don't spoil my kids although they have plenty. If you are slave to material possessions and need to have more stuff, go to work, earn the money to buy more "stuff".

As for the women being physically weaker, that's a tough call. I think overall you may be right but I know alot of women who can hold their own against many men so I'm not too worried about that. As for drive in climbing the social ladder, I'm sorry to call you on that but I think you're wrong, I think women have just a strong a drive to climb that social ladder (or corporate ladder if that's what you were referring too), many women can & do attain jobs that alot of men would wish for.

FYI - men can be just as compassionate and can multi-task very well also. That is just a stereotype. As far as the compassion, since 70-75% of divorces are initiated by women, how compassionate could this group of divorcees possibly be. Also since the divorces are for the most part being initiated by women, they aren't choosing the well-being of their children, most children would want their parents to stay together. And recent studies (including longest study completed in north america on this subject) show that there adverse effects on children who have divorced parents, more so than children who live in homes where their parents don't get along.

All I'm saying is that spousal support is a very old idea whose time is passing, the courts are now very careful not to provide lengthy spousal support arrangements. This isn't the 50s, 60s or 70s where stay at home spouses were very common. It's 2008 nearing the end of the 1st decade of the new millenium, it's time for equality to really mean equality and having to be an adult and support yourself when you want out of a marriage.

[Vasilisa]

Well, I still think that women are weaker and gentler gender , but
I have doubts about a spousal support too. Say, if a woman is still young and has been with a man for a short period of time and still able join a working force, I don't see a reason for her to get anything from her ex. She is like you said a responsible adult.
But if she has been with her husband for many years, raising kids and taking care of the household and now is too old or too sick to get a decent job, then she shouldn't suffer alone for the decision she and her husband made together.
If a husband doesn't want to pay a spousal support later, why not to send a wife to work when they are married? Nobody held the gun to his head when he agreed on her staying at home, right?

As for women being as strong and driven as men in my opinion they are like that because they either don't trust men and want to be as independent as possible or they just can't find a decent man who will help them to feel their true nature, their feminity. Again it's my personal opinion. I know it's not popular nowadays.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by robc

I kind of get the message of what you're saying but I'll hold you to a few points:



The husband & wife also jointly decided to get married I'm assuming.
If they can break that decision, then you have to assume that you're breaking other decisions you made together and unfortunately there are consequences for that decision. If you break one, technically you shouldn't still receive benefits from a relationship that is no longer in place. A parent that is a stay-at-home parent is still making that decision to stay at home, no one is forced to do anything in this world as evidenced by the decision to divorce. I think if you really want to get rid of the nastiness involved with divorce, you need to seriously consider letting go of the other person financially.

Ok, a point I think I meant to make and didn't was that the spousal support should be if the working spouse was the one who decided to divorce. If the one without a job decided to divorce then they would have to deal with it. Also all of my "arguments" assume either could be the working spouse and either the stay-at-home and also that either could decide to divorce. Maybe you still disagree but I wanted to clear that up.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by robc

It's also despicable how alot of men commit suicide because they feel so overwhelmed by a system that sucks them dry financially for spousal & child support and no one seems to take notice of the statistics that divorced men are dropping like flies.

Majority custody is also an issue. Unless in a situation where one parent doesn't want joint custody of their children, it should just be assumed that parents have joint custody of the children. As it stands, it's currently assumed that the mother will have full custody and the father will have visitation. Why is that even an option? Why was it decided that the mother have full custody? Why isn't joint custody the normal standard instead of being an option? Those are questions that should be asked.

The thing is that most of the men I personally know don't want 50/50 custody. They see it as a new freedom to go out and do whatever they want without the responsibility. However, assuming both parents want custody and both are fit parents, then yes, it should be 50/50. If you have 50/50 custody then no, there is no need for either side to pay child support. I do think that if one parent has the ability to get health insurance through their work they should do it rather than the other parent have to pay for exorbitant rates. Things like that. If one makes more money, it would be nice to help out with things for the kids in my opinion.

Originally Posted by robc

Plus it's 2008, if you're an adult, don't make excuses about being a stay-at-home parent or having only a part-time job. Those are decisions you make and there are consequences for those decisions. You need to work full-time to pay the bills, mortgage/rent, etc. If you choose not to work or to only work part-time, expect problems when paying bills. I didn't make this rule, stuff costs money, you need money to buy stuff, if you need money, you have to work. Don't blame it on a marriage that has gone sour. If you blame anything else other than yourself, you're using it as a crutch for your current situation and that means you've released yourself from any responsibility and that doesn't fly. In this life you have both power & responsibility over your actions. If you choose not to act, you choose not to exercise your power but the responsibility of that choice is still yours, no one elses.

Sure, I understand all of that. And I agree. However the fact of the matter is that whichever parent stayed home (which is a joint decision) gave up a lot of earning potential in order to benefit the family. I am certainly not saying that they should be coddled, but it will be a lot harder to enter the workforce at a level that will enable them to support a household with children. I am not implying that they be allowed to NOT WORK!! If that is what you thought then I apologize for not being clearer. Once the divorce happens you are both going to have to work full-time and maybe then some. But the parent who has been consistently employed is going to have an easier time. I am sure I have more to say, but I'll see how you respond to this much first.

Originally Posted by robc

There should be no sliding scale. Both parents should retain equal custody of the children, provide for them according to their means and make no excuses about it. When you divorce, you choose to be a single parent with kids instead of a family, if you can't be a single parent with kids without support from your ex-spouse, you are pretty much telling the world you can't hack it as a single person and still need your spouse for certain things & support, you just don't need them for marriage.

If both parents are fit and want equal custody, then a lot of what you are saying makes sense. However, I still maintain that if you want what's best for your children and one parent is struggling then you will contribute more to the benefit of your children. And just so we are clear this goes both ways -- whether the man or woman initiates divorce, and whether the man or woman has a better job. No matter what the kids shouldn't be the ones to suffer in my opinion.

Originally Posted by robc

If men & women are to be considered equal, treatment should be equal across the board, and not more "equal" in some areas for some of us and not for others. If you need support from your spouse although you choose to divorce, you are not equal. If you choose to remain unemployed or work only part-time because that's how it was in your marriage before you got divorced while you ex-spouse has to continue working full-time to support you, you are not equal. If you want to be equal, really be equal and stop making excuses for your situation, let go of the crutch. Stand on your own 2 feet.

The only people in this equation that require support are the children because they are currently not equal: they aren't adults, they can't support themselves and they certainly didn't choose to be born into a family where their parents don't want to be married anymore.

I think I've addressed this above when I made it clear I wasn't talking about continuing to be unemployed or work part time, I was merely stating that the parent who's been unemployed will not be able to earn as much and that the children, not they, might need extra support from the higher earning parent. I do want to be equal and I would never try to be unemployed as a singe parent if I had kids, nor would I expect to be able to work part time after a divorce and rely on support from my ex to make up the difference. If that was the impression you got, it was sorely mistaken.

[Angela]

The choice to stay home and take care of the kids is often the partnership's choice, not just the one spouse's. For instance, sometimes the cost of hiring childcare is more than the parent's earning capability. So out of economic necessity, one person stays home to take care of the kid (let's call this person, "the mom" -- but of course it could just as easily be the dad).

So The Mom, for the benefit of the Partnership, takes on the more than full-time job of child care, and whether it's her preference or not, her value on the job market is stunted. Ten years later, a divorce happens -- the partnership is no longer working for either or both of the original partners, let alone the newer recruits. The dad's earning power in those ten years has grown. The Mom has in the meanwhile been economically devalued, but for ten years she has contributed to the inherent value of the partnership, providing real and actual support to the Dad and to the Kids. Ideally, she will continue to provide value to the Dad by supporting (in ways other than economically) their kids until she dies. Although the Partnership has been terminated, the effects and responsibilities of the partnership continue. Just as her responsibilities, the ones that were put into effect by that old partnership decision, continue long after the marriage ends, so do the Dad's -- the old decision impacted the entire family and continues to do so. The Dad, by helping the Mom financially after the marriage ends, is acting in good faith to support the well-being of himself -- by supporting her in supporting her kids in the non-economic ways. A family doesn't stop operating, and all the choices made during a marriage, don't become instantly invalidated because of a divorce.

And I'm not saying The Dad should pay the Mom's bills for the rest of her life. I do think he has a responsibility (and it's in his and his children's best interest) to minimize the negative effects she incurs in the marketplace because of the old decision made by the partnership. They're still a family.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Thank you Angela. Just look at what she said for a much more eloquent description of what I actaully was trying so clumsily to say!

[xyz]

Missing, you said:
>>>>>>>>
well like I said to vasalisa it's more about cause and effect than blame. I would say women entering the workforce has caused our economic troubles today. It's certainly not the only factor, but it's huge nonetheless and often ignored. Some think that we don't need to discuss it because we "figured it out" but really we've just pushed the problems elsewhere and we'll keep doing that until there is nowhere left to push them. So how far did the dollar drop in value today?
>>>>>>>>

According to you what caused "The Great Depression (1929-1939)"? Feminism?

ROBC, you said:
>>>>>>>>>
If men & women are to be considered equal, treatment should be equal across the board, and not more "equal" in some areas for some of us and not for others. If you need support from your spouse although you choose to divorce, you are not equal. If you choose to remain unemployed or work only part-time because that's how it was in your marriage before you got divorced while you ex-spouse has to continue working full-time to support you, you are not equal. If you want to be equal, really be equal and stop making excuses for your situation, let go of the crutch. Stand on your own 2 feet.
>>>>>>>>>

Fine. Perfect. Absolutely right. I agree with you 100% and Angela has already written about it. There is something called depreciation. And it doesn't happen with inanimate objects only.

Then RBC, you say
>>>>>>>>>
It's also despicable how alot of men commit suicide because they feel so overwhelmed by a system that sucks them dry financially for spousal & child support and no one seems to take notice of the statistics that divorced men are dropping like flies.
>>>>>>>>>
I will repeat the same things you are preaching to the women. Get up on your 2 feet and fight these suicidal tendencies. Don't hide behind the crutches of "system" and "social conditioning." Nobody has granted more rights to women on a platter. No one will grant you these rights as freebies.

[missing]

what caused the great depression according to me? I'm guessing it had something to do with the rapid materialist excess of the "roaring 20's". Feminism definitely got a strong foothold during this time, but only became a major cultural force decades later when a number of other things created the conditions for it to take off, once the depression and war were over with. For example I don't think feminism could have happened if not for the mass media, which didn't really exist in the 20's, at least not anywhere near the way it did in the 50's. Also, the 60's rebellion was in large part a reaction to the oppressive conservative 50's, which was largely based upon fear; fear of poverty and war, both which were sealed into the consciousness of the so called "greatest generation", but not their children, the baby boomers (or as I like to call them, the "worst generation"). You could say reacting to this was a good thing, and it probably was, but the boomers in their indulgence took it WAY TOO FAR.

of course this is just my take, these things are complex and I'm far from an expert. But I find the history taught in our education system is downright atrocious (well, that's education in general but that's a different topic...)

[robc]

Originally Posted by xyz

Then RBC, you say
>>>>>>>>>
It's also despicable how alot of men commit suicide because they feel so overwhelmed by a system that sucks them dry financially for spousal & child support and no one seems to take notice of the statistics that divorced men are dropping like flies.
>>>>>>>>>
I will repeat the same things you are preaching to the women. Get up on your 2 feet and fight these suicidal tendencies. Don't hide behind the crutches of "system" and "social conditioning." Nobody has granted more rights to women on a platter. No one will grant you these rights as freebies.

- The high rate of male suicide attempts & successes after divorce is attributed to the stress of trying to support themselves financially after they are sucked dry by alimony & child support payments and dealing with the stress of separation, divorce, limited access to his children and still working full-time to support his family.

I know personally of a friend that had 4 daughters and was married for 10 years to his wife. They divorced and he had to pay $400 per child in support every month along with $800 alimony monthly as well. $2400 per month in support payments, and I don't think he cleared more than $3200 per month (that's net after taxes, not gross) from his job. He was left to live on $800 per month - it was impossible for him to live, he tried fighting it, went back to court, pleaded his case and still never won. After legal fees, selling his family home, his vehicle, several months later the money was all gone, he felt he couldn't turn to anyone else and couldn't handle the poverty he was forced into. What he did to himself was horrible, he should have pursued counselling but in his mental state he wasn't thinking right. Now his young children have no father and they'll learn the story of what happened to him when they're adults. His ex-wife is extremely depressed about it too. At the time of divorce, she was extremely angry with him, she had committed adultery and although they tried to reconcile, the trust was gone and arguments filled up their daily interaction with one another. Thankfully he did have a life insurance policy that he had never changed the beneficiaries listed: his wife & children, so they still have some money while she attempts to get full time employment.

- He got up on his own 2 feet and then some, he worked hard to support his family. It broke his heart when his wife cheated on him but he still loved her and tried to make it work afterwards. He loved his children too. He became so depressed by the cheating, the separation, the divorce, the limited access to his children, the scheduled visitation and the stupid support payments that he couldn't handle his reality anymore. He felt his only release was to do the unthinkable. His spirit was broken, he felt he had no way to improve his situation and he was simply overwhelmed by the entire situation, the free counselling service that was provided by his employer didn't work, the anti-depressants didn't help and IMO probably made things worse for him.

He stood up on his 2 feet, he just felt that the weight of the world and his problems were too much to deal with and after a while he was brought down to his knees and couldn't deal with his life anymore - he believed he was a failure. I know he loved his girls very much and he also loved his wife very much too regardless of what she did (he also hoped she would change her mind, leave the other man and take him back), I just wish he had loved himself enough to ask for help before he did what he did.

This is an example from the male point of view on how divorce and it's effects are so harmful that the suicide rate attempts & successes are so high with divorced men. This isn't unique either.

[Developer7]

Originally Posted by theknightwhosaysni-NI

Hello Amadeus,

Here is how I read your post :
You believe that you will be seen as a "deadbeat dad" when in reality the person who is "guilty" in this case is your wife. She is the one who's leaving, she is the one who did not keep her commitment.
All you are doing is be a loving husband so it is very unfair that she leaves you and you will be the one seen as a deadbeat dad.

Is this what you think ?

Well thinking this way will not help you. I think that with such a mindset it's normal that your wife leaves you, and she is very courageous to do so.
Making her feel guilty will not help at all !

Making your wife attracted to you is part of your function as a husband.
If she feels bad around you why the hell would she want to stay near you.
You think that because she leaves you she should feel bad, I see it the other way round actually : it's because she feels bad near you that she leaves you.

Seeing you as a victim from your wife is a way to communicate to her :"You should feel guilty about your emotions". How can she feel guilty about what she feels?

That said, I think that it is possible to make your wife attracted to you again but that would require more work on your side than on hers.

That's what I read in your post...sorry if it sounds harsh just take it as a personal opinion.

All the best to you

You are cold and rude. You don't know Amadeus's situation nor his wife. He is upset that his wife is leaving him and you are being harsh? Its job to keep her? This is a very very unhealthy statement...

Why don't you ask Amadeus if he asked her to go to counciling and see if she was willing to or not?

You really should apologize to Amadeus.

[Developer7]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

Ok, this thread is basically a woman-hating man cave of opinions so I'm out. Have fun festering, dudes.

Jennifer

If men seem to have pent up frustrations maybe you should analyze why...

Movies, TV and society always paint the man as being the irresponsible fool. Its not politically correct to show that woman and men are 50/50 in responsible and also in blame for failure in society.

Men & Women are both holding on to the past. Many men are still looking for that hot meal and house cleaning even when the women works full time and many women are still expecting the chivalrous man to open the door and pay for the meal.

At the end of the day Amadeus will most likely get treated as a second class citizen in divorce court unless his wife has major issues.

In today's world its OK to call guys "Pigs" "Dogs" or to in general demean them in society. Guys are to be the strong ones that can take it... There is a double standard running both ways in today's society. Its just not PC for guys to speak out.

I'm not saying that women are to blame. Its really a 50/50 thing but its just OK for women to speak out and not OK for guys...

Jennihul just isn't used to hearing the guy's side (no matter how wrong or bias the guys side may be). Only in the confines of a blog site can guys vent their side. Maybe some go overboard to counter balance the scales.