Men become richer after divorce??

Started by Tigerman, Apr 07, 2009, 05:36 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Tigerman

You have to hand it to the Guardian because it does very little to discourage the opinion that they are anything but even handed when dealing with sexual politics!
There is so much wrong with the article below that I hardly know where to start! When you look at the findings more closely you quickly begin to see the smoke and mirrors but of course this won't stop feminists from quoting the 'headline findings' as if that was then last word on the matter!! Anyway I am posting this because it is almost certain that MRA's are going to get this b\s directed against them whenever discussing divorce and related topics.

Men become richer after divorce

Please click the above link to read the whole article - I have not quoted any part of the article here because there are so many shifts of position that a selective quote could mislead a reader into thinking that covered all the bases that the whole article does.
Anyway even in the examples given at the end of the article there are glaring omissions of information that would  radically alter the point being made. This is just an example of deliberate pandering and misinformation but it is good for us to be alerted to these new 'tricks' as they arise. I hate the whack a mole game after having had to play it for so long but if the moles aren't whacked they will proliferate and spawn even more unpleasant 'moles'!  :BangHead: :angryfire:

neoteny

It is an out-and out propaganda piece, what with the 'researcher' pointing out the need for "fundamental changes" in men's and women's lives in order to conform better to what the State envisions as a desirable way of life for the citizens.
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

dr e

Oh boy.  Too many moles and not enough whackers!
Quote

Jenkins found that the positive effect on men's finances is so significant that divorce can even lift them out of poverty, while women are far more likely to be plunged into destitution. Separated women have a poverty rate of 27% - almost three times that of their former husbands.


This kind of crap is disgusting. No mention of the origins of those numbers or the "study" that may have given them this idea.  Neo hit it right when he said this is simply a propaganda piece.  More like poopaganda. 
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Tigerman


Oh boy.  Too many moles and not enough whackers!
Quote

Jenkins found that the positive effect on men's finances is so significant that divorce can even lift them out of poverty, while women are far more likely to be plunged into destitution. Separated women have a poverty rate of 27% - almost three times that of their former husbands.


This kind of crap is disgusting. No mention of the origins of those numbers or the "study" that may have given them this idea.  Neo hit it right when he said this is simply a propaganda piece.  More like poopaganda. 


I agree Dr E. This 'poopaganda' has now extended to the very government itself. Home Office statistics are now under the control of radical feminists as is blatantly obvious to anyone who have studied their reports on issues like DV and rape for example. A recent example of bias in practice is the new changes to laws regarding prostitution where a male punter could be prosecuted for engaging the services of a prostitute plying her 'trade' but not the prostitute herself? Where is the incentive for such prostitutes to get off the streets and find safer ways of working - answer there isn't one! If the government were serious about making life safer for women prostitutes it could start by outlawing soliciting on the streets whilst legalising brothels under a licensing system that also has minimum standards to be met for health and safety of both punters and puntees. Regulated brothels would enable adequate levels of health safety issues based standards to be met whilst providing revenue from the taxes and licensing that would most likely not only fund itself but also provide net contributions like the rest of us do from our own lawful but taxed employment. The trouble is such an idea whilst it does reduce the incentive for illegal operations in the 'business' and whilst it does have a practical and positive strategy for addressing health and safety issues for both punters and prostitutes it does reduce the scope for persecuting men for buying what some women are selling - a downside perhaps for the man haters in government!
I guess we can only hope that the Tory party doesn't get too infested with this pernicious and vicious feminism because if that happens then we will obviously have little hope for real change in a change of government where issues of sexual politics are concerned!

Kyo

I suspect that the numbers are true in a sense -- the man had to take on extra work to make all the alimony and "child" support payments that have to be sent to his ex-wife, and his ex-wife doesn't have to work full-time (but still lives as if she did) because she's getting money from the ex-huby.  And that money is counted as earnings for the man, not the woman!

So you might have a man who earns $40k but only keeps $15k because the rest goes to the ex-wife.  The ex-wife only earns $15k working part-time (so it looks like she's impoverished) but actually has $40k in hand because of all the money being transferred to her.  In reality, the man is destitute, but on the earnings tables, he's doing fine and the wife is dirt-poor.

Galt

Statistically, there is also money flowing from the wife's new guy to her (but statistically the other way around for the divorced man - if he has a girlfriend, usually net money is flowing to her). That's naturally also not counted in these kinds of "reports", but it could be substantial - enough for the woman to have a good standard of living, but to only show a little income.

outdoors

well,i am not richer.-i took all the debts(which were hers in the first place) in the payout-she took a clean start with no debts.
I wonder if this was a considered factor in the study?

Libertariandadd

I noticed also that there isnt a comments section. Obviously just the typical Guardians radcial agitprop.
'It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.' George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Cordell Walker

if men are so much richer after divorce, how come so many of em are in jail for money owed or  commit suicide
"how can you kill women and children?"---private joker
"Easy, ya just dont lead em as much" ---Animal Mother

Galt

Another thought:

These articles about "men becoming richer after divorce" always take a shaming position with regard to the man and a victim stance with regard to the woman.

Divorce means you split up, end station.

If the man becomes richer after divorce, good for him. He's probably working for his (own) money. Why should he be the object of shame? I can't see how this is anything else than trying to (once again) cast the woman as a victim in an attempt to extort yet more money out of men.

Galt

#10
Apr 07, 2009, 02:36 PM Last Edit: Apr 07, 2009, 02:48 PM by Galt
Why do I never see an article about how women GET RICHER when they get married?

rph3664

A man's income rises when he splits from his wife?  How?  He's without her income now, if she was working.  This was in reference to childless couples, too.

As for Elaine, she probably had a crap lawyer.  I sometimes wonder how some of these people ever passed the bar exam.

Go Up