Are Men Going Their Own Way? (MGTOW)

I could be wrong on this one, so if I am I'll cop to it, but aren't you one of the "if you commit suicide, you deserved it for being weak anyhow" advocates?

If so, am I to then understand that it's different in this case because you can blame a woman instead?

No they marry guys for one of two reasons. First he was high enough status, at that time, that she felt the tingles and he was stupid enough to commit young. Second is she's nearing or right after 30, thinks he's a "nice decent enough guy" and marries him anyway.

Divorce on the other hand is almost universally for the same reason, she's no longer happy. In the first case, all that work building a profession left the guy drained and not doing the same fun stuff he did when they met, he no longer carries the same status and her attraction for him diminishes until eventually it disappears and you get deadbedroom. She hangs on awhile but eventually reads about or hears from her friends how amazing life is after divorce, which causes her to start planning one of her own and further distancing herself until one day she drops the bomb on him when he least expects or prepares for it. The second case, she was never really that happy to begin with but at least she wasn't single. The guy was kinda chubby or not particularly attractive and eventually she'll get bored and decide to jump ship.

Very few women marry men to divorce rape them, but when she hears how much her friends are getting, she is given a very strong incentive to not put in work and just jump ship when it's convenient. The statistics are what bear this trend out.

child support 2009




Maybe people are only remembering extreme cases, maybe those examples of parents paying 100% of their income have multiple children from different women, lots of children, or some other reason.

Who said I was blaming women for mens problems? Men are the idiots who gave them that power to begin with, and furthermore it's the idiotic white knight male feminists who enable the rest to continue with it. It's men who continue to marry, provide children to spoiled women and then cry after they are gutted in the process.

This is a mans problem, created by men and it needs to be solved by men. Women are a component of the problem but the source is emasculated men who thing it's normal to be acting like women with penis's.

Well, you're half right.

It is a man-created problem.

Society made women out to be weaker and unable to support themselves.

Law reflects society, provides for those weak, incapable women.

Women get angry at society for treating them as weaker.

Portion of society gets angry at women for taking what they're capable of taking under the laws they themselves made, blames it on women for daring to stick up for themselves rather than the poor societal construct that started the whole issue.

You're still filling in the rest of my personality with whatever motivations you want to. We're complaining about the risk, not the women. It doesn't matter if you marry the best person on the planet, the risk is still the same. Is it fair? Not in the least. I guess the only reason anyone could ever point that out is because they want to rule the world and make slaves of everyone.

Man, have you got me figured out.

I will continue to laugh out loud at you and your flailing attempt to pump up your fragile masculine ego by insulting others who are actually capable of processing their emotions.

This is how insanely stupid you are. Yes you are stupid.

Do you have any idea what the costs of living are for the area's where they pay you $250,000 USD salary? Do you know what a two bedroom one bath house would cost in DC, Orange County or anywhere decent in New York? And that's $250,000 before taxes, expect a ~25% loss just for those. $187,500 with a $5000 a month child support paying and $4,000 a month alimony. That's $87,500 left to live in an area where the average is much higher, congrats your now poor. You could move jobs to another location, but then that imputed income hits your still rated as though you were making $250,000 even though your now down to $150,000. At this point your obligations are nearly all of your disposable income, your down to the basics, one car, small rental apartment (can't afford another house) and eating walmart and costco groceries, even after you worked your a$$ off to become successful. She's taking your money and using it to "rediscover" herself, she's living a better lifestyle then you are even though you earned much more then her.

Me living and working outside the USA is actually a pay cut in raw salary, but due to tax benefits and low cost of living I make much more then I would stateside. Cost of living is a gigantic chunk of change and if that women can't provide for the children then she shouldn't be the one getting them.

I can't believe your this ignorant in how money works.

This like saying that driving a (sadly now defunct) Saab down the freeway at high speed carries the same risk as driving a Kawasaki Ninja down the freeway at high speed without a helmet and darting through traffic.

Though, in fairness, the same fragile masculinity causes men to do the latter that causes them to marry the first hot woman they can find that will agree to said proposal, so really it's the same backward, genetic rejects taking the same needless risks.

It's true. I know of several mid 30's coworkers who make some really nice change and use that as their strategy. Talking to them about it they break down the numbers on the costs per hour of a girlfriend vs what their time is worth and what just using prostitutes would be. High quality prostitutes end up being the cheapest option by far. I personally wont' go that route, why pay for something I can get for free, but I understand where they are coming from.

And now that you demonstrate you can't do anything other then attempt typical feminist male shaming tactics, off to the blist you go.

And here is the list of the most common shaming tactics employed by feminists and their white knights.

https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

After doing this so long shouldn't you guys be getting more creative.

Awwwww.

That's a damn shame.

Being poor in a situation not entirely of your own making must really *** suck.

*looks around much of America*

Yet here we are, among millions in that exact circumstance.

Suck it up, buttercup.

Stated by the exact same person who tries his *** off to insult and shame everyone he can with every post.

You're just adorable.

I guess complaining about how entitled some women are is secret speak for "let's stop teaching them to read and take their voting rights away".

Again the argument isn't largely over the amount, but over the fact that there are no checks in the system to make sure it's spent on the child and not on the exs own whims. In order to support the child he must financially fund his wife.

To the last point the system is setup to directly incentivize the mother to limit the fathers time with the children because they'll get a bigger check per month if they do.

Seriously, you're a joke.

I will fight for the right for women to tell me what to do !

The joke -- and it would be funnier if more families didn't suffer for it -- is the amount of deadbeat dads in America.

You two are rallying and raging for a percentage of a percent of the divorces in this country.

According to the IRS fewer than 3% of tax returns are for over $200,000.

Meanwhile you have actual divorces on a much more common level where the dad is high school educated, makes $35,000/yr, has weekend visitation that he utilizes sometimes, and still won't fork over the money to see that his kid can even afford proper dental care or make sure that the heat stays on. And chances are he isn't exactly the paragon of manliness you guys fancy yourselves, either.

You see you don't have to get married that is the beauty of America. You don't have to do what everyone else does...it's a new concept but I think it is catching on !

4.8% according to information released for 2009 tax year.

Would show you the link, but it's an excel file instead. Of which, 3,924,489 out of 81,890,189 returns are filed with AGI of $200k and greater.

So, hypothetically, you have custody of your children, your ex pays you child support... How would you feel about a government bean counter pouring through your finances every month to ensure that every dollar she sent you was spent exclusively on the kids right down to the percent of the electric and water they consumed? Would you expect credits returned for the local taxes you pay that support school and community programs? What about the money spent on insurance through an employer or savings designated for education? Anyone with multiple incomes, like any couple that both work, would have a hell of a time doing that, much less accounting for each share of anything that is pooled.

I'm curious how you would expect such a system to work, especially with your thoughts on government overreach and the cost of administering such a program.

May have been a different year. Was a quick google search.

Still. 4.8% is pretty tiny, especially when you consider the % of those getting divorced, then accounting for all the other factors. Compare that to the amount of people scraping by who need child support to see that the kids actually are cared for when the fathers don't even want to be in the picture.

We all know that a person in that position wouldn't give a rat's ***.

Besides, it wouldn't be a government employee who knows the difference between debit and credit, but some CPS agent who only care about screwing one party over another, depending on who they like and who they don't.

How about we stop giving mom's default custody to the point that when divorce happens, she doesn't get to automatically assume that she's just going to get money for her kids and might actually have to PAY the father to take care of them.

Can we start there? Can we stop incentivizing people to divorce in this way?

I think we can all agree as to why mothers tend to take the kids into custody more often than not automatically. While I'm not saying that men cannot take care of their children better, it has been a socially acceptable idea that mothers would nurture and alter their lives for the children far more than the fathers would.

Not to mention the children tend to default to maternal control when men don't seek custody.

This needs to change.

That's kind of the point of the OP. That men aren't marrying now and instead choosing to go it along and just do hook-up, ONS, casual relationships and other non-committal ways to go about their lives. It's got bad enough that a new term, "sperm jacking" has become a thing and guys are now having to make sure their condoms are being flushed or otherwise their sperm is being discarded rather then her use it to impregnate herself.

http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/02/26/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

There are other horror stories about women taking a mans sperm and getting pregnant, then later suing him for child support. The real horror isn't the theft of the sperm, which is bad enough to have your reproductive rights stolen, but that the legal system gets on the girls side and enables her to further steal money from her victim. It then forces the victim to pay the money under thread of incarceration.

The flip flop would be if a man drugged a girl, inserted his sperm into her vagina, forced her to carry through with the pregnancy, took the kid and then had the state force her to pay him money every month for eighteen years.

You are looking at centuries of social changes to happen before it does. This has been ingrained into our society for millennia.

And there are horror stories about things men do to women. But you dismiss them as "feminist lies". You're completely, absolutely, full of the most gigantic pile of escrements I've ever witnessed.

Everything bad that a woman does on a man: it's the norm.
Everything bad that a man does on a woman: feminist lies.

And you dare call yourself a rational and logical individual. Please.

It's actually a very new thing and has nothing to do with men not being able to care for their children. Statistically men actually do a better job then women do. Look up who the perpetrator of most child abuse is, it's not the man. Awhile back feminists argued that it was a horrible crime to take children away from their mothers and got primary caregiver policy's entered into laws, "for the children!". Previously children born during a marriage and thus presumed to be from the father would go with the father at divorce, unless he stated he didn't want or it was shown him to be incapable of taking care of them (the town drunk / ect..). Primary caregiver policys are those that state that since a child spends more of it's time with it's mother, that she should be the primary caregiver unless sufficient evidence could be presented that made her unfit to give care. It has since been determined that, due to child support, financial hardship is inadmissible for consideration, neither is previous medical history or child abuse. You've gotta have pictures of her taking drugs or some other hard evidence of her unfitness for the man to get custody, that or pray she doesn't want them.

Keep the emotional tantrums coming, they do far more to help my cause then anything I say would do.

Everything I've pointed out can be independently verified, and has been. You feminists are your own worst enemy, the harder you push, the most bullsh!t you shovel, the worse you look to those fence straddlers. The "sunday feminists" if you will. They are defecting in droves.