Tammy Wynette cannot be reached for help-Divorce advice

[XXX-er]

I remember the time Lee Lau came up and you guys discussing double billing techniques in the board room over scotches

[Buster Highmen]

So - like I said, anecdotally experiences will vary. The authorities cited show that women fair worse post-divorce than men. If divorce laws were universally drafted in such a way to favour the women - this would not be the case.

Sounds like you got screwed. That's too bad.

See in this job I get to see many, many divorces. Yep I have been in the "trenches" - on both sides of the line actually. I very rarely see both parties saying that they thought the process was pleasant, or that the result was entirely fair after it was over.

As for my gender - what does that got to do with the authorities I presented showing that you may be an outlier? You said ask "any attorney" As an "attorney" who also talks to other "attorneys" - I can say categorically that your statement is false. You lack the objectivity to make any rational statement on if the system favoured your spouse at all or if such favouritism was because of her situation or her because of her gender. For all we know you could be a completely irrational human that blames everything on others, thinks women can't have an opinion even if backed up by actual research and these things contributed to your either: a) actually being treated unfairly in court because the judge thought you were an misogynist asshole, or b) you thought you were treated unfairly because you had the expectations of a mysogynist asshole going in, or c) you were actually treated unfairly. So, I have nothing to go on but your irrational suggestion that I could only have the view I expressed because I was female rather than because of my experience and study - but I am leaning on (b) here. I very well could be wrong - I don't know you.

So until you have something better than "I got screwed so the system sucks"..

..Fuck you.

FWIW Hutz, oft is one of the nicest people I've had the good fortune to meet. Your tone and insinuations are wholly inappropriate. Consider the outliers.

[that dude who did that thing]

Duuude - I am paying rapt attention to a CLE Webinar as we speak.

Rapt fucking attention.

God, I hope you wrote that prior post about oft while the ethics section was droning on in the background.

[mtngirl79]

FWIW Hutz, oft is one of the nicest people I've had the good fortune to meet. Your tone and insinuations are wholly inappropriate. Consider the outliers.

You know, Oft has mostly been good to me, too but that doesn't mean he cant be wrong here.

Good people can be wrong.

[LHutz Esq]

FWIW Hutz, oft is one of the nicest people I've had the good fortune to meet. Your tone and insinuations are wholly inappropriate. Consider the outliers.

You very well may be right.

But if you don't see how thinking the reason I hold the opinions I do could only be because I wasn't a man or had no relevant experiences - even after I went to the trouble of showing the researched basis for that opinion isn't misogynistic - I am thinking my tone may not have been strong enough. This thread was started by a person seeking assistance with a possible divorce after all.

To the OP- if you go into court and expose that kind of attitude - her lawyer will eat you for lunch.

[Dantheman]

Just gonna put this here... men aren't the only cheaters.....

The changing reasons why women cheat on their husbands

They forgot to mention the irresistible allure of homemade granola.

[Buster Highmen]

You very well may be right.

But if you don't see how thinking the reason I hold the opinions I do could only be because I wasn't a man or had no relevant experiences - even after I went to the trouble of showing the researched basis for that opinion isn't misogynistic - I am thinking my tone may not have been strong enough. This thread was started by a person seeking assistance with a possible divorce after all.

To the OP- if you go into court and expose that kind of attitude - her lawyer will eat you for lunch.

This isn't a court. Also, oft is a class guy and would never espouse that mode in "public". I don't think many of us consider this chatbored "public" in that sense.

The popline study is interesting insofar as on the one hand, no fault divorce is being more widely accepted in the name of equality of the sexes and the study enumerates the failings of that mode. That seems ironic in a very sad way.

I generally don't pay attention to the sex of posteurs here.

In any case, even in the face of no fault divorce, my unschooled perception is that women are favored in most divorce settlements, not necessarily as a result of their sex, but as a result of their income during the matrimonial partnership, which again, is a consequence of glass ceiling and other male oriented limitations placed on women.

The failings with policies is that they do intentionally ignore the anomalies, the brutality of the masses. Maybe, just maybe, there are these anomalies right here in front of us.

I think I understand the thinking about how generally shafted women and minorities are, even though I'm a white male.

I hope that people realize that a strong tone more often alienates rather than convinces.

[concretejungle]

To the OP- if you go into court and expose that kind of attitude - her lawyer will eat you for lunch.

Are you talking to me?

[LHutz Esq]

Are you talking to me?

Do I know you?

[Mazderati]

[Mazderati]

[LHutz Esq]

This isn't a court. Also, oft is a class guy and would never espouse that mode in "public". I don't think many of us consider this chatbored "public" in that sense.

The popline study is interesting insofar as on the one hand, no fault divorce is being more widely accepted in the name of equality of the sexes and the study enumerates the failings of that mode. That seems ironic in a very sad way.

I generally don't pay attention to the sex of posteurs here.

In any case, even in the face of no fault divorce, my unschooled perception is that women are favored in most divorce settlements, not necessarily as a result of their sex, but as a result of their income during the matrimonial partnership, which again, is a consequence of glass ceiling and other male oriented limitations placed on women.

The failings with policies is that they do intentionally ignore the anomalies, the brutality of the masses. Maybe, just maybe, there are these anomalies right here in front of us.

I think I understand the thinking about how generally shafted women and minorities are, even though I'm a white male.

I hope that people realize that a strong tone more often alienates rather than convinces.

You are right - as I said before - I think as more women become the primary bread winner and more men become primary childcare providers - we will see a change. Although, I worry that the change will just mean that those men who had the child care role will be similarly disadvantaged. - But I do think that there is hope that this will not be the case. Illogically enough, I think this hope comes from my knowledge of the sexist nature of our system. Where women might have to prove that they were disadvantaged by being out of the work force for all those years taking care of kids - I can see the court just assuming that with respect to men. (This is based on nothing but my experience and a guess at human nature).

I also realize that this is not a court. However, I think people are quick to discount how easy it is for certain attitudes to be uncovered in court. Unfortunately, they can be blown all out of proportion when on the stand. First, people want to talk, if they feel mistreated they want to vent that. A good lawyer is nothing if not a great listener. Certain phrases will come out and be used. Second, being on the stand is stressful, people say things they may otherwise not say. I have had people just completely torpedo their case on cross examination and then say "so I think that went well eh!" after. When the judge gives his or her reasons - they are completely gob-smacked by why the judge didn't find them credible. Then it quickly becomes everyone else's fault. Third, the lawyers and judges know the party's have been prepped and are waiting for those little moments where they go off script so to speak. So, things we say with our friends and think nothing of are taken very seriously. - In the end these things can seem to be acting "against" a man who has his entire life thought a certain way, been told a certain state of affairs is acceptable, and really has been led to believe that they were doing everything that was expected of them.

Believe it or not, I do get that folks, like Oft, get screwed by the system. I suppose the difference is that I have seen enough really shitty results for women in the system as well, so as to understand that the fact that the system is flawed isn't necessarily only due to its favoritism for one gender. Trust me, the system gets is wrong on both sides.

[concretejungle]

Do I know you?

To the OP (original poster) would be directed at me.

[oftpiste]

I very well could be wrong - I don't know you.

No, you don't. Those that do (and there are a good number here) know you are dead wrong in your suggestions about my sensibilities.

Lots of systems suck. This is one of them. And I never said any such thing as "I got screwed so the system sucks".

Fuck you.

[LHutz Esq]

To the OP (original poster) would be directed at me.

Sorry - I missed where you changed names. My apologies then, yes the advice is for you. Like the rest of it- purely on a take it or leave it basis.

But yes - if you are going to use terms like "female persuasion" (it's a gender not a persuasion) or go in with an attitude about the court and its motives that is dismissive - it won't go well.

I have seen nothing in here that suggests you would - but if it comes to court be careful about how things like texts to the ex, postings on fb will sound in court.

Try and get someone who is objective assist you so that you know if this will be an issue for you or not.

Just advice though. Maybe if use to you or maybe not. Maybe of use to someone else- or maybe not.

[oftpiste]

And thanks Buster, for the props. xo

[Cono Este]

This isn't a court. Also, oft is a class guy and would never espouse that mode in "public". I don't think many of us consider this chatbored "public" in that sense.

The popline study is interesting insofar as on the one hand, no fault divorce is being more widely accepted in the name of equality of the sexes and the study enumerates the failings of that mode. That seems ironic in a very sad way.

I generally don't pay attention to the sex of posteurs here.

In any case, even in the face of no fault divorce, my unschooled perception is that women are favored in most divorce settlements, not necessarily as a result of their sex, but as a result of their income during the matrimonial partnership, which again, is a consequence of glass ceiling and other male oriented limitations placed on women.

The failings with policies is that they do intentionally ignore the anomalies, the brutality of the masses. Maybe, just maybe, there are these anomalies right here in front of us.

I think I understand the thinking about how generally shafted women and minorities are, even though I'm a white male.

I hope that people realize that a strong tone more often alienates rather than convinces.

You’re right, it takes income during the marriage into account, not potential.

Don’t mistake me for complaining, I’m not, it was long ago. But in my case I brought a lot in, enough so she could quit work when Kids came. I had just got whacked for a lot of money in a business deal and asked her to go back after 6 months, then after 3 yrs she was offered a management job with a 100 billion dollar manager out of Portland. She said no.

So we divorced and I got hammered. She went back to work the next month and now makes 4 x what I do.

My lawyer, an ex Mo. Sup court judge said there was no way in hell I’d get 50/50 custody without the mother being on drugs.

The truth? I was always the better parent, and she is the better worker. My kids are now asking to move in with me after I pissed away a couple of mil, life in Lake Tahoe, and 10 yrs in St. Louis.

It’s a game to some, and the rules favor women. Not all women are like this, but anyone who wants it all, has to take it at another persons expense.

But I’m cool. The fact my kids want to live me is all I need to feel good and I don’t care much for money, it attracts the wrong sorts. And a few yrs I will be skiing 3 months a yr and running a nice insurance book.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[XXX-er]

Hutz is the last lawyer I gave money to, met him on an aviy course, over apres beers buddy mentions he was a lawyer, somehow we got around to drug store RE purchase agreements having huge holes in them so either then or later he offers to write me a purchase agreement on a FSBO for gratis if he gets the conveyance/transfer/yada which you gotta do anyhow, a pretty good guy IMO ... you know for a lawyer

[liv2ski]

To the mags dealing with this issue, my most sincere condolences. I have had a step bro and a few cousins get majorly drilled/fucked over by the courts in favor of their wives and these are good men, hard working and loving dads. From my limited exposure to this process, you better get a great attorney if going down this road and the dad.
Young guys, you better have a solid prenup, especially if you are supporting the family, as I have seen these bitches totally fuck good guys over, something like Jays cartoon.
And Mtn Girl, no input from you is required, as I didn't piss all over your posts.

[mtngirl79]

To the mags dealing with this issue, my most sincere condolences. I have had a step bro and a few cousins get majorly drilled/fucked over by the courts in favor of their wives and these are good men, hard working and loving dads. From my limited exposure to this process, you better get a great attorney if going down this road and the dad.
Young guys, you better have a solid prenup, especially if you are supporting the family, as I have seen these bitches totally fuck good guys over, something like Jays cartoon.
And Mtn Girl, no input from you is required, as I didn't piss all over your posts.

A loving father of daughters wouldn't speak of women that way.

[Cono Este]

A loving father of daughters wouldn't speak of women that way.

I will teach my daughter she can not have it all.

Women are confused nowadays. Part of them expects the traditional privilege of being an at home mother for some period of time, and the modern part of them tells them that shouldn’t have to give up anything professionally to have that.

Bake your cake and eat it much?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[babybear]

you must not get out that often
we have discussed if/when we have children andrew will in all likelihood be the caretaker while I continue to work.
things have changed for many

[Cono Este]

you must not get out that often
we have discussed if/when we have children andrew will in all likelihood be the caretaker while I continue to work.
things have changed for many

He’s a lucky man.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[liv2ski]

you must not get out that often
we have discussed if/when we have children andrew will in all likelihood be the caretaker while I continue to work.
things have changed for many

B bear, love your on line persona and only wish you two the best, but remember that cartoon goes both ways, so be careful and work on your relationship ever day. It is amazing how fast the garden dies if neglected.

[mtngirl79]

I will teach my daughter she can not have it all.

Women are confused nowadays. Part of them expects the traditional privilege of being an at home mother for some period of time, and the modern part of them tells them that shouldn’t have to give up anything professionally to have that.

Bake your cake and eat it much?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

You are fucking disgusting.