Are Men Going Their Own Way? (MGTOW)

If you don't trust your partner or have faith in them:
1. Why are you still with them?
2. Why would you ever marry that person?

You could always set-up a prenup for that matter.

Now you know how I feel virtually every time you post on a political or social topic.

Also, yeah. Because clearly anyone who is happy in a relationship is clearly just lying to you or fooling themself, and relationships are awful terrible things. Sex is all that matters; sex and making sure your genes are passed on.

No, Kara. Don't you understand? Feels aren't logical. Marriage is a feminist scam to take things from men what women are completely incapable of obtaining on their own.

BUT WHAT? Clearly he doesn't think that!

Ramyrez, you're just projecting and strawmanning at me!

You're closer to my point, you've got it just about halfway right, but I never said the other half about women being incapable of getting it without men.

Are you of such limited mental capacity that people can only fit into your preconceived sterotypes?

Every time you think you're being clever by saying things like this, all it does is show your own feels on the topic. ^^;

Ramyrez: Chief Feelz Expert.

They are ... for women.

They get to have someone buy them a house, pay for their children and you get to brag to all your friends about it. Then later when the guy, after exhausting himself trying to meet your unrealistic demands, no longer "does it for you" you can unilaterally back out of the deal, take at least 50% of everything even if you didn't pay for it, get money for any kids, even if they aren't his, even if you conceived them in secret during extramarital affairs, and get and if you plan it out right, with a good lawyer, you can get alimony for a few years if not longer. All told, you can take him for 70~90% of his net worth along with a percentage of whatever future money he makes, without any consequence or him having done anything wrong. You don't even have to have sex with him, just need a piece of paper saying your his spouse and in some places you don't even need that.

There is absolutely zero risk involved to the women because feminists have long since removed them as "oppression".

If marriage was turned into a business contract with the current laws, any lawyer would label it a scam and any judge would throw it out as being unconscionable. But because it has the letters "Marriage" attached, it's free reign to screw over the guy as much as possible in the name of providing resources to women and children.

So what's the final solution here?

Divorce reform and along with limits on child support. Child support should not be a "quality of life" or percentage of income, instead it should be a fixed amount. It doesn't cost $10,000 USD a month to raise a child, not even $1000 USD a month, all that extra money is just going to enhance the mothers quality of life. Women can now support themselves and there are many single mothers doing exactly that, there is absolutely zero reason for a divorcing wife to get cash bonus's and monthly payments. Retirement accounts are off limits period as are other investments. Marital assets are divided based on income contribution and ownership, the women doesn't get 50%+ when the husband is making over double her income. Right now the way the math works, unless the women is earning double of what the guy is she will walk away much better off then when she came into. Child custody is based entirely on who's better financially capable of supporting the child, the poorer parent getting custody should be the exception not the rule like it is now.

Do that and your divorce rates will plummet along with an increase in family unit stability. Humans are creatures motivated by incentives, and right now there is a gigantic financial incentive for women to divorce their husbands and then use their awards to finance a better lifestyle. The harder a husband works for this family, the more he stands to lose during a divorce, especially in child support. As things stand now, it's possible to be ordered to pay child support in excess of 100% of your gross salary and then kept in perpetual jail for failure to pay that child support.

And thus why prostitutes are cheaper.

I hate to tell you this Saevel, but I have yet to see these sorts of Alimony and Child Support payments you are touting.

Since I work on a lot of tax returns for the rich, every time there's a divorce with children, there's usually alimony and child support involved. Child support is not taxable, but alimony is (taxable to the mother, deductible for the father). Because of that, I have seen a lot of divorce decrees in my years of public accounting and the most I have seen in child support is $600/month, coming from a guy who's in the 39.6% tax bracket. Alimony, more like $2,000/month from the same guy.

It's not the lawyers who set these numbers, it's the judge, and I'm sure that s/he takes into consideration the profession both parties are involved and the standard of living they had prior to the divorce, along with who instigated the divorce and reasons.

So pick.

Better.

Mates.

Stop rushing headlong into marriages because "hey, they're hot and sleeping with me, I should lock this ***up!"

The only way to end up to being EVEN CLOSE to the above situation is if you've *** up your life so badly that you somehow manage to be rich, yet still be so stupid that your lawyer is awful, you didn't sign a prenup, you picked your wife poorly, and you are generally terrible at everything.

In which case, what happened to the personal responsibility and genetic superiority here? Shouldn't you look down on men who find themselves in these situations for doing it to themselves?

Nope. Blame women (men). Blame feminism (the patriarchy). Blame anyone but the guy (anyone but the woman). Because clearly the guy (woman) can't be held accountable because he did no wrong.

Oh wait. This sounds suspiciously like exactly what you say about feminism (see parentheses).

I'd say it's a good thing you haven't seen higher ones, they definitely exist, even though they're rare.

One consideration you don't see often is the earning potential a spouse may give up in order to fill their role. A woman often forgoes further education and career opportunities to "follow" their man. Sometimes spending enough time out of an industry to render them unemployable in their field to have and raise kids. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that when deciding division of wealth in a divorce. The reason for the divorce can also be contributory. If one partner is unfaithful, they tend to get painted pretty badly, even though I don't believe that should be a factor.

I've seen it dozens of times.

The Judge only listens to the family advocates which are a bunch of ultra rad feminist types. I've seen 10,000+ a month child support payments. And I'm calling bullsh!t on your child support right now because CS is done based on percentage of gross, the exact calculation depends on the state but is typically ~18% for the first child then another 8~12% for each additional child. So a man making $100,000 a year gross would be paying $1500 a month for a single child and about $2300 a month if there were two. If he gets a raise and the ex-wife finds out, she can bring him back to court to ask for and almost certainly get, a recalculation in the rates. If he got a bonus and she found out about it, she can get the judge to order her a percentage of it.

This obscene system really hits the successful professional the hardest. Guy works his a$$ off for years, doing 50~60 hours per week to get promotions and advances until he's making some very nice bank. Wife then up and leaves him, gets between 50~70% of all marital assets, $5,000+ a month child support with another $4000 a month in alimony, since they are calculated separately from each other. Dude has to keep working those same hours just to support his ex wife and children while her new boyfriend stays in their old home cause she convinced the judge that it's needed to raise the children, of course the ex-husband is still paying on the mortgage.

This is a true story, I wish I could be making this sh!t up. Currently family courts are infested with radical feminists, what else do you think they can do with a degree in women's studies or gender studies? Since they are worthless in the professional fields they get jobs in all the social welfare systems including child services and family advocacy.



Men are, except they don't exist in any western nation. Feminism has turned the nation of a "traditional family" into a mockery telling women they are slaves if they do anything supporting the house. You got an entire generation of spoiled, entitled brats running around demanding everyone respect their "gurl powerz" and give them free sh!t. Men are just walking away and devoting themselves to their own happiness, which is the whole point of this thread in case you've forgotten. Over 70%+ of men between 20 and 34 aren't married and now it's projected that 90% of men over 30 won't ever get married. More children are born to single mothers then to married ones, this is one of those statistics that feminists have been pointing to and cheering on with happiness "see women don't need men!".

You're just not listening. It doesn't matter who you pick, the game is setup the same regardless of who you pick. You keep parroting your solution of pick a better mate. Meaning what, pick a woman that will never ever decide to back out and ultimately divorce you, and take advantage of the skewed system? Are you really so naive as to be think you'll never have such a rocky road (everyone does) or are you just sufficiently insulated from it because your wife earns more than you and you have no kids.

Is that what you mean? Get a wife who won't give you kids and earns more than you?

In all but one of my client's cases, the division of property also included the division of income producing property, which pretty much accounted for the lack of child support/alimony. The one case, as mentioned above, was a trophy wife situation and she married not that long afterwards (which erased the alimony clause of the divorce decree).

That's a myth. Women are filing for over 70% of divorces, with approximately 25% being joint filing and about 5% being the man. The most common reason stated by women is "dissatisfaction", meaning they are simply no longer happy and taking the cash and prizes on the way out. It's also a myth about the women leaving cause the man cheated or is hitting her. Women out cheat men by about 2:1 and men are more likely to suffer from domestic abuse then women are due to primary aggressor laws. If the man hits the women he goes to jail, if the women hits the man then he also goes to jail, if the man is by himself watching TV and the women reports to the police he hit her, he still goes to jail. The man always goes to jail, never gets support or counseling for emotional or psychological abuse and instead is told to "man up" and just let her have her way.

This isn't the 1960's or 70's anymore, that whole idea of the women "giving up her career" has long since ended. Most homes have both parents working full time with the guy typically making more then the girl. After a divorce nearly all ex-wives resume a career and most live at higher standard of livings then their ex-husband.

All those rules were designed for a pre-feminist era where women couldn't get decent jobs. They advantage women are the expense of men and are misandrist as f*ck. Feminists don't want to see them gone because it benefits women.

This sounds like Georgia, which is one of the few states with semi-sane divorce laws. Most of the rest ensure alimony even after remarriage, or rather they don't specifically say it's void and the man needs to sue to get it removed, which is awfully difficult when he barely has enough money to get by.

These are people I actually know. The way division of assets works in most places is completely asinine where the judge can say pretty much anything they want. And since that entire court system is infected with radfems, it's always going to go down heavy on the man. They will award primary (at least 51%) custody to the women, then award hefty child support, then start awarding compensation and any property deemed necessary for the children. After all the numbers are run she gets about 70% of all assets, provided she's got a good lawyer and spent six to eight months planning. A solid prenump can nullify most of that and a good lawyer can get the guy off with 50% of his assets, but child support and alimony are still going to rape him. Imputed income is f*cking evil.

I'm going by what I have seen personally, and I have not seen such outlandish support/alimony payments you are saying.

That doesn't mean that they don't exist, but remember, the Texas Family Code is a whole lot different than the (for example) California Family Code, or the Washington Family Code, or the Florida Family Code. In all cases, the judge (in the state of Texas) determines how much child support/alimony, and even then, these terms are limited to the smallest amount of time deemed necessary. Child support, by Texas law, never exceeds the day the kid leaves high school. Alimony never exceeds 10 years, and in most cases, the judge only gives enough time for the receiver to actually provide their own support, without extensions to the alimony.

Again, we are talking about 2 different state codes.

Yes. All marriages end in divorce now.

Out-***-standing.

Flail some more, Nausi. Flail some more.

And that's the ultimate point here, there is this great "you go gurl" misconception that women are living the single dream when they're just using the legal system designed by radical feminism to indenture men into servitude.

kill the boy.

I have plenty of college-educated female friends who have elected to be stay-at-home wives proving you wrong right this very second.

Do you think divorce is more or less likely when you hit that rocky patch IF your woman can legally push you over and jump ship with your parachute.

Look, as an avid supporter of being single for my entire life, I seriously do not think that women marry just to divorce/take your money.

You guys are talking about an outlier group of people. Yes, men can be included in this group too.

But seriously, women do not marry men just to take half of their stuff at a later date.

Are you asking me personally or in general?

I can see your point in today's culture of get-married-at-the-drop-of-a-hat. The problem with your point is, I think if you rush into marriage under questionable circumstances, you deserve what you end up with.

It's amazing how this is your mindset on almost literally everything else (business ventures, college loans, home ownership, whatever). You invest, circumstances beyond your control make it fail, and boom! "Sorry friend, you bet poorly", or "Sorry about your luck, but that's how it goes".

But when it comes to marriage, you want more protections for the poor, misled, victimized man.

So it turns out you're really not an advocate of personal responsibility at all, just an advocate for your own success and the cost of others.

Which is what any of us with a brain have realized all along.

Yeah Texas is another one of the more sane states, their child support system can be draconian but alimony and property division are fare.

California, New York and Illinois are some of the absolute worst states where the courts routinely leave the man in poverty, it even has a word for it, "divorce rape", and when it's done cause the wife just wasn't happy it's called "frivorace rape". Remember New York and California are home two of the largest populations of young professionals in the nation. IT and Finance jobs both pay very well and those men tend to marry women who are college educated, meaning they were indoctrinated into feminism and female entitlement 101. A man making $250,000 a year gross can expect to pay $4800~6000 a month in child support for two children that he only see's on the weekends. The less time he gets with them the higher the CS payments will be.

An evil we haven't really discussed is imputed income. For those not familiar, imputed income is how much money someone "could" make if they tried hard, not how much they actually are. So if one year a guy made $250,000, but the next year he made $100,000 and his wife divorced him, her lawyer could argue that he's really capable of making $250,000 a year and thus child support and alimony payments be based off that figure. Since the women will likely make less then him (hypergamy yo) and she'll get at least 51% custody if not 70%+, it results in this gigantic financial burden being levied against him. He could use his savings but she got 50% of it right off the time, and the rest went to pay for his lawyers and hers. The sale of the home, assuming he was allowed to sell and split vs her lawyer arguing that she needed it for the children, offered just enough to get started again. Now he's gotta transfer this huge amount of his income, as much as or more then he pays for income tax, to his ex-wife while he simultaneously tries to rebuild his life.

It's no wonder that a men's suicide rates are so high after divorce.

It has been said that men don't really pay prostitutes for sex. They pay them to go away afterward.

Mmm. And the other shoe drops. "Don't educate women, it only leads to bad things for men."

ISIS called. They feel you'd make an excellent recruit.


A man making $250,000 a year can easily afford that. Easily. And if you make a "quality of life" argument for him, you'd better be ready to allow for it for the children too.


Which makes sense. Because the less time they spend with him, the less he's paying directly to care for them while they're in his care.