Amazingly windy article. Annoying habit of citing blogs that contain actual references to studies, rather than just citing the references directly. Gives the impression that he wants you to read the blogged item because it supports his position, and only incidentally to look up the referenced materials.

I'd like to take issue with the broad assertion that humans as primates are inexorably driven by their animal instincts, but as I consider the human race as it appears to be, I suppose that the majority of humans are in fact just less hairy and possessed of a lump of tissue at the top of their spinal cord that confuses them sometimes.

I do have to wonder what Utopia the author lives in where it is true that "A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out a comfortable existence by working for two months out of the year." The author's definition of "comfortable" must be in line with Spartan ideals. At the peak of my earnings in the 90's, two months would only have grossed a trifle more than $10,000. Uh, let's see... 10 divided by 12 is a little more than 8, so that would be $800 a month. Yeah, I could live on that - if mummy and daddy let me live in their basement for no rent.


Still, it was interesting, although for me it raises the question - is it the passage of the traditional monogamous marriage which is the source of the problem, or our social inability to adapt to new conditions with equitable new laws in a timely fashion? Alimony, for instance, was thought up back when a woman divorced a man because he had either been mistreating her or their children, or because he had in fact been unfaithful. No-fault divorce with alimony doesn't make sense, particularly if the person demanding alimony was the one who filed for divorce - so we should change the law. Problem is, making new law is easy, as compared to changing - especially radically changing - existing law.

I did enjoy the part about the "Venusian Arts", in which it is acknowledged that the way to be sexually successful is to be an asshole - slick, insincere, and manipulative. I suppose that if your intentions are good, the ends may justify the means, but I don't know how many of us betas are competent enough to succeed without selling a product that doesn't exist - which will lead back into the merry-go-round when she figures out that you ARE a geek, and you ARE a gamer, and you ARE a slob, and whatever other things you hid behind your wall of smooth...

as a woman from one of the two last remaining countries that doesn't have divorce at all, married to a man who is excessively emotionally abusive (in the way, interestingly that is the passive aggressive method that is more often seen in women) and refuses to divorce me because it's the only way he can have some form of 'being needed', you guys take the ability to separate - for both men and women's benefit - entirely too much for granted. I don't want alimony, I wanna be able to get out of the abusive relationship and into the one that values me as a person.

Unfortunately it wasn't until after my marriage that all my husband's insecurities and issues came into play, along with my discovering he was a pathalogical liar to boot. From the tone of the article, I'm expected to stay with him because he isn't physically abusive, isn't cheating on me with another woman and provides for me (somewhat) financially.

Some of the article, I can agree with. Some of it, I don't. I think that a no-contest divorce shouldn't, by default, include alimony. This should be evaluated on a case to case basis, including whether or not the couple, while they were together, decided that the woman stay home to raise the children while the husband provides the family income; whether the decision resulted in less chances for the woman to be able to re-enter into the workforce (as someone who has been refused jobs because of being married to a foreigner based on the assumptions that 1) I don't 'need' to work as I have a foreigner husband 'providing dollars' and I wouldn't, therefore, take the work seriously and 2) the expectation that I will suddenly move abroad and drop the work without warning, I know what it's like to have a pretty empty work resume and what this entails for employment prospects).

I don't want the alimony (or need it) because of my being fortunate enough to be in a more stable relationship (both financially and emotionally), but if my circumstances had been different I would have already been crippled in getting into the workforce, and employment prospects being grim, I would need temporary support until my employment was stable to support myself.

I think that the alimony should be given to the spouse (regardless of gender) that supports the home side of the partnership and gets the children. I'm all for wives who were the breadwinners to pay alimony if the husband was the homemaker, and for the husband to get the kids if they're the more capable of the two. If there are no children, and both of the spouses were working, then alimony is unnecessary. However, this isn't always the case, which is why I think it should be determined on a case to case basis.

Regards single parents, I don't know what it's like for American laws, but in the Philippines it is single parent support, regardless of gender, for the workplace; the single parent, regardless of gender, gets a tax cut based on the understanding that the parent is supporting a child (and supporting a caretaker for the child; either via hiring a nanny or a relative who cares for the household and child.) The proportion still tends toward single moms, but there is a sizeable number of single fathers, hence the non-gender distinction.

akilika just finished a course on Family Law in the US. Have fun~

See the thing is, my case is one of those complicated ones that the article would have seen as 'cuckolding' - which, for some shit reason, most of the people agreeing with the article like to equate with rape. (I was highly, highly tempted to disregard the rest of the article just because of it; having affairs with many women seems to be fine with a lot of men; not so much if the woman does the same thing; see the difference in perception that exists to this day about a man who has had many women, and a woman who has had many men.) As I stated above, my husband was emotionally abusive; it was actually just the fact that I had not yet shared a home with him that I never found out if he would become physically violent. Even if he hadn't, his violent twisting of the love I had for him would have, very likely, driven me to suicide. In fact, because of him, I tried a few times. This is not a statement of drama, but fact.

Simply put, a lot of the things that the article villifies women for, were the same things he used to emotionally tear me apart. (being attractive, intelligent, desirable, 'outgoing', caring - things that drew him to me, became faults; he was convinced I would cheat on him, simply because he believed that there was no way a woman like that would want to stay with him.) His insecurities quickly eroded to a severe lack of trust to the point that nothing I did convinced him of my sexual fidelity (he even flat out accused me of cheating on him based on nothing but my attending a school-required conference) and every single night was a verbal battle where he would wring concessions from me to 'prove my love.' When that wasn't enough, he began to be jealous of my schoolwork (which, given my course, was research intensive), my hobbies (writing - he cried about my writing with other groups and 'not with him any more' despite my attempts to include him in those other groups, decried my skill with art -'I suck, you're so much better than me I'm worthless, you're so much better, you'll cheat on me) and eventually, my parentage and my father's job (You're the daughter of an ambassador, how could you possibly keep loving me? You'll find a better man!)

Self fulfilling prophecy. Nothing I did convinced him of my fidelity so there was no point in staying faithful; I was condemned out of hand. I found a better man, 'cuckolded' my abusive husband, who realized he was driving me away too late.

As revenge he refuses to divorce me, citing endless financial lack. I cannot sue for divorce, no-contest or otherwise, lack the grounds and funds for annulment, and he, being the foreign spouse, is the only one allowed to sue for divorce, unless I am able to find citizenship in a different country that allows divorce (difficult, as I lack the career experience or skillset that would have allowed me to try immigrate elsewhere - because I married a foreigner.)

The writer of the article would have had it I stay with that kind of man, trapped in a marriage that would have resulted in nothing but pain, or be tossed out onto the street with nothing, after having been held jobless and my opportunities for career stifled by promises of 'getting me so we could finally be together' or being refused opportunities for work for the reasons in my previous comment.

Well, as you may have seen in my comment to the Doc above, I don't buy into the notion of having to "have Game" that this guy and others are selling either. As you say, it replaces/supplements misandry with misogyny.

The bottom line is that the divorce system in the US as presently constituted is an ugly mess that seems to screw over 99 people for every person it saves, and it needs to change before something worse comes along. I think we can all agree on that.