Post: #26

Yeah - maybe you have a point. The way some women jump from partner to partner does suggest their own happiness is more important than their children's. But - in this country - that seems to be associated more with the poorer classes. I am sure there may be a number of reasons why that is - it is hard to pick out the main one though.

With the more educated/richer classes - it still seems to me as if women's concern for their children is the most important thing to them. But then I only have a limited life experience on which to make that judgment from.

Post: #27

(02-19-2013 08:36 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:27 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Women are fundamentally selfish. I don't blame them for that since evolution has made them that way. Their children are more important to them than the rest of the world put together.

This is the blue pill belief that took me the longest to discard but ultimately I had to yield to reality. Of course there are good mothers. But generally, if it comes to conflict between a woman's own interests and those of her children, the hamster will kick in and she'll do what is best for herself but justify it as being best for everyone.

Yep. Everything she asks for she will say is for the welfare of the children. But you look at what some of the wives of wealthy men ask for, the exhorbitant sums for this and that, you know it ain't about the kids. He'll see that his kids get what they need - it's all about HER lifestyle. With the sums some of these bitches ask for, you'd have to ask, "What the fuck are you feeding the kids every day? Caviar, flown in daily from Russia?"

I recall one of Revlon CEO Ron Perelman's divorces, from Patricia Duff. She was one of those society types, and they had an ugly custody fight for their daughter. She naturally was asking for something like 5 figures a month for food for the kid. He balked of course, stating that when the kid was with him, he fed her for $5 a day at McDonald's! I'm sure he didn't take the kid to McDonald's for all of her meals, but it was to illustrate that what she was asking for was completely ridiculous. Because he was very wealthy, she thought it was perfectly fine to ask for an exhorbitant sum for just about everything.

Post: #28

(02-19-2013 08:10 PM)soup Wrote:  What is she going tell the judge? "I gave my hottest years to him, and now I can't find a man to financially support me because I'm old."

That just doesn't make sense in our times.

I think that would be a winning argument in divorce court.

Post: #29

(02-19-2013 04:33 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  It's the ol' "I must be supported in the manner in which I have become accustomed" spiel.

This just never ceases to amaze me. If you divorce someone, you are severing connections. You don't get the monetary benefits of being married, while not putting in the work--except in this fucked up world.
How the fuck can our system support this batshittery? Also fuck marriage. Useless institution.

Post: #30

im asuming he married in California, which is one of those states which after 10 years of marriage if you divorce its alimony for life. if shes collecting 900k a year you can bet she will never marry again. that means he will have to keep making movies til hes dead. poor bastard.

Post: #31

(02-19-2013 08:42 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Yeah - maybe you have a point. The way some women jump from partner to partner does suggest their own happiness is more important than their children's. But - in this country - that seems to be associated more with the poorer classes. I am sure there may be a number of reasons why that is - it is hard to pick out the main one though.

With the more educated/richer classes - it still seems to me as if women's concern for their children is the most important thing to them. But then I only have a limited life experience on which to make that judgment from.

Having children for alot of women is like getting married. You ever heard the saying about modern women that they're more interested in being Brides than Wives? They're also more interested in babies then kids. THe wedding is the fantasy, marriage is the reality. Babies are the fantasy, kids are the reality (esp. teenagers). Popping out babies is her shining moment, actually raising them takes the focus off her and on to them. Weddings and babies are singular events that vaildate a woman's existence. Weddings prove that she's worthy of commitment and investment, babies prove that she's sexually viable (of course this isn't at the forefront of her mind, but it's what subconsciously drives the desire for both); and since women's existence is pretty much predicated entirely on their part in reproduction, this is huge to them. In essence marriage and raising kids are not accomplishments, the wedding and the birth are. So once that validation is achieved, that's it for the most part. Also remember women are much more likely to kill their own kids (esp. when a new lover enters the picture). It's the animal inside them, don't blame them, just act accordingly.

Post: #32

I can't remember where I read it, but there is a simple proverb to remember when interpreting or expecting a woman's behaviour. Its middle eastern I think but it goes something like. "what does a woman want? Hot Ice" they will want the impossible, just because it is impossible. In modern times its 'career and family' or 'alpha in bed, beta when not' or 'stay at home mom, without having kids'

Even in my current LTR I love just yelling "Hot Ice!" when my girl makes a crazy demand, ignoring it and moving on with whatever I was doing.

Post: #33

(02-20-2013 01:36 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  Even in my current LTR I love just yelling "Hot Ice!" when my girl makes a crazy demand, ignoring it and moving on with whatever I was doing.

Stolen.

Post: #34

I always liked that quote. Although the version I read said 'fried ice'. Not sure which is better. Probably the 'hot ice!' if you are going to shout it.

Post: #35

900k a year.

That's just a mind-boggling figure.
I can't even imagine what my life would be like if someone said, "Here, have 900,000 a year for doing absolutely nothing." Let alone a judge with a straight face telling me, "You have to give someone else 900k a year for the rest of their life, so they can be doing nothing."

Post: #36

(02-19-2013 11:17 PM)bacon Wrote:  im asuming he married in California, which is one of those states which after 10 years of marriage if you divorce its alimony for life. if shes collecting 900k a year you can bet she will never marry again. that means he will have to keep making movies til hes dead. poor bastard.

According to the article, they filed in Connecticut.

Post: #37

This is so ridiculously unjust that even the Blue Pill-SWPL readers at Huffington Post have come down squarely on Fraser's side in the comment section of this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15...96756.html

Post: #38

(02-20-2013 09:05 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  This is so ridiculously unjust that even the Blue Pill-SWPL readers at Huffington Post have come down squarely on Fraser's side in the comment section of this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15...96756.html

Yep. With these articles about men not wanting to marry, women need to wise up and acknowledge just how fucked up this is. If the highest value/earning men look at this and decide not to marry, women are screwed. They can shout, "You go girl," when a woman gets a guy for this kind of alimony/child support, but who really wins? You destroy your family in the process. You destroy HIM financially, and the woman and the kids still get nothing. You can try to have him thrown in jail, and the back child support continues to accrue. But he still can't pay. All this because some lazy bitch doesn't want to work for a living? Doesn't want to scale back the lifestyle that someone else paid for? It's pure desperation on her part to claim that he's hiding money somewhere, because she wants to be supported, and is afraid her easy life is coming to an end.

Post: #39

Their comments don't even sound that blue pill. Its bizzaro time at the Huffy.

Post: #40

Women tend to want to have children quickly with a high value man, because that locks him in, AND guarantees her checks in the event of divorce. Most women, at least in their first marriages, want a family, so they I don't want to insinuate that women have kids just because it guarantees them money down the road. But they're quick to use those kids to get as much money for themselves as possible.

Post: #41

(02-20-2013 11:54 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  Women tend to want to have children quickly with a high value man, because that locks him in, AND guarantees her checks in the event of divorce. Most women, at least in their first marriages, want a family, so they I don't want to insinuate that women have kids just because it guarantees them money down the road. But they're quick to use those kids to get as much money for themselves as possible.

Not to mention an excuse to take an extended break off of work and generating another income for the family...least during the marriage short-term..and then as you mentioned the long-term prize.

Post: #42

(02-20-2013 06:54 PM)yb13 Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 11:54 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  Women tend to want to have children quickly with a high value man, because that locks him in, AND guarantees her checks in the event of divorce. Most women, at least in their first marriages, want a family, so they I don't want to insinuate that women have kids just because it guarantees them money down the road. But they're quick to use those kids to get as much money for themselves as possible.

Not to mention an excuse to take an extended break off of work and generating another income for the family...least during the marriage short-term..and then as you mentioned the long-term prize.

EXCELLENT point. Many "career" women are only career women until they land a man, then they "give up" that career to stay home and be supported. They have the kids more for themselves, as a means of securing the lifestyle they want, mainly a lifestyle that doesn't include them going to work anymore.