Divorce and some off-topic argument

Post Reply New Topic

Tell me about it *switches to PM to save from derailing thread*

Much, much nicer than the mudslinging going on. Stick around, eh?

i am obviously a convenient target for people who think sexism is warranted on the board. i do not engage in personal attacks, and i back up my statements with verifiable evidence. i understand that it ??st be frustrating that i don't give certain people the satisfaction of stooping to their level. i have been providing advice to the OP, and i also will fight against misinformation and sexism (directed at either men or women, but it's obvious which one is more prevalent here). deal with it.

You'll have to excuse me before I do - I need a moment to put on my mud suit

I just realized... a fellow composer in Canada... we may need to talk more some day!
Besides, I like your sense of humour.

I stick around as long as I am wanted...and sometimes even when I'm not! lol

+ 1

When someone wants empathy rather than confrontation, they have to be prepared to give the same, right? You get what you give, that's the way of the world.

Well, you do present evidence, such as in this case a report from the UK and one from Australia, despite the fact that Bluemax is most likely American, as is again_with_this and we're discussing on an American message board where most members are from North America. Even though http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/Lesson7.pdf and http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505268_162- ... -than-men/ are much more relevant as they are studies done in America.

The Australian report says the following in the conclusion



The report also bases itself on self-reporting and that reminds me of the "penis length" survey's that showed that self-reported size was quite a lot bigger than the size measured under controlled circumstances. There is also the issue with this being a telephone survey that included less than 500 people.

In the UK report, I'm curious about one thing specifically:





I wonder how they measure income, since the causality for the fall in income in childless marriages is hard to pinpoint. That is unless income for a household is combined then divided amongst the husband and wife, in which case the study has to be disqualified since the income of the person with the lowest was artificially increased by methodology and the income of the person with the highest income was artificially reduced by the same methodology.

In effect, if person A makes 10000 and person b makes 5000, they make 7500 on average. They then divorce and A now gets the full 10000 which is a 33% increase whereas B gets 5000 which is a similar drop.

Or it goes off topic with people biitching that it goes off topic. I have to point out the irony.



Other threads are irrelevant. Look at this thread specifically, reread everything, then reevaluate your opinion.

More importantly, nothing here seems overly anti-female. We went off into a tangent about who turns out better in divorce. I applaud Hyperlexion for sharing her ideas, and playing devil's advocate. However, I fault her for not actually being interested in the discussion itself, just trying to prove that she's right through a blanket statement, and not affording the same courtesy to others that was afforded to her. So the criticism of Hyperlexion is valid. Other threads or opinions about her in general are irrelevant.

Do you people want to be patronized and pretend everything is sunshine and rainbows all the time? Maybe I'll come and visit you in Neurotypical Land sometime, when I get tired of living in the real world.

So, I suppose you're a member of the "eye for an eye" view on the world?

Hmm I'm not even thinking of a divorce yet

I'm not sure who you're addressing. I don't understand why a disagreement over who turns out better in a divorce suddenly equates to sexism. Moreover, did you even at least look at the links I provided? There seems to be a one-sidedness with your approach. Forgive me if I misunderstand. I welcome different opinions and would hope you do the same as well. Again, sorry if I misunderstand what you're saying, but please don't dismiss a difference of opinion as "sexism."

I know. You're still in what I call static limbo.

What I was trying to say is that instead of looking it as divorce v. staying together, look at it as taking a change v. static limbo.

If you take a chance, yes, it may wind up hastening the divorce. It may also work the opposite way, and be what she needs to see how serious you are about keeping the marriage together. It's a gamble, but nothing will happen if you don't take the risk.

Otherwise, it'll continue into a static limbo, which is actually not so much static as a slow, prolonged death of the marriage.

If you keep this up, you're prolonging the divorce.
If you take action you MIGHT speed up the divorce
OR you might make the marriage work.

Right now, you're doing nothing, and in the long run this will not help your marriage.

Not at all, it's just how it works. If you run around being confrontational about it, that's what you're going to get back usually, it just can't work any other way. If you want support, that's not how it's done. It doesn't even leave any room for it. It's not even possible, there's no opening for it.