Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
Yep, a woman should be able to financially shaft her ex husband years after their divorce because she may feel more scared to walk alone at night than a man.
Plus the other things I mentioned.
You seem to have an amazing pair of glasses on to have only been able to read and comprehend not even the first, but ONLY the second point on my list!
Either that, or you're cherry-picking one thing here to try and make my argument seem totally absurd, but I'm sure a reasonable person wouldn't do that.
Out of interest, are there any cases where the husband gets maintenance from the wife? Surely there must be?
A friend of mine brought up the kids whilst his wife worked. When they divorced he got the maintenance.
The reason why it's nearly always the woman who gets the maintenance is because they are nearly always the lowest earner, if an earner at all. Sometimes they don't earn anything because they've stayed at home to bring up the kids. Sometimes they don't earn anything because the husband earns so much anything they brought in to the household would be almost pointless so perhaps they sit on the boards of charities or do other worthwhile activities. Sometimes they don't earn anything because the husband earns so much and they're lazy, greedy feckers who'd rather shop and do lunch.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
Yep, a woman should be able to financially shaft her ex husband years after their divorce because she may feel more scared to walk alone at night than a man.
Plus the other things I mentioned.
You seem to have an amazing pair of glasses on to have only been able to read and comprehend not even the first, but ONLY the second point on my list!
Either that, or you're cherry-picking one thing here to try and make my argument seem totally absurd, but I'm sure a reasonable person wouldn't do that.
@PaddyP17 you're wasting your breath. Some people are irredeemable chauvinists, if not misogynists.
The odd thing here isn't about man or woman but that one party has to pay more many years later simply due to the financial stupidity of the other party. According to the article anyway.
I just used that point to highlight how I disagree with the whole post.
Some of the others listed may be injustices but still doesn't mean that this is ok or an acceptable trade off.
Correct. It is not okay.
And, maybe this one court case, which neither of us know the full details of, regarding a woman unfairly profiting from a divorce settlement, outweighs every point I listed above when it comes to respective male-female benefits.
But I don't think so, and I don't think many people do.
I'm curious as to what I've written is particularly disagreeable. ... Do you think men and women are on equal footing?
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
So.. what you're proposing is a system whereby men can be taxed for their "privilege" in a court of law via divorce proceedings? Many years after the initial - and already generous - settlement?
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
Yep, a woman should be able to financially shaft her ex husband years after their divorce because she may feel more scared to walk alone at night than a man.
Plus the other things I mentioned.
You seem to have an amazing pair of glasses on to have only been able to read and comprehend not even the first, but ONLY the second point on my list!
Either that, or you're cherry-picking one thing here to try and make my argument seem totally absurd, but I'm sure a reasonable person wouldn't do that.
@PaddyP17 you're wasting your breath. Some people are irredeemable chauvinists, if not misogynists.
How is it chauvinistic or misogynistic to think that this woman has well and truly taken the piss out of her husband, and in circumstances where she made a series of "unwise" decisions he shouldn't be left to pick up the pieces years later? (And, after he has already gavin her a considerable amount.)
In fact, I think it's a downright horrible and outdated thought to think that a woman must live off her husband. I'm sure that's exactly what the suffragettes had in mind; a world where women would continue to be "kept" by men.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
So.. what you're proposing is a system whereby men can taxed for their "privilege" in a court of law via divorce proceedings? Many years after the initial - and already generous - settlement?
Really?
Fucking lol.
What astounding mental gymnastics have you done to infer I've proposed any sort of system, or reform?
In fairness, I have derailed the thread by placing this case within the wider context of the various benefits afforded according to gender in society as a whole, but all I've done is point a few things out.
I'm not saying either thing is okay.
It's not okay for her to sponge off her ex-husband (as on the face of it, that's absolutely what it is).
Equally, the other stuff I've listed - the stuff that overwhelmingly benefits men - is not okay.
I think that overall though, men get the better cut of the deal (by some distance), and while this has slowly been eroded, I'd like to see more change.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
So.. what you're proposing is a system whereby men can taxed for their "privilege" in a court of law via divorce proceedings? Many years after the initial - and already generous - settlement?
Really?
Fucking lol.
What astounding mental gymnastics have you done to infer I've proposed any sort of system, or reform?
In fairness, I have derailed the thread by placing this case within the wider context of the various benefits afforded according to gender in society as a whole, but all I've done is point a few things out.
I'm not saying either thing is okay.
It's not okay for her to sponge off her ex-husband (as on the face of it, that's absolutely what it is).
Equally, the other stuff I've listed - the stuff that overwhelmingly benefits men - is not okay.
I think that overall though, men get the better cut of the deal (by some distance), and while this has slowly been eroded, I'd like to see more change.
That's precisely what you did.
You seemed to justify this settlement in the form of the perceived injustices that women go through. i.e You justified this legal charge on a man's property and finances - something akin to a tax - and justified it based upon the perceived privileges that he possesses and she does not.
Please don't be so disingenuous as to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
Whilst it's noble to want to see more change, I'd argue it's our generation that are going to see the real benefit of the changes that have been placed before us, so I can't say I particularly agree with many of your points and I'm not entirely sure what else should be done.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
So.. what you're proposing is a system whereby men can taxed for their "privilege" in a court of law via divorce proceedings? Many years after the initial - and already generous - settlement?
Really?
Fucking lol.
What astounding mental gymnastics have you done to infer I've proposed any sort of system, or reform?
In fairness, I have derailed the thread by placing this case within the wider context of the various benefits afforded according to gender in society as a whole, but all I've done is point a few things out.
I'm not saying either thing is okay.
It's not okay for her to sponge off her ex-husband (as on the face of it, that's absolutely what it is).
Equally, the other stuff I've listed - the stuff that overwhelmingly benefits men - is not okay.
I think that overall though, men get the better cut of the deal (by some distance), and while this has slowly been eroded, I'd like to see more change.
That's precisely what you did.
You seemed to justify this settlement in the form of the perceived injustices that women go through. i.e You justified this legal charge on a man's property and finances - something akin to a tax - and justified it based upon the perceived privileges that he possesses and she does not.
Please don't be so disingenuous as to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
Whilst it's noble to want to see more change, I'd argue it's our generation that are going to see the real benefit of the changes that have been placed before us, so I can't say I particularly agree with many of your points and I'm not entirely sure what else should be done.
Indeed. I don't see how cherry-picking certain statistics regarding the general case justifies what most people believe to be an individual injustice. That's like saying just because the general case of British military action in the Middle East, that justifies ISIS attacks on British individuals.
Also, LOL at the Bechdel test, which was originally conceived as a joke, which has now been hijacked by SJWs who think that it is a serious metric of gender inequality.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
So.. what you're proposing is a system whereby men can taxed for their "privilege" in a court of law via divorce proceedings? Many years after the initial - and already generous - settlement?
Really?
Fucking lol.
What astounding mental gymnastics have you done to infer I've proposed any sort of system, or reform?
In fairness, I have derailed the thread by placing this case within the wider context of the various benefits afforded according to gender in society as a whole, but all I've done is point a few things out.
I'm not saying either thing is okay.
It's not okay for her to sponge off her ex-husband (as on the face of it, that's absolutely what it is).
Equally, the other stuff I've listed - the stuff that overwhelmingly benefits men - is not okay.
I think that overall though, men get the better cut of the deal (by some distance), and while this has slowly been eroded, I'd like to see more change.
That's precisely what you did.
You seemed to justify this settlement in the form of the perceived injustices that women go through. i.e You justified this legal charge on a man's property and finances - something akin to a tax - and justified it based upon the perceived privileges that he possesses and she does not.
Please don't be so disingenuous as to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
Whilst it's noble to want to see more change, I'd argue it's our generation that are going to see the real benefit of the changes that have been placed before us, so I can't say I particularly agree with many of your points and I'm not entirely sure what else should be done.
Okay. Now I see what you mean, I can understand your interpretation of what I wrote, which was not my intention whatsoever. I probably shouldn't have been so belligerent in my phrasing.
I didn't mean to justify the settlement. I think it's unfair, too. Indeed, I also think that I assumed he inherently had privilege - while I do think that is the case (and I'm sure many disagree), I acknowledge there are exceptions to said privilege, and this case looks like an exception.
What I meant to do was point out that getting het up about this one case, in isolation, is a little short-sighted in a wider societal context.
Fair enough to disagree - I think there's more that can be done, but there you have it.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
So.. what you're proposing is a system whereby men can taxed for their "privilege" in a court of law via divorce proceedings? Many years after the initial - and already generous - settlement?
Really?
Fucking lol.
What astounding mental gymnastics have you done to infer I've proposed any sort of system, or reform?
In fairness, I have derailed the thread by placing this case within the wider context of the various benefits afforded according to gender in society as a whole, but all I've done is point a few things out.
I'm not saying either thing is okay.
It's not okay for her to sponge off her ex-husband (as on the face of it, that's absolutely what it is).
Equally, the other stuff I've listed - the stuff that overwhelmingly benefits men - is not okay.
I think that overall though, men get the better cut of the deal (by some distance), and while this has slowly been eroded, I'd like to see more change.
That's precisely what you did.
You seemed to justify this settlement in the form of the perceived injustices that women go through. i.e You justified this legal charge on a man's property and finances - something akin to a tax - and justified it based upon the perceived privileges that he possesses and she does not.
Please don't be so disingenuous as to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
Whilst it's noble to want to see more change, I'd argue it's our generation that are going to see the real benefit of the changes that have been placed before us, so I can't say I particularly agree with many of your points and I'm not entirely sure what else should be done.
Indeed. I don't see how cherry-picking certain statistics regarding the general case justifies what most people believe to be an individual injustice. That's like saying just because the general case of British military action in the Middle East, that justifies ISIS attacks on British individuals.
Also, LOL at the Bechdel test, which was originally conceived as a joke, which has now been hijacked by SJWs who think that it is a serious metric of gender inequality.
It's similar to the Big Mac Index, I suppose, in that it started tongue-in-cheek but now does provide a not-unreasonable metric for something.
Again, I didn't mean to justify this individual case, and I see that what I said was in fact quite ambiguous in this regard.
When i got divorced myself and my ex and a full and final settlement, meaning we could not go back years later and ask for anymore...i know she would now if she could as her life as basically stagnated and mine hasnt.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
Yep, a woman should be able to financially shaft her ex husband years after their divorce because she may feel more scared to walk alone at night than a man.
Plus the other things I mentioned.
You seem to have an amazing pair of glasses on to have only been able to read and comprehend not even the first, but ONLY the second point on my list!
Either that, or you're cherry-picking one thing here to try and make my argument seem totally absurd, but I'm sure a reasonable person wouldn't do that.
@PaddyP17 you're wasting your breath. Some people are irredeemable chauvinists, if not misogynists.
EH ?????????
So @AddicksAddict you are accusing me of chauvinism and misogyny because I don't correlate this divorce case with the points PaddyP17 has brought up ?
I am not disagreeing with those points or dismissing their individual validity, I am arguing they are irrelevant to this particular case/thread.
But maybe I am wasting my breath, as some people will always have a kneejerk reaction and not read a post correctly.
I don't think this is about gender so much as lawyers and lawyering. She got a good one.
When I divorced, there was no settlement, no legal anything. Much more emotionally healthy that way. She got the dog, which was fine, and my dad's bass guitar, which still rankles a bit
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
So.. what you're proposing is a system whereby men can taxed for their "privilege" in a court of law via divorce proceedings? Many years after the initial - and already generous - settlement?
Really?
Fucking lol.
What astounding mental gymnastics have you done to infer I've proposed any sort of system, or reform?
In fairness, I have derailed the thread by placing this case within the wider context of the various benefits afforded according to gender in society as a whole, but all I've done is point a few things out.
I'm not saying either thing is okay.
It's not okay for her to sponge off her ex-husband (as on the face of it, that's absolutely what it is).
Equally, the other stuff I've listed - the stuff that overwhelmingly benefits men - is not okay.
I think that overall though, men get the better cut of the deal (by some distance), and while this has slowly been eroded, I'd like to see more change.
That's precisely what you did.
You seemed to justify this settlement in the form of the perceived injustices that women go through. i.e You justified this legal charge on a man's property and finances - something akin to a tax - and justified it based upon the perceived privileges that he possesses and she does not.
Please don't be so disingenuous as to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
Whilst it's noble to want to see more change, I'd argue it's our generation that are going to see the real benefit of the changes that have been placed before us, so I can't say I particularly agree with many of your points and I'm not entirely sure what else should be done.
Okay. Now I see what you mean, I can understand your interpretation of what I wrote, which was not my intention whatsoever. I probably shouldn't have been so belligerent in my phrasing.
I didn't mean to justify the settlement. I think it's unfair, too. Indeed, I also think that I assumed he inherently had privilege - while I do think that is the case (and I'm sure many disagree), I acknowledge there are exceptions to said privilege, and this case looks like an exception.
What I meant to do was point out that getting het up about this one case, in isolation, is a little short-sighted in a wider societal context.
Fair enough to disagree - I think there's more that can be done, but there you have it.
Then what makes you say that?
The concept of "privilege" is becoming nothing more than a way of silencing or belittling the concerns of those that a certain section of society don't agree with, and itd often backed up by dubious - at best - statistics.
I'll give you an example - you mention inequalities in salary. Mysteriously, these inequalities seem to disappear when you factor in the gender breakdown of specific industries - funnily enough certain industries pay less and are female dominated, then the average female salary is reduced. It's just maths.
So how do you fix that? To an extent you encourage schoolgirls to look towards more well paid sectors, STEM being the obvious one. But that's happening, and as I say, our generation will be the first to reap that benefit.
That's just a deeper examination of your first point.
If it exists though, then what are you doing about it?
This is the biggest issue I have, and although I'm quoting you - I'm not actually aiming at this at you. I know full well that you do a lot for good causes, and I remember being truly humbled by your recent charity thread.
Too many people yell about privilege though, and then they go on a march or sign a petition and think they've actually done something.
In actual fact, you can fight against those injustices by... simply employing common sense and being a decent human being, no virtue signalling and no drama.
As an example, after months of arguing with recruiting agents and a HR department, I managed to get a relatively large company to strip out names and genders when recruiting software developers. I didn't do it for any other reason that it was common sense.
In another office, I was shocked to see a Muslim gentleman awkwardly praying in a stairwell. After a brief chat with HR and Facilities, I was able to get him access to the room booking software, on the provision he would have a private space to pray. I didn't do it for any other reason than it was being a decent human being.
These experiences have shown me that people are accommodating and will do the right thing, worst case scenario is it will simply take a nudge in the right direction.
If you genuinely feel that modern day Britain is a place where disadvantage is dished out based upon gender then I feel quite sorry for you, as that's a depressing notion to have about the country you live in. I would also urge you never to look further abroad though.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
So.. what you're proposing is a system whereby men can taxed for their "privilege" in a court of law via divorce proceedings? Many years after the initial - and already generous - settlement?
Really?
Fucking lol.
What astounding mental gymnastics have you done to infer I've proposed any sort of system, or reform?
In fairness, I have derailed the thread by placing this case within the wider context of the various benefits afforded according to gender in society as a whole, but all I've done is point a few things out.
I'm not saying either thing is okay.
It's not okay for her to sponge off her ex-husband (as on the face of it, that's absolutely what it is).
Equally, the other stuff I've listed - the stuff that overwhelmingly benefits men - is not okay.
I think that overall though, men get the better cut of the deal (by some distance), and while this has slowly been eroded, I'd like to see more change.
That's precisely what you did.
You seemed to justify this settlement in the form of the perceived injustices that women go through. i.e You justified this legal charge on a man's property and finances - something akin to a tax - and justified it based upon the perceived privileges that he possesses and she does not.
Please don't be so disingenuous as to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
Whilst it's noble to want to see more change, I'd argue it's our generation that are going to see the real benefit of the changes that have been placed before us, so I can't say I particularly agree with many of your points and I'm not entirely sure what else should be done.
Indeed. I don't see how cherry-picking certain statistics regarding the general case justifies what most people believe to be an individual injustice. That's like saying just because the general case of British military action in the Middle East, that justifies ISIS attacks on British individuals.
Also, LOL at the Bechdel test, which was originally conceived as a joke, which has now been hijacked by SJWs who think that it is a serious metric of gender inequality.
It's similar to the Big Mac Index, I suppose, in that it started tongue-in-cheek but now does provide a not-unreasonable metric for something.
Again, I didn't mean to justify this individual case, and I see that what I said was in fact quite ambiguous in this regard.
Surprising films that pass the Bechdel test:
Sharknado Snakes on a Plane Sucker Punch (Girls forced into prostitution get through it by daydreaming about beating up robot ninjas while in their underwear) I Know Who Killed Me (a nothing film built around a scene where Lindsay Lohan performs an extended pole dance. Or is it two Lindsay Lohans? I forget) Transformers (Megan Fox draped over a car of course being the most lovingly crafted scene) The Hills Have Eyes (the film with the long, drawn out on-camera rape of a female character)
Conversely, Citizen Kane fails it, the sexist twaddle. Also, Face/Off fails it, which is unacceptable because Face/Off is the best.
Also, LOL at the Bechdel test, which was originally conceived as a joke, which has now been hijacked by SJWs who think that it is a serious metric of gender inequality.
Aww Fiiish, you're veering dangerously towards Milo-fanboy territory with the SJW cobblers. You'll be calling people cucks next. :
Personally I'm disgusted that she is looking for another handout on the back of some poor personal decisions that have affected her pocket - and she still hasn't found a mug willing to support her so goes for the easy option.
That story is SO poorly written. No idea what the timeline is or why he should have to have ever given her any money. On the information given, that verdict is an utter disgrace.
Comments
You seem to have an amazing pair of glasses on to have only been able to read and comprehend not even the first, but ONLY the second point on my list!
Either that, or you're cherry-picking one thing here to try and make my argument seem totally absurd, but I'm sure a reasonable person wouldn't do that.
Some of the others listed may be injustices but still doesn't mean that this is ok or an acceptable trade off.
The reason why it's nearly always the woman who gets the maintenance is because they are nearly always the lowest earner, if an earner at all. Sometimes they don't earn anything because they've stayed at home to bring up the kids. Sometimes they don't earn anything because the husband earns so much anything they brought in to the household would be almost pointless so perhaps they sit on the boards of charities or do other worthwhile activities. Sometimes they don't earn anything because the husband earns so much and they're lazy, greedy feckers who'd rather shop and do lunch.
I find it astonishing TBH,
And, maybe this one court case, which neither of us know the full details of, regarding a woman unfairly profiting from a divorce settlement, outweighs every point I listed above when it comes to respective male-female benefits.
But I don't think so, and I don't think many people do.
I'm curious as to what I've written is particularly disagreeable. ... Do you think men and women are on equal footing?
Really?
In fact, I think it's a downright horrible and outdated thought to think that a woman must live off her husband. I'm sure that's exactly what the suffragettes had in mind; a world where women would continue to be "kept" by men.
What astounding mental gymnastics have you done to infer I've proposed any sort of system, or reform?
In fairness, I have derailed the thread by placing this case within the wider context of the various benefits afforded according to gender in society as a whole, but all I've done is point a few things out.
I'm not saying either thing is okay.
It's not okay for her to sponge off her ex-husband (as on the face of it, that's absolutely what it is).
Equally, the other stuff I've listed - the stuff that overwhelmingly benefits men - is not okay.
I think that overall though, men get the better cut of the deal (by some distance), and while this has slowly been eroded, I'd like to see more change.
You seemed to justify this settlement in the form of the perceived injustices that women go through. i.e You justified this legal charge on a man's property and finances - something akin to a tax - and justified it based upon the perceived privileges that he possesses and she does not.
Please don't be so disingenuous as to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
Whilst it's noble to want to see more change, I'd argue it's our generation that are going to see the real benefit of the changes that have been placed before us, so I can't say I particularly agree with many of your points and I'm not entirely sure what else should be done.
Also, LOL at the Bechdel test, which was originally conceived as a joke, which has now been hijacked by SJWs who think that it is a serious metric of gender inequality.
I didn't mean to justify the settlement. I think it's unfair, too. Indeed, I also think that I assumed he inherently had privilege - while I do think that is the case (and I'm sure many disagree), I acknowledge there are exceptions to said privilege, and this case looks like an exception.
What I meant to do was point out that getting het up about this one case, in isolation, is a little short-sighted in a wider societal context.
Fair enough to disagree - I think there's more that can be done, but there you have it.
Again, I didn't mean to justify this individual case, and I see that what I said was in fact quite ambiguous in this regard.
So @AddicksAddict you are accusing me of chauvinism and misogyny because I don't correlate this divorce case with the points PaddyP17 has brought up ?
I am not disagreeing with those points or dismissing their individual validity, I am arguing they are irrelevant to this particular case/thread.
But maybe I am wasting my breath, as some people will always have a kneejerk reaction and not read a post correctly.
When I divorced, there was no settlement, no legal anything. Much more emotionally healthy that way. She got the dog, which was fine, and my dad's bass guitar, which still rankles a bit
The concept of "privilege" is becoming nothing more than a way of silencing or belittling the concerns of those that a certain section of society don't agree with, and itd often backed up by dubious - at best - statistics.
I'll give you an example - you mention inequalities in salary. Mysteriously, these inequalities seem to disappear when you factor in the gender breakdown of specific industries - funnily enough certain industries pay less and are female dominated, then the average female salary is reduced. It's just maths.
So how do you fix that? To an extent you encourage schoolgirls to look towards more well paid sectors, STEM being the obvious one. But that's happening, and as I say, our generation will be the first to reap that benefit.
That's just a deeper examination of your first point.
If it exists though, then what are you doing about it?
This is the biggest issue I have, and although I'm quoting you - I'm not actually aiming at this at you. I know full well that you do a lot for good causes, and I remember being truly humbled by your recent charity thread.
Too many people yell about privilege though, and then they go on a march or sign a petition and think they've actually done something.
In actual fact, you can fight against those injustices by... simply employing common sense and being a decent human being, no virtue signalling and no drama.
As an example, after months of arguing with recruiting agents and a HR department, I managed to get a relatively large company to strip out names and genders when recruiting software developers. I didn't do it for any other reason that it was common sense.
In another office, I was shocked to see a Muslim gentleman awkwardly praying in a stairwell. After a brief chat with HR and Facilities, I was able to get him access to the room booking software, on the provision he would have a private space to pray. I didn't do it for any other reason than it was being a decent human being.
These experiences have shown me that people are accommodating and will do the right thing, worst case scenario is it will simply take a nudge in the right direction.
If you genuinely feel that modern day Britain is a place where disadvantage is dished out based upon gender then I feel quite sorry for you, as that's a depressing notion to have about the country you live in. I would also urge you never to look further abroad though.
Sharknado
Snakes on a Plane
Sucker Punch (Girls forced into prostitution get through it by daydreaming about beating up robot ninjas while in their underwear)
I Know Who Killed Me (a nothing film built around a scene where Lindsay Lohan performs an extended pole dance. Or is it two Lindsay Lohans? I forget)
Transformers (Megan Fox draped over a car of course being the most lovingly crafted scene)
The Hills Have Eyes (the film with the long, drawn out on-camera rape of a female character)
Conversely, Citizen Kane fails it, the sexist twaddle. Also, Face/Off fails it, which is unacceptable because Face/Off is the best.
Truly a progressive form of masturbation: don't do it for yourself, do it for society.
increasing the £1,100 a month he pays to £1,1441