Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Marriage seems to be less trendy these days>
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jd_uk)
    Common law, not statutory law.

    It is not so much a written law as it is the attitude of the courts and legal professionals in general towards men. You're speaking to someone with legal qualifications and some (albeit limited) work experience in family law by the way.

    Do you think it is right that a woman can cause her breakup with infidelity and still get custody of the kids in the majority of cases? I remember having to support a guy in work as he cried at his desk because all he wanted was to see his kids and for his ex to stop messing him about. Every time she would change the dates that he could see them with no notice at all and in order for him to put a stop to it he had to spend thousands going to court which he didn't have. This woman had physically beaten him towards the end of their relationship - he came to work with a black eye etc. Another guy i worked with, his wife later came out that she was lesbian - left him for a woman, took the kids - he saw them one day a week and again she messed him about, changed dates, treated him like sh*t. Why? Because she could.

    So you think that coming out as a lesbian should change her legal stand point?

    Ok.

    You also seem to think that a persons legal behaviour should effect their legal position. As if being not a very nice person but still living within the law should somehow change your legal position? Doesn't matter if she treated him like ****, that's what most ex partners do during a divorce, as long as the bad behaviour is within the law, it's completely irrelevant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    People are more likely now more than ever to get divorced (50% divorce rate), and the man pretty much always gets screwed.

    In this day age, the degree of faith marriage deserves is about the same degree of faith you'd give to a bet made on the outcome of a football match - worse even.

    Imagine Man U are playing Chelsea, and your friend proposes a bet on who will win. You think Man U, she thinks Chelsea, but rules of the bet are if Man U win you keep the money you bet but dont get any of the money your friend bet, and if Chelsea win your friend keeps her money and gets half of your money.

    Who in their right mind would take that bet?......Exactly, no one, so why do men still get married?
    that's why you get a prenup that separates a chunk of your business out in equity(say 20-25%) so that anything bought with your money remains yours and anything that she bought she can have it's simple really
    i'll still get married but on those terms my company would still pay her about £30-40k a year until i bought it back(another written in condition)
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    So you think that coming out as a lesbian should change her legal stand point?

    Ok.

    You also seem to think that a persons legal behaviour should effect their legal position. As if being not a very nice person but still living within the law should somehow change your legal position? Doesn't matter if she treated him like ****, that's what most ex partners do during a divorce, as long as the bad behaviour is within the law, it's completely irrelevant.

    Aye???

    Yes, in case I haven't been clear enough, I believe that it is very wrong that women are automatically favoured in custody cases despite the fact that they are often the ones breaking up the relationship, cheating etc etc.

    I seem to think that a persons legal behaviour should effect their legal position? Well funnily enough, yes I do.

    As I said, i have seen grown men ruined by the fact that a woman has been a complete b*tch (both legally and illegally) and has still been given access to the kids because she...is a she. It is wrong without question.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I wish to marry but that's probably about ownership of the relationship i suppose or perhaps we're all just indoctrinated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefatone)
    who doesn't want to include the goverment when you love someone so much?
    OK but how far will you bend over backwards for abusive partner? Would you even keep his name of the birth certificate so he can just walk away from that too? Where would you draw the line to protect women from abuse?

    What about if the partner dies without a will (if unmarried) - you would get nothing - would you be happy with that too? It would all go to his nearest relative.

    Marriage is the man saying to the world - "This woman/man is my equal partner in everything and as a way of a sign that I mean it for real I am making it a legal contract in front of the entire world".

    Without that its, just words and you will end up a door mat. Once he leaves your career would already be in taters, kids would get nothing and you'll be on street.

    Once the lovy dovy stuff ends, the law remains. Don't be a door mat, love should be two ways.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jd_uk)
    Aye???

    Yes, in case I haven't been clear enough, I believe that it is very wrong that women are automatically favoured in custody cases despite the fact that they are often the ones breaking up the relationship, cheating etc etc.

    I seem to think that a persons legal behaviour should effect their legal position? Well funnily enough, yes I do.

    As I said, i have seen grown men ruined by the fact that a woman has been a complete b*tch (both legally and illegally) and has still been given access to the kids because she...is a she. It is wrong without question.
    When I said legal behaviour, I hoped that it was clear I was referring to behaviour that is deemed acceptable by the law (hence "legal") as in someone just not being very nice. If you think that being not a very nice person should be punishable by law then maybe you need to toughen up a bit.

    If you think that it is only the men who can be ruined by divorce then you are very, closed minded. I actually know a woman who was made near homeless from it. It can mean **** street regardless of whether you are a man or woman.

    The only time women are favoured is in regards to custody of children yes. But the irony is, I often find that those complaining about this often turn the tables completely when it comes to the gender income disparity. It is a common justification on this site for the income disparity between male and females, that the woman has a child. She's a mother, she has to bear the child, and then she's the one who is the main primary care giver while the man continues to work. She takes a hit to her career for it, but yes that is justified, because a mother has more child caring responsibility than a father. This justification is often by men who oppose the idea of an unjust income disparity.

    But those very same males are the ones who then complain that the woman is favoured in custody cases. I'm sorry but we can't pick and choose when society is justifiably sexist, and when it isn't justified. Until women do not suffer in their careers for bearing and raising children, they will always have the upper hand when it comes to custody.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'd get married for the memes
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    When I said legal behaviour, I hoped that it was clear I was referring to behaviour that is deemed acceptable by the law (hence "legal", as in someone just not being very nice. If you think that being not a very nice person should be punishable by law then maybe you need to toughen up a bit.

    If you think that it is only the men who can be ruined by divorce then you are very, closed minded. I actually know a woman who was made near homeless from it. It can mean **** street regardless of whether you are a man or woman.

    The only time women are favoured is in regards to custody of children yes. But the irony is, I often find that those complaining about this often turn the tables completely when it comes to the gender income disparity. It is a common justification on this site for the income disparity between male and females, that the woman has a child. She's a mother, she has to bear the child, and then she's the one who is the main primary care giver while the man continues to work. She takes a hit to her career for it, but yes that is justified, because a mother has more child caring responsibility than a father. This justification is often by men who oppose the idea of an unjust income disparity.

    But those very same males are the ones who then complain that the woman is favoured in custody cases. I'm sorry but we can't pick and choose when society is justifiably sexist, and when it isn't justified. Until women do not suffer in their careers for bearing and raising children, they will always have the upper hand when it comes to custody.
    I was in the middle of writing a similar response but this is so much better than the crap I'd written!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    muslims get married because:
    -they want to have sex within the boundaries set by Allah
    -they want to share companionship and love
    -to have children and bring them up to be good muslims
    -to follow the sunnah of the Propphet Muhammad

    sorry i just had to
    Spoiler:
    Show
    all credit goes to the RE Edexcel book Unit 4
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    When I said legal behaviour, I hoped that it was clear I was referring to behaviour that is deemed acceptable by the law (hence "legal", as in someone just not being very nice. If you think that being not a very nice person should be punishable by law then maybe you need to toughen up a bit.

    If you think that it is only the men who can be ruined by divorce then you are very, closed minded. I actually know a woman who was made near homeless from it. It can mean **** street regardless of whether you are a man or woman.

    The only time women are favoured is in regards to custody of children yes. But the irony is, I often find that those complaining about this often turn the tables completely when it comes to the gender income disparity. It is a common justification on this site for the income disparity between male and females, that the woman has a child. She's a mother, she has to bear the child, and then she's the one who is the main primary care giver while the man continues to work. She takes a hit to her career for it, but yes that is justified, because a mother has more child caring responsibility than a father. This justification is often by men who oppose the idea of an unjust income disparity.

    But those very same males are the ones who then complain that the woman is favoured in custody cases. I'm sorry but we can't pick and choose when society is justifiably sexist, and when it isn't justified. Until women do not suffer in their careers for bearing and raising children, they will always have the upper hand when it comes to custody.
    It's 2016 and people still believe in the gender pay gap..............I'll take this one.

    The pay gap is absolutely a construct. Like, it's utterly refuted. The regularly quoted figure is something like women earn around 20% less than men. This figure is arrived at by adding up all the money men and women earn, and comparing the numbers. This is obviously a daft way to do such a comparison. If you compare men and women in the same role, working the same hours and with the same level of education, the pay gap drops to between 3% in favour of men, to 3% in favour of women. In fact, under the age of 35, the pay gap is most definitely in favour of women:

    http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-m...-will-not-die/
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagn.../#2edd652d4766
    http://now.org/resource/the-gender-p...-myth-vs-fact/
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ha...rticle/2580405
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...rning-more-men

    The only argument for the pay gap would be something along the lines of women are socially engineered to go into those less well-paying professions, but the modern research suggests that too is untrue. If you're interested, watch this:



    Of particular interest are two studies it quotes. Firstly, a study done on 50 odd countries which showed that as societies become more equal, less women choose to enter 'male-dominated' fields like STEM subjects. The reason being that in more backwards countries, women chooses the subjects they need to in order to make a living. But in countries with social welfare and the like, they choose what they want to. The other study was one done on 2 week old babies. They placed the babies on the floor surrounded by toys and left them alone in the room. The study showed that girls almost always went to play with dolls and faces, whereas boys would play with mechanical things like building blocks. And before you suggest this could be social conditioning, the same trend is observed in the offspring of all mammals.

    The evidence is now pretty strong that biology plays a real part in the different choices men and women make.

    So there is no gender pay gap. Like, it doesn't exist. You're welcome
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    OK but how far will you bend over backwards for abusive partner? Would you even keep his name of the birth certificate so he can just walk away from that too? Where would you draw the line to protect women from abuse?

    What about if the partner dies without a will (if unmarried) - you would get nothing - would you be happy with that too? It would all go to his nearest relative.

    Marriage is the man saying to the world - "This woman/man is my equal partner in everything and as a way of a sign that I mean it for real I am making it a legal contract in front of the entire world".

    Without that its, just words and you will end up a door mat. Once he leaves your career would already be in taters, kids would get nothing and you'll be on street.

    Once the lovy dovy stuff ends, the law remains. Don't be a door mat, love should be two ways.
    1. i'm a male not female(my avatar makes ppl assume this)
    2. i don't ever want marriage or a partner or children
    that's it i don't want to ever go into the world of marriage in terms of including myself in it
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nidhoggr)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...k-by-2016.html

    You dont need to be married to have children. In fact most people are having kids out of wedlock. Also, you shouldnt need a piece of paper (marriage certificate) to make you be a good parent to your kid / support your family
    so most kids these days in western countries are literally *******s
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    It's 2016 and people still believe in the gender pay gap..............I'll take this one.

    The pay gap is absolutely a construct. Like, it's utterly refuted. The regularly quoted figure is something like women earn around 20% less than men. This figure is arrived at by adding up all the money men and women earn, and comparing the numbers. This is obviously a daft way to do such a comparison. If you compare men and women in the same role, working the same hours and with the same level of education, the pay gap drops to between 3% in favour of men, to 3% in favour of women. In fact, under the age of 35, the pay gap is most definitely in favour of women:

    http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-m...-will-not-die/
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagn.../#2edd652d4766
    http://now.org/resource/the-gender-p...-myth-vs-fact/
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ha...rticle/2580405
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...rning-more-men

    The only argument for the pay gap would be something along the lines of women are socially engineered to go into those less well-paying professions, but the modern research suggests that too is untrue. If you're interested, watch this:



    Of particular interest are two studies it quotes. Firstly, a study done on 50 odd countries which showed that as societies become more equal, less women choose to enter 'male-dominated' fields like STEM subjects. The reason being that in more backwards countries, women chooses the subjects they need to in order to make a living. But in countries with social welfare and the like, they choose what they want to. The other study was one done on 2 week old babies. They placed the babies on the floor surrounded by toys and left them alone in the room. The study showed that girls almost always went to play with dolls and faces, whereas boys would play with mechanical things like building blocks. And before you suggest this could be social conditioning, the same trend is observed in the offspring of all mammals.

    The evidence is now pretty strong that biology plays a real part in the different choices men and women make.

    So there is no gender pay gap. Like, it doesn't exist. You're welcome
    ...

    I just closed my eyes for 10 solid seconds to attempt to control my frustration. Hand on heart.

    I'm literally just studying for my final exam for my psychology and neuroscience degree, and you just mansplained to me, the most ignorant, unfounded, narrowest summary of the most pathetic excuse for a psychological explanation for gender differences in education and career behaviour that I have ever encountered. You think you have the intellect and knowledge to refute many entire psychological fields of research by one little biological study compared to one other. You are so ignorant, but you claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of an entire research discipline. Hand on heart, I am genuinely lost for words.

    Go away. Please I am not in the mood for this. But when I am finished with my exams, I might take you on as a little project, and a wealth of academic journal articles relating to this matter will be sent to you via PM.

    This ignorance genuinely upsets me. Most of all because you are so ignorant that you think it's either a case of biology or social environment. How can people still think like this. :emo: Every psychologists will be positively squirming at what you said.

    Don't you worry, I'm coming back to this when I have the time. Don't you worry. I can't allow for someone so ignorant but so arrogant in their ignorance to continue in this world. This isn't even about the debate of sexism anymore. Think I need a cup of tea to recover from this

    "You're welcome". What for, for making me positively cringe for about 5 minutes? I really think they need to start educating people with psychology in school.

    Just to reiterate. I am not coming back to your post, frankly I cannot handle the ignorance right now. But I've made a note and shall return when I have some free time on my hands. Don't you worry.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    I was in the middle of writing a similar response but this is so much better than the crap I'd written!
    So glad it's not just me who saw that! They won't pay any attention though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    ...

    I just closed my eyes for 10 solid seconds to attempt to control my frustration. Hand on heart.

    I'm literally just studying for my final exam for my psychology and neuroscience degree, and you just mansplained to me, the most ignorant, unfounded, narrowest summary of the most pathetic excuse for a psychological explanation for gender differences in education and career behaviour that I have ever encountered. You think you have the intellect and knowledge to refute many entire psychological fields of research by one little biological study compared to one other. You are so ignorant, but you claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of an entire research discipline. Hand on heart, I am genuinely lost for words.

    Go away. Please I am not in the mood for this. But when I am finished with my exams, I might take you on as a little project, and a wealth of academic journal articles relating to this matter will be sent to you via PM.

    This ignorance genuinely upsets me. Most of all because you are so ignorant that you think it's either a case of biology or social environment. How can people still think like this. :emo: Every psychologists will be positively squirming at what you said.

    Don't you worry, I'm coming back to this when I have the time. Don't you worry. I can't allow for someone so ignorant but so arrogant in their ignorance to continue in this world. This isn't even about the debate of sexism anymore. Think I need a cup of tea to recover from this

    "You're welcome". What for, for making me positively cringe for about 5 minutes? I really think they need to start educating people with psychology in school.

    Just to reiterate. I am not coming back to your post, frankly I cannot handle the ignorance right now. But I've made a note and shall return when I have some free time on my hands. Don't you worry.
    I shall await a response; I'm always more than happy to be presented with evidence which challenges my prior assumptions. I must've had this conversation a hundred times by now, and not once has anyone either come up with statistically literate proof of a gender pay gap, nor any evidence to suggest that biology isn't a large part of the differences in behaviour in men and women. So I'll wait, although not exactly with baited breath.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)

    Just to reiterate. I am not coming back to your post, frankly I cannot handle the ignorance right now. But I've made a note and shall return when I have some free time on my hands. Don't you worry.
    I doubt he's read Fine's excellent book on ''gender'' and is probably one of those bigots who think Oxbridge/Harvard bums like Baron-Cohen and Pinker with their neurosexist agenda are some sort of supreme authority on the subject. Then again, he also probably thinks hormones affect human behaviour
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    When I said legal behaviour, I hoped that it was clear I was referring to behaviour that is deemed acceptable by the law (hence "legal") as in someone just not being very nice. If you think that being not a very nice person should be punishable by law then maybe you need to toughen up a bit.

    If you think that it is only the men who can be ruined by divorce then you are very, closed minded. I actually know a woman who was made near homeless from it. It can mean **** street regardless of whether you are a man or woman.
    Divorce is a problem full stop. That divorce favours women strongly (and it does, regardless whether that is true in absolutely every case) is a secondary issue. Divorce as it exists today has eliminated marriage as a practical tool.

    The purpose of marriage was to let people plan families long term, by letting women be sure that men would not suddenly stop supporting them, and by letting men be sure that women wouldn't suddenly find a better man. Since people need 10+ years of stability to have children, marriage is really necessary for people to have families and reproduce, something that all of our no-fault-divorce Western-style societies are notably failing to do.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    ...

    I just closed my eyes for 10 solid seconds to attempt to control my frustration. Hand on heart.

    I'm literally just studying for my final exam for my psychology and neuroscience degree, and you just mansplained to me, the most ignorant, unfounded, narrowest summary of the most pathetic excuse for a psychological explanation for gender differences in education and career behaviour that I have ever encountered. You think you have the intellect and knowledge to refute many entire psychological fields of research by one little biological study compared to one other. You are so ignorant, but you claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of an entire research discipline. Hand on heart, I am genuinely lost for words.

    Go away. Please I am not in the mood for this. But when I am finished with my exams, I might take you on as a little project, and a wealth of academic journal articles relating to this matter will be sent to you via PM.

    This ignorance genuinely upsets me. Most of all because you are so ignorant that you think it's either a case of biology or social environment. How can people still think like this. :emo: Every psychologists will be positively squirming at what you said.

    Don't you worry, I'm coming back to this when I have the time. Don't you worry. I can't allow for someone so ignorant but so arrogant in their ignorance to continue in this world. This isn't even about the debate of sexism anymore. Think I need a cup of tea to recover from this

    "You're welcome". What for, for making me positively cringe for about 5 minutes? I really think they need to start educating people with psychology in school.

    Just to reiterate. I am not coming back to your post, frankly I cannot handle the ignorance right now. But I've made a note and shall return when I have some free time on my hands. Don't you worry.
    So many words to say nothing at all.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    So many words to say nothing at all.
    It will take me a while to educate someone that ignorant, don't worry I'm going to work on it, but I'd have to start from the beginning. Perhaps you'd be next judging by your previous post which is nothing short of hilarious.

    You seem to think that a child raised in a toxic environment by cohabiting parents who cannot communicate effectively without argument and insult is better than a single parent family where the child receives quality parenting from each parent alone. Or a famy with a step-parent.

    Right now I haven't the time to waste on people like you, but if you're interested there's plenty of research out there, something like this maybe

    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/59/5/753/
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.