Pajamas Media

149 Comments

1. Evil Pundit:

This is a sad case.

I can’t imagine myself being married, and refusing to give a kidney to my spouse if it would save her life.

Still less would I like to be in the position of having given up a part of my body, only to be betrayed.

The only answer I can see here is that a man should never marry a woman.

Jan 9, 2009 - 1:41 am 2. Helen Smith:

Evil Pundit,

I don’t think the lesson here is never to marry. I think it is to give a gift freely if you desire, think through your motives and realize that giving this type of gift is it’s own reward. My point is that giving the kidney with the expectation that it might resolve a relationship is a bad idea. The wife’s life might have been saved but the underlying trouble in the marriage will most likely not change. Giving gifts to save a relationship does not work, never has and it never will.

Jan 9, 2009 - 3:03 am 3. Vet:

Everything seem to neat and wrapped up with him, saving a person life , ect ect. I just have to wonder what is on the other side of the coin. Could be him demanding payment for kidney or he wants it back is just the tip of the iceberg of how he acted in his marriage.

Jan 9, 2009 - 3:16 am 4. jvon:

I bought my ex-wife a house. I wish I’d talked to you first.

Jan 9, 2009 - 3:18 am 5. BlahBlah:

It won’t work if the woman has already plundered you (this woman apparently got his kidney and a good chunk of his money – she no longer needed him).

Lots of women are in it for the money. Lots and lots (although they will individually deny it with their dying breath).

So the trick is to keep holding the carrot out. If she hasn’t plundered you, if there’s plenty more to get if she sticks around, she’ll stick around.

Jan 9, 2009 - 3:29 am 6. David:

I just got divorced after 3 years of marriage, and though I wouldn’t say I was maybe the best of husbands, constant nagging, every little thing I did was found at fault or not enough, maybe it was. I now realize that it was abusive. The only moments it seemed she found any happiness with me was when I would buy her gifts. After just about bankrupting myself trying to keep her happy and finding out she had just started seeing someone else I decided to just leave. I found this out while on a trip and after spending about $2000 on clothes and such.

I feel I just got in to a stupid cycle where gifts meant less nagging and a short time of actually feeling loved. Stupid I know.

Well I feel I made the right decision in not staying around and have been a lot happier living by myself again.

Gotta work that debt off, but as I say am happier for it.

Jan 9, 2009 - 4:35 am 7. dscott:

Having been cheated on and robbed blind in a divorce I can appreciate his feelings on the matter, however, what one feels and what one does separates male teens from men in terms of self control. Unfortunately in many cases, a man’s self control is misinterpreted as having no feelings at all thus setting them up for abuse not only by thoughtless and inconsiderate women but by a cruel and enabling PC legal system.

#1, the answer is not in ever marrying, the answer is personal responsibility. You have a choice in being a victim or being a survivor, choose wisely. A survivor takes personal responsibility for the outcome. I, like this doctor have a choice in whom I will allow to share my life. The second time around I was determined to find a mature person who would respect me as a human being and not view me as a piggybank or sugardaddy. I can say from experience that there are women who are not abusive, immature and greedy, but you must deliberately look for them. You must break your programming on the assumption that everyone is good, they are not, and you must break the programming that everyone given the right environmental circumstances will respond as a normal person, they don’t. And most of all you must give up all notions that people will live up to your expectations, they will fail you everytime. The people in Narcotics Anomynus have a saying, “Expectations are premeditated resentments”. What are your expectations and does this person share them? If they don’t you will be resentful.

Love is not an accident or chemical response, it is planned and calculated. Those who fail to plan, plan to fail. Do your homework, use a service like eHarmony or matchdotcom to weed out all those who have maturity and conflicting interest issues to improve your odds. Life is full of variables you can not control thus making the outcome less than 100% predictable, however, by carefully applying some wisdom on personal issues you don’t like, you can increase the probability of a successful outcome. There are no guarantees in life, just probabilities.

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:50 am 8. Kasper Hauser:

Any man who gets out of a marriage and only loses one internal organ should count his blessings.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:01 am 9. Tony R:

I’m afraid the doctor deserved everything he got.

I mean, come on for God’s sake, how big do some mens egos have to be to let them ignore the obvious fact that the hot woman who is showing them plenty of interest is not actually in the slightest bit interested in anything other than their status and money and wants both for herself? Maybe its not ego and its just utter stupidity but either way its hard to be sympathetic.

Why any man in the US with plenty of money would ever get married is beyond me….especially when “good looks” are high on the list of attributes they are looking for in a partner. They are just setting themselves up to be the next sucker for money-grubbing female vultures. It’s even more embarrassing when the men then turn around and say “I didn’t see that coming”…..Wise Up Suckers!!!

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:03 am 10. Mister Snitch!:

Making puns about this is really hitting below the belt.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:06 am 11. Trinidad. Adventist. Gay?!:

Part of me wants to ask:
If it were reversed and the kidney were a baby, what would we say then?

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:07 am 12. Dave in Texas:

I’d give the kidney no matter how badly the marriage was going.. and I wouldn’t ask for anything related to the kidney if the divorce came.. it would be about ME, not about her or what she did to me..

He’s pissed, obviously, but he needs to have more class. Let her be the classless one.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:09 am 13. Santiago Javier Valenzuela:

I think the advice is sound. Marriages are not built on gifts; they are built on mutual compatibility. Not going out for the same hobbies, but in a more fundamental sense; his (often never explicitly identified) attitude about life and how to approach it.

The problem is that its often never explicitly identified on what makes up one’s sense of life, so men just kind of go off into the wilderness without knowledge of what they can do to ensure a good relationship.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:23 am 14. Enos Sporf:

My D lawyer once remarked: “It’s amazing what a man will do to keep the peace.”

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:27 am 15. Sofa King:

“I think it is to give a gift freely if you desire, think through your motives and realize that giving this type of gift is it’s own reward.”

That’s an inhuman demand. This kind of sacrifice is almost always made because the donor has a personal interest in their relationship to the donee. Nobody donates a healthy organ just to feel good about themselves.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:31 am 16. Ed Falkner:

When I was an attorney in private practice, I never would have counselled or sued this lawsuit. I did some divorce work then, and know a little bit about the dynamics of revenge and betrayal by litigation.

My experience was that “family law” litigation (what a joke that term is; I used to call it “break up the family law.”) was that litigation for revenge ultimately served just one purpose–to fatten lawyers’ bank accounts (assuming one could get the client to pay). I can’t remember ever learning of a time anyone felt better because they overlitigated a family matter.

Attorneys do no one any good when they are instruments for revenge. That’s just something we in the profession owe people. We are not just litigation machines. They call us “counsellors” for a reason.

I would recommend that we counsel people NOT to sue in circumstances such like this. This is not the use our courts shoud be put to.

Not to mention that he is, in a sense, being made a bad guy over it (as evidenced, at least anecdotally, by the poll the writer cites). My experience is that you will get sympathy in a lot of situations until you sue; then your motives, morals, decision-making and the like will become suspect/challenged.

Not all publicity is good publicity, no matter what others might say.

It’s one thing to use the courts to address wrongs, another (and not good) thing to sue so that you can feel better.

If the facts are true as we understand them so far, our doctor protagonist was entirely wronged. Frankly, he just should have written his ex-wife a letter about what an ungrateful traitor to him she was, mailed it if he wished, and then tried to move on.

That would likely have done him better than this lawsuit will do, I predict.
And that, in my view, is true even if the law is favorable to his claim.

FWIW.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:36 am 17. tim maguire:

I haven’t followed this closely enough to confidently assign blame for the divorce. But as for the kidney, I’m with Dave in Texas. The good doctor did a good deed, now he needs to show some class. I was thinking about this yesterday and if I were in his position, I hope I would never mention the kidney in any sense related to the divorce.

He’s destroyed his “good karma” with what looks like a temper tantrum.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:39 am 18. wannabe:

That is not alpha behavior. Most women want an alpha male whether they realize it not. If you want to keep your woman, be kind to her, but don’t be doormat or a punk. Know when to say no and when to walk away. Stay Alpha!

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:40 am 19. john b:

He may find himself in legal trouble. I believe its illegal to demand payment for a human organ.
By definition a gift requires no payment.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:40 am 20. a cut to the quick:

As I recall, the psychological profile of successful surgeons tends towards the emotionally detached, ego inflated and self-centric person used to seeing himself and having others see him as next to God.

Might could be that played a part in this marriage and divorce.

Believe it or not, guys, there are a lot of women who would much rather have a loving husband home with them evenings and weekends than to have a lot of money and a cold, manipulative and distant man whom others worship.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:41 am 21. RightwingHippyChick:

I don’t know that you can read anything into this other than that those two people are simply dysfunctional nutters.

No normal person would get themselves into such a stupid situation in the first place — they would have long left before ever getting to that stage of the game.

Some people claim they were ignorant to the reality — again, what sort of person attempts to buy another with tacky presents (or the odd kidney?) just like one trains a dog with tidbits or pays a prostitute?

Those two deserved each other, the people I feel sorry for is their kids, and I wonder what kind of other crazy demands their parents make on them in daily life… usually there is far more of the same (and worse) where this comes from.

Can we please stop holding up freaks’ behaviour as normality — it’s not ‘men who give too much’, but ‘crazy haters without manners who misbehave to harm each other out of spite, because they want to and can’.

;-P

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:43 am 22. SWLiP:

My initial take is that, as a surgeon, this man probably had very limited personal time to devote to his family, and tried to show his devotion in other ways, only to be scorned. It hurts. Bad. He’s angry and he’s lashing out.

I’m not a divorce lawyer, but I suspect that, from a legal standpoint, the kidney would be treated as a marital gift (like a ring), which the wife is entitled to keep.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:47 am 23. Ed Falkner:

One more thing, on a not-attorney-related conduct. This is from a married guy (30 years).

Giving is what we guys do in a relationship. Security, house, home, money, name it.

That’s something we did in courtship, and it would be a sorry day if a story like this were ever to teach or give the implication that one is a sucker to give anything, or to give cautiously or miserly, in a marriage relationship.

We give gifts for her birthday and sundry other events. We give gifts because we are thinking about her. We give her flowers of something when we want to make up for screwing up.

And yes, we give gifts because some of us think we need to in order to signal that we want the dying relationship NOT TO DIE. I really don’t believe that such is necessarily wrong. It may be unsuccessful, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

So, by all means, guys, give. It’s what we do. We can no more not give than we cannot eat, sleep, or think about sex.

And if that giving comes for naught, go ahead and grieve the loss. Take the time you need, and, like with all losses, do what you can to get over it and move on.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:50 am 24. john:

Just goes to show, next time let her die.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:56 am 25. Eric Stratton, Rush Chairman:

For those who are unaware, Lisa Bloom is the daughter of media-whore attorney Gloria Allred.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:06 am 26. Gilligan:

The moral of this story seem to be that if you are a financially successful but emotionally distant surgeon and your wife needs a kidney, you will be better off financially, emotionally and in the minds of most Americans if you just let her die.

You will save yourself the cost of the divorce, the pain of betrayal and the ridicule of your fellow citizens who give absolutely no credit to your sacrifice of a kidney.

In the end you can go about the business of living alone or finding a new spouse with a lot fewer problems and a lot fatter bank account.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:08 am 27. Anti-Ed:

Ed Falkner sez:

“So, by all means, guys, give. It’s what we do. We can no more not give than we cannot eat, sleep, or think about sex.”

—————-

Please don’t speak for “us guys”, Ed. If you want to give your stuff away, do it.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:13 am 28. Pee Wee Herman, Community Organizer:

#14, I think you misunderstood. I think he said “keep the piece“.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:15 am 29. Ken Nelson:

Dr Helen’s advice is a variant of the more common “don’t marry somebody expecting them to change”. Following that advice (men and woman) would significantly cut down on the divorce rate.

In general, don’t expect any adult to change for any reason. Period. It can happen, but not because of anything you do.

As to this case… he is right to be pissed but silly to want his kidney back.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:19 am 30. Helen Smith:

Sofa King,

Virginia Postrel donated her kidney to Sally Satel for pretty altruistic reasons–got nothing for it except maybe an article in the Atlantic. Here is a podcast we did with her about that donation”

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/04/podcast-with-virginia-postrel-on.html

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:19 am 31. Jdbar:

This was an episode of “House” last season I think…except it featured two lesbian characters. One was going to break up with the other but needed a kidney. The donator gave it to her in order to have this as leverage to keep the relationship going. Of course, on tv, after the hour is up, that plotline ends and we don’t get to see the mess this would cause in the relationship.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:20 am 32. cathyf:

It looks to me like the guy gave his three children an extraordinary gift — the life of their mother. And now he wants to wound them grievously with what is essentially a temper tantrum.

I know lots of ex spouses, both men and women, who make great grown-up sacrifices in treating their exes reasonably and civilly so that their kids can have two parents. Because once you have children you may be able to dissolve the marriage, but that person is the other parent of your child(ren) forever. I’d rather give props to them — the people who would donate an organ to an ex-spouse after the divorce, because it was the best thing for their kids, and for themselves.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:34 am 33. Mike G in Corvallis:

From what I’ve read, the marriage was in trouble partly as a result of her declining health. She knew she was dying, and it freaked her out. It can happen — the wife of a friend of mine had incurable
cancer. She apparently decided “I’m going to have as much fun before I die as I can,” and went off screwing around. They divorced, she got half his assets (which she spent), and now she’s dead.
But if he could have saved her by donating a kidney, I’m sure he would have, in hope of getting her back and giving her a reason to change her behavior.
›

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:37 am 34. Bert:

Quote: “I can say from experience that there are women who are not abusive, immature and greedy, but you must deliberately look for them. ”

I’m a single man and I’d sure like to be married someday. I used to think men who married women who are manipulative, self-centered, gold-digging, etc. had only themselves to blame because they should have recognized those traits before asking her to marry.

I’m not so confident about that anymore. It’s jaw-dropping amazing to watch women I know go from adoring and wanting to please their man until the marriage then it seems what he thinks doesn’t matter anymore, it’s the opinions of women she works with, the guru on Oprah, the latest fashion magazine, etc. that becomes the authority for her decisions.

One day I read the following:

A woman marries a man hoping he will change but he doesn’t

A man marries a woman hoping she won’t change but she does

Dr. Helen, or anyone, are there certain traits or trends a man can look for in a woman that signals what she might be like after marriage? Should I look for a woman of a particular religion, from a certain home life and upbringing, etc.?

It almost seems like marriage is a crapshoot – you might get lucky and you might end up miserable. I don’t think that’s how marriage was designed. Am I naive in thinking things were different 50 or 100 years ago? What has changed? Any useful advice appreciated.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:45 am 35. Eric Stratton, Rush Chairman:

My understanding is he’s not asking for the kidney back, he’s asking for fair market value of the part. This is probably going to fall within the same category as an engagement ring: it’s a gift, and no you can’t be compensated for it.

FWIW, when I divorced my first wife, I bought her half of the business we owned, and paid her generously for it, even though a forensic accounting could have demonstrated it was entirely my money used the start the company. What I got back was a cheap, fast, and almost painless divorce with minimal involvment by lawyers. I think I came out ahead.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:51 am 36. slimslowslider:

damned if you do and damned if you dont. if he didn’t donate then he would have been a selfish and uncaring monster; he did and it simply enabled his adversary. kinda like those greenhouses that those israelis left.
;^)

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:51 am 37. Kelly:

My mother milked my dad dry. She got the house, the kids and nagging rights for all of eternity despite being divorced. When she remarried she was kind enough to sell the house back to dad. I’m sure the happiest day of my dads life was when my youngest sister graduated from college and he got to stop dealing with her. They’ve been divorced and she has been remarried for 35 years, yet she still sneers at him if his name ever comes up. Dad was no deadbeat, took us every single weekend, didn’t park us in front of the tv, but took us to parks and zoos. He never missed a child support payment and always was willing to pay extra. Yet she has nothing but contempt for him. Dad never did remarry. I can understand why.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:02 am 38. anon for now:

I have only seen one picture of her, but she looks like she was pretty hot. If you want a hot wife, you better be prepared to give her lots of attention. The world is full of guys willing to give hot chicks attention, married or no.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:06 am 39. Tood:

Men,

Get a pre-nup. It won’t save you from child support, but will save you from alimony and asset division. If you don’t have the balls to ask for a pre-nup, you are getting what you deserve.

Also, if Western society is making marriage this unattractive for men, then Western society will die, and deservedly so.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:08 am 40. cwmcpa:

Lessons learned
1. No good deed goes unpunished
2. You can not make someone love you
3. Regardless of circumstances, men are not victims. eg crystal magnum and the Duke Lacross team.
4. He really did not give her a whole kidney, women only have 77% of everything that men do.
5. Only men are held ersponsible for their oaths/promises “till death do us part”

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:08 am 41. MyTake:

Bert:

You don’t have to get married. You can get everything you want without marriage.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:10 am 42. Cap'n Dan:

I see three quotes here in the comments that I think define how many men view this:

Dan Scott: “…what one feels and what one does separates male teens from men in terms of self control.”

Dave in Texas: “I’d give the kidney no matter how badly the marriage was going.. and I wouldn’t ask for anything related to the kidney if the divorce came.. it would be about ME, not about her or what she did to me..”

Ed Falkner: “Giving is what we guys do in a relationship. Security, house, home, money, name it.”

What I’m hearing in this is, “We’re Men, this kind of support of our significant other is what we do, part of how we define ourselves. If we get screwed over as a result, well that’s tough. We’re Men, and we take the hit. That too is part of how we define ourselves.”

I’m currently going through a divorce myself after 20 years of marriage and I too am stuck between the almost primal need to “man up” and the raw rage at the woman I’ve tried so hard to please for 20 years deciding she’d rather do something else.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:15 am 43. Helen Smith:

Burt,

“Dr. Helen, or anyone, are there certain traits or trends a man can look for in a woman that signals what she might be like after marriage? Should I look for a woman of a particular religion, from a certain home life and upbringing, etc.?”

A very good article by David Usher entitled, “How to find a good wife or husband” has some good questions to ask yourself when thinking about the traits one wants in a partner:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david75.htm

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:19 am 44. Chris The Grammarian:

Dear Dr. Smith,

I LOVE reading your stuff–but wish you would take more care with its vs. it’s. In your sensible reply to Evil Pundit “is its own reward” = correct “is it’s own reward” = “is it is own reward” = incorrect.

Hope that’s helpful! Chris The Grammarian

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:19 am 45. slimslowslider:

I spend a lot of money
And I spent a lot of time
The trip we made in Hollywood
Is etched upon my mind
After all the things we’ve done and seen
You find another man
The things you think are useless
I can’t understand

Steely Dan.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:28 am 46. Grace D.:

I feel for him, she broke his heart.He is seeking the only way possible to mend. It will not work, as a gift is still a gift.It is a sad tale, no happy ending here on either side and for the children.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:29 am 47. Helen Smith:

Chris The Grammarian,

Thanks for the gentle correction. In replies to comments, I am often multi-tasking and don’t get to proof as well as I might like. I assume that comments do not need to be up to the standard of articles or even posts, in terms of spelling or punctuation errors. But maybe I am just naive!

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:34 am 48. Concerned Citizen:

Why is divorce so expensive?

Because it’s worth it.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:35 am 49. BB:

Cap’n Dan:

Sorry, if you have given over the years and your wife just dumps you … and your response is that you want to “give” her more, then you are just masochistic. Or a sap.

Women are only human beings, for God’s sake, not some goddess. Your view of the world is skewed and you are being taken advantage of (in fact, you probably were being taken advantage of during your entire marriage).

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:35 am 50. BB:

Tood (re prenuptial agreement):

That’s not cast in stone either. Steven Spielberg had a prenuptial agreement with Amy Irving and after only 4 (four) years of marriage she got half of his fortune at that time (something north of $100 million).

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:39 am 51. rufus:

During the time preceding the demise of my 20 year marriage, I gave her lots of gifts, some quite expensive, just to win her back.
It did not work.
It never will.
As someone said above, “you can’t make someone love you.”
Lesson learned.
I will pass this bitter lesson on to my sons, of whom I have full custody because, in part, she just walked out on all of us.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:41 am 52. BB:

Judges can vacate a prenuptial agreement faster than you can write one. Google Spielberg and Irving and read the details.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:41 am 53. D:

“And never, ever give gifts to someone who is thinking of leaving you, doesn’t want you, or treats you like crap, as a way to make them change or stay — it will never work.”

My wife has threatened many times to leave. Then she is surprised and very angry when I will not put her name on additional assets besides out house.

As Cap’n Dan said in comment 42, I have tried so hard to please her for 21 years, I would almost rather do something else. It is not supposed to be this dang hard…

Thanks, doc.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:43 am 54. Lawyer Doug:

“She slapped me with divorce papers when I was in surgery trying to save another person’s life”. This guy is a whining moron. No wonder she left him. Perhaps she didn’t have his surgery schedule handy to make sure he wasn’t served with papers on a day he wasn’t so selflessly sacrificing to save YET ANOTHER person’s wife. Cry me a river. The limited facts we have been provided do not support a conclusion that this woman was wrong in losing her love for the martyred doctor. They do support the conclusion that he is a self- centered baby who needs to grow a pair. The facts also demonstrate, yet again, that I was smart to get out of domestic relations law after two years of private solo practice.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:46 am 55. Mike T:

I think the reason he wants his kidney back is psychological and emotionally complex — reasons that are rarely ascribed to men since our society doesn’t think of them as emotionally complex as women.

The average woman isn’t psychologically complex. She’s nice on the outside, but petty, controlling and vindictive on the inside. The ones worth marrying are the ones who’ve taken the time to overcome these natural tendencies. Similar things could be said about men, since we’re cut from the same genetic cloth.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:47 am 56. BB:

Frankly, you’re more likely to “win her back” if you do nothing. No chasing, no gifts, nothing.

Women themselves sometimes don’t know what they want. If you don’t react to her crap with supplication, she may start seeing you in a good light again.

Women DON’T want some boy who obviously thinks the woman is better than him, and that’s how a lot of men act.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:48 am 57. Tood:

“Judges can vacate a prenuptial agreement faster than you can write one. Google Spielberg and Irving and read the details.”

You’re wrong. Only if it was not prepared properly, or is too unbalanced. If it is prepared properly (with both sides having an attorney), it is not vacated.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:49 am 58. Carl Pham:

I think he should get the kidney back, even at the cost of her death. That would serve as a useful corrective, bringing back some healthy fear of male power to women everywhere.

One of the difficulties of modern Western civilization is that, biologically speaking, we are who we are, men and women, but our social structures do not adequately reflect those plain facts. Men are by nature more selflessly generous than women. This is why men serve in the military, why they willingly go down with the ship, step in front of their wives when muggers attack, why they are explorers and inventors and general risk-takers. (Women have of course qualities not equally shared by men, and men have faults not shared by women, but that’s another story.)

This only makes sense. Biologically speaking, a healthy womb is far less replaceable to the tribe than a pair of testicles. So greater generosity and altruism, what you might call interpersonal risk-taking, is wired into the male DNA just as much as is a taste for risk-taking in sports or business. You can no more change it by will and consciousness-raising than you can turn off your sex drive or re-orient it to the other sex. (Since psychologists are paid to reassure clients that zebras can change their stripes, I don’t expect this notion to get a warm reception here.)

But, as Charles Murray effectively argues in the case of IQ, we do not, unfortunately, have social structures that reflect essential biological facts. We pretend that men and women are motivated identically. The result is that we either have a structure that implicitly favors men (because it assumes women act like men) or implicity favors women (because it assumes men act like women).

Arguably we are in the state today where the latter is true. But this is clearly unstable, and will change according to the iron laws of evolution. Either we’ll change it ourselves, because we smarten up, or it will be changed for us, perhaps violently. The latter is much more likely, since if we were smart enough to recognize the problem and its solution, we probably would not be here in the first place.

For a preview, consider England, which has proceeded much further along the path of effeminization. In 50 years it will be an Islamic republic under sharia law, and women will no longer be issued driving licenses, nor have any significant power in a divorce. That is, the balance will have swung hard to the other side.

If I were an intelligent modern woman, I would fear this, and work to convince my sisters to give up some present-day power and convenience to fend off a future catastrophe to our granddaughters.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:50 am 59. megapotamus:

Anyone who has had a birthday knows that gifting, both the giving and receiving, is a complex interaction. If the guy was going to give a kidney or any other damn thing it is given without strings; that is what a gift is and, not coincidentally, that is what the law says as well. The exceptions made explicitly for engagments… those hoary old “Breach of Promise” suits wherein the maiden surrenders her virtue for an engagement ring that proves to be paste, show a quasi-contractural exchange that is and should be obsolete. I have no brief for the wife but could it be that the infidelity was an extreme measure for an extreme circumstance? As for me, I’m using my kidneys and the way I use ‘em, I may well need the spare.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:50 am 60. Tood:

Ed Falkner is the most meek, spineless man I have ever seen :

“Guys are supposed to give in a relationship, and women are supposed to take. Once guys accept their rightful role, they will be happy.”

That is the worst thing I have ever read in my life. I would rather be alone forever than be like Ed.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:53 am 61. Ralph Gizzip:

A lot of people seem to be missing the point, especially Lisa Bloom of CBS (why am I not surprised?) The good doctor doesn’t want his kidney back. He wants his ex-wife to pay him dearly for it. I’m guessing it’s a bargaining chip for him to use to either keep most of his retirement savings, his practice, or prevent him from paying alimony, although I don’t believe alimony is warranted when the wife is the unfaithful partner.

With the way Family Courts are stacked against fathers he’s doing everything he can to avoid being economically raped. Good for him!

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:55 am 62. thirteen28:

“I’m currently going through a divorce myself after 20 years of marriage and I too am stuck between the almost primal need to “man up” and the raw rage at the woman I’ve tried so hard to please for 20 years deciding she’d rather do something else.”

The problem with “manning up” as its characterized above is that it usually results in “turning yourself into a doormat who can get taken advantage of by the soon-to-be-ex-wife while getting raped by the divorce courts.” Younger men are taking notice, and the marriage rate is declining.

As Tood wrote above, if Western Civilization continues to make marriage unattractive for men, Western Civilization will deservedly die. As such, some of the proponents of “manning up” above should reconsider and understand where the surgeon is coming from (that is, losing his wife and a kidney, and will almost certainly lose a house, a car or two, a meaningful relationship with his children and a significant portion of his earnings). Is it any wonder that young men don’t want to “man up” when they see results like that?

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:57 am 63. Tood:

Bert,

“It almost seems like marriage is a crapshoot – you might get lucky and you might end up miserable. ”

For a man, about a 25% chance of happiness, and 75% chance of misery. Misery might either mean an impoverishing divorce, or being beaten down into slavery while technically still married. It is debateable which is worse.

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:00 am 64. mike d:

Her dogma will eventually be run over by his karma. Even a perfect match kidney wont last more than a decade or so, if that.

Before long this woman will be right back where she started, on dialysis again, but with no supportive husband around this time.

And unless she’s found a second donor who matches her blood type, she goes on a wait list for a suitable match.

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:01 am 65. slimslowslider:

advice: don’t have a “close encounter of the turd kind” and write a prenup on a napkin.

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:07 am 66. RightwingHippyChick:

“It almost seems like marriage is a crapshoot – you might get lucky and you might end up miserable. I don’t think that’s how marriage was designed. Am I naive in thinking things were different 50 or 100 years ago? What has changed? Any useful advice appreciated.”

What has changed is people’s expectations to be a unique and wonderful individual who deserves a perfect fairytale life full of adventure.

The other thing has changed is the inability to fit in — people know they can get divorced nowadays just start over afresh, and so there is no long-term penalty for bad manners, stroppy behaviour and general uncooperativity.

Finally, the idea of love itself has changed in society — the original idea is a joke nowadays to people which only small children still believe in — sex has replaced it long ago.

There is an interesting essay(?) written in 1920 by Chesterton, ‘On the Superstition of Divorce’, which you can listen to here http://librivox.org/the-superstition-of-divorce-by-g-k-chesterton/

Ps.: Any typo or grammar mistakes in this post can be kept by the lucky finders

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:12 am 67. SarahW:

Organ donation is an irrevocable gift. It is non-compensable by law. You don’t buy people and bind them to you forever with it.

That said, do not take at face-value all his claims.

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:28 am 68. Paul from Hamburg:

slimslowslider: Thanks for the very appropriate reference. Personally, I find myself remembering this line almost daily:
“The things that pass for knowledge, I can’t understand.”

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:33 am 69. Tood:

I agree that the organ donation is something he cannot claim as per law. He is out of luck in that regard.

His best hope is that his 3 children see that he gave their mom is kidney, and that when they become adults, they think better of him for it. That is the best outcome he can strive for.

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:35 am 70. J:

Dr. Helen, you are dead-on. I have tried it, and it never worked. If your suffering a broken heart though, it is very easy to delude yourself that it might work. I think it’s the equivalent of a woman trying to undo a breakup with free booty calls. Same difference.

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:35 am 71. George:

“Have you ever given gifts or something precious to a girlfriend or wife in the hopes of winning her back or do you know someone who did?”

Sure. Only the gift wasn’t so much of a material thing. I fell in love with a wonderful woman some distance away who was also going through a rough patch of bad luck. She seemed to be to be handling things in a very responsible manner and taking what I felt were all the right steps to putting things back in order. I was divorced and co-parenting with my ex. I made it a point to “be there” for her. She had been in an automobile accident and couldn’t drive. I drove an hour to her town several times a week to get her where she needed to go and spent alternating weekends with her. Over time she was getting herself and her situation under better control and I was quite proud of her.

Then my ex died and I became a full time parent. My ex was a “hoarder” but the house was larger than my apartment so I decided to clean the place out and live there. I was quite overwhelmed with the amount of work that needed doing in addition to working full time and being the parent of two elementary schoolers. That was when I really needed some help and though I never said so, I expected she would now be there for me when I needed a hand as I had been there for her though I had done so at the time without any expectation or knowledge that I would be needing that help. Then I lost my job when the company I worked for went under though I found another quickly, it was just another load of stress on top of what I already had. I couldn’t get up to see her like I had and she rarely came down to see me. At this point I was mentally, emotionally, and physically exhausted. I needed help and I told her so. Her response was “well, you better get some, then”. I was devastated. A few weeks later she came around to tell me that she couldn’t be in a relationship that was focused on children as it wouldn’t “meet her needs”. I felt that I had been taken for a sucker. I paid her health care when she was having trouble working, I took her to appointments, drove her to classes, to/from work when she was well enough … and now that she was back on her feet, I no longer “met her needs”.

I got over it eventually and maybe am still “getting over it” am a little. But I am certainly more cynical when it comes to relationships than ever before.

Jan 9, 2009 - 10:41 am 72. Acksiom:

And I DO think the lesson here, as in so many other cases, is to never marry. Because marriage isn’t what so many people think it is; it’s not so much a commitment between two people as it is a contract between two people on one side and a community on the other. And the community, as a rule, is thoroughly prejudiced not only against men but also in favor of women.

So we’re not rejecting commitment to women; we’re rejecting contracts with our communities.

And that indicates a far more serious overall social problem than just a decreasing rate of marriage.

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:04 am 73. rob:

only marry women who have more money than you.

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:11 am 74. jblog:

Reminds me of the old Gary Muledeer joke, when he said the next time he felt like getting married he’d just find a woman he hates and buy her a house.

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:15 am 75. Sofasleeper:

Notwithstanding the unhappiness in my own marriage, I believe in the institution. Most of the marriages I know about appear to be reasonable happy. Many, of course, are not. I made some mistakes, my wife can’t forgive and has some hangups of her own, and it looks like I’m sleeping on the couch until the kids are raised. No point insisting that people throw the baby out with the bathwater, just because I happen to be part of the bathwater.

Gift giving can be a great blessing in a reasonably happy marriage, where the motives are right. Gift giving in a troubled relationship, for the purpose of obligating the other person to be “more reasonable”, has never worked for me or anyone I know. In fact, the likely outcome, as it once was in my case, is for the wife to object to the cost of the bling even though the family finances are basically sound.

I get along with her as a housemate, support the family, and try to be of some help raising the kids. It’s the best I can do. I sometimes give gifts, because as the earlier commenter said, it’s what men do. I am learning not to expect much for myself in return, which I suppose means I’m simply learning that a gift is a *gift*. Not a bad lesson, that.

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:40 am 76. Tood:

“only marry women who have more money than you.”

NO. Only marry women who EARN more money than you. Only then are you safe. Or, of course, get a SOLID pre-nup.

A woman from a wealthy family, but who earns little on her own, will still take money from you in divorce. Her pre-marital family money is still hers. Of course, such a woman will be more agreeable to a pre-nup.

So only marry a woman who EARNS more money than you. And who is not a lawyer. Thus, doctors and corporate executives are the only women to marry. Do not marry a fashion model. Her high earnings will evaporate after age 30.

George :

You got off lightly. At least you were not under a marital contract with the second woman.

Sofasleeper :

You have it better than you know. Look at all the men who get divorce, raped in court, and have to live on a few hundred dollars a month for the rest of their lives. You have it better than many.

Jan 9, 2009 - 12:14 pm 77. Tood:

Not since the Jim Crow era have a segment of society been so mistreated.

Perhaps we should coin a new concept. This is the era of ‘Jim Crow, but for men’. That really is an accurate description. Men are second class citizens in America. Most women like it that way, and most men are to beaten down to do something about it.

Jan 9, 2009 - 12:16 pm 78. bender:

“I’m currently going through a divorce myself after 20 years of marriage and I too am stuck between the almost primal need to “man up” and the raw rage at the woman I’ve tried so hard to please for 20 years deciding she’d rather do something else.”

I think this best describes my situation too… The worst part is that this is RAW rage. The kind you shy away from. The kind that makes you seem disturbed. And people in this situation have to bury it. There is NO outlet for it. You can run, you can climb, you can drink, you can do drugs… you can go on a spree in south east asia, it doesnt matter.

You have to keep it buried so you dont lose your job, your friends, alienate your family… It eventually goes away, but what a cost.

Jan 9, 2009 - 12:33 pm 79. Tood:

Sure, it is easy to say ‘never marry’. But what if a man wants children? What if that is one of the major things he wants in life?

I’m tellin’ ya, Western Society is teetering on the precipice. Islam, with its much higher birth rates, can outnumber the West faster than you think. It only takes 16-18 years for a new baby boy to become a fighting-age Jihadi.

Jan 9, 2009 - 12:33 pm 80. plutosdad:

Most of the vengeful comments just don’t get it. He significantly decreased the quality of his life and even length of his life, in order to help her, and in return she left. He doesn’t want the kidney back, he wants his pain eased.

Maybe he shouldn’t get money, but on the flipside I’d say she has no right at all to any alimony or “child” support – he already gave her more than anyone else could or be expected to.

Jan 9, 2009 - 12:35 pm 81. FP:

Odds are, this is part revenge/bitterness and part trying to not get screwed over in divorce court. If you read all the articles you find out that she also hasn’t let him see the kids for 3 years apparently. So, lets see, she cheated on him, took his kidney, left him, took his kids and took half or more of the assets… Nah, he shouldn’t be angry or bitter. He should “man up”.

Yeah, forget that. Let it ALL BURN. This society treats men as second class citizens.

Jan 9, 2009 - 12:49 pm 82. Sarah:

It’s been interesting reading on this topic. I have a kidney transplant, and just want to make a point that kidney’s have VALUE. It’s a gift of life, but also I think that people should be able to sell them if there are people dying that need them. And they would, if not for government regulations, afraid that poor people are not able to think clearly and make their own decisions. Does a woman donate her eggs or a man his sperm for free? Even body parts like skin grafts are donated to organizations that turn around and sell them. This then, is clearly an artificial situation.

That being said, this woman’s behavior is especially heinous. To take her husband’s organ and the gift of her own life, and use it to act in a way that hurts him is cruel and disgusting. But what does her act have to do with Marriage in general? This man should be able to get monetary compensation. I think that’s completely fair.

Bert: The advice I would give you is to watch the woman’s interaction with her father and to a lesser extent, her mother. That will be an important clue as to how she acts in a family situation. You will become her family when she’s married and if she’s disrespectful, dismissive, or rude she’ll be that way to you too.
Maybe this is undervalued, but religion and morals are also a big part of your prospective mate. Marriage originated as a religious institution for a reason. Why would people who have no religion enter it and expect it to work out… it takes more than an average sacrifice and effort to become better human beings and control impulses and urges for the sake of your loved one. Most people don’t even seem to realize that is needed.

Don’t become cynical, guys. If you enter a relationship with a particular view of women as selfish harpies, that’s what you’re going to end up with. Search for a partner you can honor and she will honor you, too.

Jan 9, 2009 - 1:23 pm 83. SarahW:

on the flipside I’d say she has no right at all to any alimony or “child” support

Based on what? That will be determined with facts, evidence, and testimony you don’t have or won’t have access to; the organ donation won’t be included in that calculation, however.

Some skepticism of his accusations should be maintained.

Jan 9, 2009 - 1:24 pm 84. Hucbald:

The laws surrounding marriage are written by lawyers to make money FOR lawyers when the inevitable divorce comes: They are 100% unfair to men, but they have to target men because men make most of the money. No wife who cheats on her husband should leave a marriage with ANYTHING: Kids, kidneys (LOL!), cars, houses, money – that would be fair and just.

And what’s this BS about our society thinking men are more emotionally simple than women? I don’t disagree – society does indeed think that way – but since it is obvious that the most intelligent human beings are ALL men (There have never been, nor will there ever be, any female Newtons, Da Vincis, Michelangelos, Bachs, Mozarts, Einsteins, or Beethovens), then why is it so hard to understand that ALL of the most emotionally deep human beings are also men? That seems like it ought to be a truism to me.

For the record: One marriage, one divorce, no kids. Haven’t even bothered with a girlfriend since, and it’s been over ten years. Women and marriage are simply not worth the trouble, if you look at the situation logically and objectively.

Jan 9, 2009 - 1:40 pm 85. superior1:

I can glibly say with some assurance that this will never happen in my marriage.

My wife and I have one kidney each.

Jan 9, 2009 - 1:42 pm 86. Tood:

Sarah,

“The advice I would give you is to watch the woman’s interaction with her father and to a lesser extent, her mother. That will be an important clue as to how she acts in a family situation. You will become her family when she’s married ”

Sadly, it is not that simple. I know a woman who was so unhealthily close to both her parents (she lived with them until her marriage at age 29), that she still called them twice a day after marriage. She never treated her husband as her new family, and when her parents spoke poorly of her husband, she joined in rather than defend him or at least be silent.

So a woman who is too obsessively close to her parents is also bad for marriage.

Jan 9, 2009 - 2:07 pm 87. Knights13:

“I got over it eventually and maybe am still “getting over it” am a little. But I am certainly more cynical when it comes to relationships than ever before.”

Eh, George: Don’t feel bad because a lot of us have been a sucker at one time or another. For me it was a learning experience and opened my eyes so to speak. To note that the plug was pulled before children and just about to get married. I saw too many warning signs and was thinking when I have kids, I’m going to have problems. When it didn’t work out with that woman then I gave myself two years to regroup. By this time I knew what I was looking for and what to avoid.

Now, I’m happy to hear the words: How was your day? Are you tired and do you want something to eat? Everytime I hear that from my wife I just give her the biggest hug. I don’t have to hear: We need to talk or I’m not happy.

Jan 9, 2009 - 2:16 pm 88. b:

Stupid me, I wasn’t even married and I bought her a house. And then spent a few years helping to maintain and fund it, all the while not having a key or even so much as the right to hang out in the back yard. Meanwhile my own house suffered from neglect. Of course, she started seeing someone else. I’ve recently had some medical problems, and she couldn’t be bothered to even listen.

Oh well, at least she’s happy.

Jan 9, 2009 - 2:26 pm 89. Acksiom:

Tood, a man doesn’t have to marry to have children. And it’s arguable as to whether his custody of them is better protected inside or outside of marriage. He can commit to and have children with a woman, but he’d be wise not to commit to a community at this point.

Men used to marry for community status benefits. They took on much greater responsibilities as married men, including the behavior of their wives and children, and in turn their communities used to compensate and reward them for their investments of time and energy and resources and risk.

But today our communities are more and more giving us a big middle finger while at the same time catering to our female peers and enabling their bad, even criminal, behaviors.

If a man wants children, he should find an agreeable woman and have them with her. What extra good is marriage going to do him that a non-official committed relationship doesn’t already provide? It’s not like he has any meaningful paternal rights to custody in today’s communities anymore. Why get married at all?

Jan 9, 2009 - 2:28 pm 90. Tood:

Acksiom,

But he still will owe a tremendous amount of child support, even if he never married. Plus, his child will grow up dysfunctional anyway. At least with marriage, there is a chance it will work.

Jan 9, 2009 - 2:50 pm 91. jvon:

Wow. Reading through these comments I am struck with the level of hostility towards women. I think that’s somewhat misguided.

As someone who’s been taken advantage of by a woman in marriage (intentionally or otherwise), I have some emotional baggage here myself. But let’s look at this realistically.

The reason those laws exist is because until fairly recently women did not generally earn enough money in the workplace to live off. They relied on marriage to men or on their relations to support them. It really wasn’t until this past century, and more towards the latter half of it, that that changed in any meaningful way.

Now it’s easy to argue, and perhaps should be argued, that the time for these laws is past — that no woman deserves alimony when leaving a marriage. It’s also easy to argue that in many situations, like the one I had with my ex-wife where I was paying nearly all the bills and she was working on an impressive shoe collection, that splitting the marital assets down the middle is not really an equitable way of dissolving the marriage. It does, however, ease the burden on the court system, so I can see why there would be some resistance to changing it.

The larger problem here is the breakdown of traditional sex roles where marriage is concerned. One of the largest problems I had with my ex is that she was a rabid feminist and chafed at any suggestion that it was her “job” to do the things that wives are traditionally expected to do — cook, clean, have sex when men want it. It’s now considered sexist to expect a woman to do the majority of the housework (regardless of the fact that men often do ALL the work outside, and earn most of the money coming in). Also sexist to expect to be cooked for — even if you’ve been at work all day paying for the food. And sex? Sex is given to men when women want it. Why it doesn’t matter when men want it I’m not exactly clear on — but if you think I never had sex with my ex when I didn’t feel like it, you’re nuts. The difference was, I knew if I turned it down, I’d be in for a looong cold spell. Using sex as a weapon against men isn’t just not sexist, it’s “empowering” or some such nonsense.

The flip side of this is male resentment. We’re tired of being expected to earn money AND pulling our own weight around the house. We live under constant risk of our female partners running off with half the assets that we’ve purchased during the marriage — many times assets that we ourselves did not want. (This was certainly the case with the house I just split with the ex). We’re tired of begging for sex, and being made to feel like deviants for having a stronger sex drive than women. We’re tired. That sums it up nicely.

Something I learned during my marriage and subsequent divorce is that I need to do a better job standing up for myself. Unfortunately, I think that is going to make getting married again difficult. The way things are set up now in our society, marriage really is unfair — just not in the way that my ex-wife thought.

Jan 9, 2009 - 2:51 pm 92. Tood:

Gentlemen,

A lot (but not all) of these problems are simply solved if you :

1) Marry a woman who makes equal or greater income than you.
2) Get a solid, properly done pre-nup

Also, finding a woman of good character matters a lot too. This, of course, is paramount.

Jan 9, 2009 - 3:04 pm 93. JF:

I’m a teacher and the advice I give my students is to marry your best friend, after you meet their parents and see if you like their relationship and if your best friend has qualities you would like your children to have. After that, the family should take priority over the needs of the individual. Justice is the virtue families should strive for. I really think it is good advice.

Jan 9, 2009 - 5:33 pm 94. rufus:

Wow!
I posted earlier and just read the subsequent posts. It is apparent that a lot of men are pissed off. I was too. Note “was.”
Now, I don’t care.
I love my kids and that’s it for me.
Congratulation ladies. You won.

Jan 9, 2009 - 5:58 pm 95. Acksiom:

“But he still will owe a tremendous amount of child support, even if he never married.”

Why? In general, since his assets will be less subject to court-enforced “redistribution”, not being *community* assets (there’s that word again!), will he not therefore be better positioned to defend himself from false accusations and other forms of harassment —

– which are, in support of my thesis, not just merely supported but even actively performed by the community, please note —

– and thereby also better equipped to obtain better custody, perhaps even equal or superior, with a consequential lessening of his assigned modern debt peonage?

Not to mention how that argument serves to invalidate your own challenge of “What if a man wants children?” Because again, as I asked above, if he’s already screwed from the start, then what extra good is marriage going to do him that a non-official committed relationship doesn’t already provide?

So what’s the point of marriage for men, Tood?

“Plus, his child will grow up dysfunctional anyway. At least with marriage, there is a chance it will work.”

Wait, how exactly is there *no* chance childrearing — or the parental partnership itself, whichever you meant — will work *without* marriage?

In fact, if a man’s partner is less likely to benefit from breaking the *family* apart because it is not subject to the marriage laws, doesn’t that increase the chances that his child will grow up in an *unbroken* home, and expectably with the corresponding benefits?

As to your 3 recommendations, I repeat my point that it’s the communities around the men and women that are the primary problem, not the women themselves.

Also, how exactly is a woman with greater or equal income supposed to be less likely to divorce her husband because of it? If anything, such women should be expected to be *more* likely to commit divorce upon them.

Furthermore, where are your cites for your claim that prenuptial agreements are a reliable resource? BB has his counterexamples, and from what I’ve heard from legally experienced men’s issues advocates, the general faith in the utility of prenuptials is about as touching an example of naive innocence as believing in the tooth fairy.

Last but not least, if a woman’s character is good, then again, exactly what extra benefit is marriage to her going to provide him with that a non-official committed relationship wouldn’t anyways?

The problems are a lot more simply solved by just not marrying in the first place. What’s so great about marriage anymore for men, period?

Once more: it’s a contract between a man (and his partner) on one side, and a community on the other, and the communities are routinely and repeatedly and regularly giving men a big middle finger while at the same time catering to their female peers and enabling their bad, even criminal, behaviors.

It’s very telling how nobody is even just acknowledging the existence of that point, and the questions that naturally arise from it, let alone actually trying to address or answer them.

Finally, Jvon? Would you please specifically point out the bases for this “level of hostility towards women” you’re perceiving? Because I’m not finding it, and I’ve just been back through all the comments again, looking for it, and if it’s there and I’m missing it, I really want to know how.

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:12 pm 96. Chaz:

Tood

I couldn’t help but notice your ‘Jim Crow’ statement. I think we should coin the term ‘Jane Crow’ for such behavior.

Personally, you have to marry a woman who sees you for (a) who you are and (b) who you may become. Change has to result on both sides (but don’t expect it to happen!) for a marriage to last.

I think JF’s wisdom on marrying your best friend is the very definition of Happiness.

And lastly, my Mom married my Dad after 6 days. They’ve been married since. It’s not perfect, nor easy, but neither was expected.

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:22 pm 97. Chaz:

Oh and Acksiom

Children need fathers. That’s why the comment was made that there may be a chance in marriage for the children.

And lastly, this contract with the community crap is just that: finely polished, but still crap. The only contracts I intend to enter into in marriage is between my God and my Spouse.

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:24 pm 98. Tood:

Acksiom,

I might be wrong, but I thought child support was the same, whether the child was born in wedlock or not.

I could be wrong though. If an unmarried man is somehow legally off the hook of child support, then I would agree with you.

“Also, how exactly is a woman with greater or equal income supposed to be less likely to divorce her husband because of it? If anything, such women should be expected to be *more* likely to commit divorce upon them.”

I did not say that. I just said that the man will not be financially ruined, in the event of a divorce. This is important, as a divorced man with intact finances can have a lot more fun than a destitute man.

Pre-nups do, however, work if done property (with attorneys on both sides, etc.). Donald Trump had a pre-nup with Marla Maples. She got nothing. There are many other examples.

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:27 pm 99. Tood:

“And lastly, my Mom married my Dad after 6 days. They’ve been married since. It’s not perfect, nor easy, but neither was expected.”

I come from a culture where that is the norm. This is true of my parents and all my aunts and uncles. But women had minimal careers. It would not work in the modern world (and is falling apart every day, as I see).

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:31 pm 100. nadadhimmi:

Maybe he should ask for his testicles back too.

Jan 9, 2009 - 6:46 pm 101. Acksiom:

But children *have* fathers regardless of marriage, Chaz, so again, what’s the point of marriage? With the divorce and custody laws the way they are, marriage is clearly failing to ensure that children will get the fathering they need to any worthwhile degree.

As to your opinion about the definite meaning Tood’s statement, thanks, but I’ll wait for Tood to verify that.

And no, it’s not crap. In fact, that’s where I originally got it from; the characterization of marriage as a contract between a man and a woman on one hand, and the church — or deity — on the other.

So it’s not crap to begin with, nor is it made crap simply by expanding the second party from a deity to a church to a community, because including people who do marry but aren’t particularly religious simply doesn’t cause that kind of change in meaning.

In short, if it’s crap, then your own beliefs are crap, because it *is* what you believe — only expanded somewhat to include objective replicable reality.

Because neither deities nor churches are the ones enforcing unfair laws and judicial decisions that strip men of their assets and children and force them into modern debt peonage while not just catering to the self-infantilization of women but actively encouraging them get away with the next thing to murder on a regular basis, and sometimes even murder itself. The communities are the ones doing that. And that’s why it’s not crap.

So yet again, what extra good is marriage going to do for a man that a non-official committed relationship doesn’t already provide? Why get married at all?

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:05 pm 102. Tood:

Acksion,

“So yet again, what extra good is marriage going to do for a man that a non-official committed relationship doesn’t already provide? Why get married at all?”

So yes, if :

1) The woman agrees to have children under this arrangement
2) The man is not under the same child support laws under this arrangement
3) There are no ill affects to the children under such an arrangement

Then you are right. However, 1) would be somewhat rare, and I don’t think 2) holds.

It is absolutely true that everyone who insists marriage has a religious component, should also then expect religion to intervene in divorce and property division, rather than lawyers and judges.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:20 pm 103. Acksiom:

Tood, I have no idea whether there is a consistent difference in child support between married and unmarried custody arrangements. That’s not my argument.

My points on that are first that a man with unmerged assets is better equipped to defend himself and his paternal custody if his partner decides to break up the family (and the more custody he retains, he less support he pays), and second that keeping his assets separate may decrease the likelihood of his partner doing so at all (and no breakup means no loss of custody at all).

As to my misunderstanding of your meaning, I apologize. I naturally assumed that “A lot (but not all) of these problems” included divorce, custody, false accusations, denial of affection, and so on.

Of course, though. . .with those excluded, I’m not sure what problems other than financial ruination you mean by “a lot”. Comparably speaking, that’s just one problem.

As to prenuptials, I’ve seen counter-example reports of judges completely disregarding them, too. And I suspect that’s much more likely to happen to the average guy struggling in the lower to middle class than it is to the high-profile multi-million dollar cases of Trumps and Ritchies and the like.

Finally, however, the value of prenuptials really isn’t all that relevant, because still yet again, my fundamental question remains unanswered:

What extra good is marriage going to do for a man that a non-official committed relationship doesn’t already provide? Why get married at all?

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:31 pm 104. dscott:

#34, Bert –

“are there certain traits or trends a man can look for in a woman that signals what she might be like after marriage? Should I look for a woman of a particular religion, from a certain home life and upbringing, etc.?”

Yes, there are questions to ask and it is a matter learning how to interrogate (I deliberately choose that term). Having dealt with many deceptive people over my life, you learn the Socratic method as second nature. I will give you an important insight I have observed from this you can base some questions or rather a dialog you should have with anyone of the opposite sex (this works for men as well as women). Many marriage counselors will tell you that a person seeks out what they know in a potential mate, for women they look for their fathers and for men they look for mothers. What a woman most admires in her father is the standard or the expectation to which a potential mate will be measured. The same goes for a man seeing what he admires in his mother in looking for a mate. There are expectations you must meet and why she chooses you.

However, there is a dark side to this expectation. Just as she expects the best, she also expects the worst. Whatever the faults were in her father you are automatically guilty of her fathers faults. In this I say choose your faults wisely. I found this out the hard way. You can contact me via my url if you want to discuss it.

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:39 pm 105. Acksiom:

Tood, if you have citations to support the proposition that children are meaningfully better off with parents who are committed to each other *and* married than children with parents who are committed to each other, or that there is any meaningful difference in assigned support payments between married and unmarried fathers after a family is broken up, please present them.

Because otherwise, your three conditions are just talking past my points, rather than actually addressing them. What you posted in response does not answer my questions.

So once more still yet again, what extra good is marriage going to do for a man that a non-official committed relationship doesn’t already provide? Why get married at all?

Jan 9, 2009 - 7:51 pm 106. Chaz:

Todd
Well, you have me on the marriage. My mother (to her credit and your defense) came from a traditional Korean Society. HOWEVER: her home at childhood would make anyone cringe. The fact that she was a sane person who made an excellent mother is bona-fide proof that there is a God considering that.

To Acksiom
By the children needing a father, I mean one who is THERE. Not just a sperm bank. There is something about Marriage that cements that relationship. I have a cousin who has 3 children to two fathers, and those poor children have no idea what it is to have a father figure in the home.

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:26 pm 107. BMoon:

Two sick, selfish, infantile, manipulative people get married in a sick, narcissistic, self-indulgent, materialistic society and what? Were we expecting the Huxtables out of this?

Jan 9, 2009 - 8:29 pm 108. Jeff:

Chaz said this: “And lastly, this contract with the community crap is just that: finely polished, but still crap. The only contracts I intend to enter into in marriage is between my God and my Spouse.”

Sorry, but that is 100% dead wrong. There’s not even any gray area to stake out, it’s factually wrong. Marriage involves community property, at least theoretically enforceable legal rights and duties, etc. The community, like it or not, is involved, both in the form of the state that makes and enforces those laws, and the social side in which (ideally) others see that wedding ring and recognize it as meaning ‘off limits’.

It one man and one woman were isolated on an island or another planet or something, to talk of them being married or single would be literally meaningless, except perhaps in religious terms. There’s nobody else so they either relate to each other or nobody.

Any real-world marriage involves at least three parties, the husband, the wife, and the world around them. Many believe that it involves God or other higher power, so that’s four. BTW, once you have kids, they have a stake too, like it or not. If Mom and Dad break up, their lives are affected in a big way. It’s not exactly a ‘contract’ with all these parties, but they’re all party to it anyway.

One of the ways we got into this mess was the spread of the nonsensical notion that marriage is a purely private and personal matter.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:01 pm 109. Jeff:

We should keep a little perspective. It remains a common partial misperception that half of all marriages end in divorce. This is technically true, but it includes second and third marriages that end badly, distorting the perception. The majority of first marriages in fact don’t end in divorce or separation.

Statistically, second+ marriages are more likely to fail than first marriages, which distorts the numbers.

The other thing that would benefit both sexes is to remember that pretty much everything peddled by Hollywood, romance novels, porn stories, (especially!) advertising, etc, regarding male/female relationships is fantasy crap trying to sell you something or other. Both feminism and ‘macho’ culture, for ex, are basically advertising/marketing tools. Many things become clearer once you recognize that pervasive truth.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:16 pm 110. Tood:

“So once more still yet again, what extra good is marriage going to do for a man that a non-official committed relationship doesn’t already provide?”

Perhaps nothing at all.

But what fraction of decent women will agree to have children under such an arrangement? You may be self-selecting women of loose morals and poor parenting skills if you get them to agree to have children under such an arrangement.

The good women, who would not do any of the bad things mentioned, would already be excluded from your search.

Jan 9, 2009 - 9:16 pm 111. myth buster:

What extra benefit does marriage provide? Legitimacy and holiness, that’s what. God will judge fornicators and adulterers, but the bed undefiled in marriage is honorable above all. Divorce without cause is also adulterous. By the way, refusing to marry because the odds are against you isn’t winning, it’s just giving up. If you don’t get married because you’re afraid the marriage will fail, you’ve already lost. If you give away your virginity because you figure saving it for marriage is futile since the marriage won’t last anyway, you’ve already lost. If you enter marriage half-heartedly in order to protect yourself from heartache, you’ve already lost, and you’re marriage is doomed because a marriage where you give anything less than all of yourself will not last.

I don’t care how long the odds supposedly are, I still want to get married. Unrequited love is painful; I’m the last person who needs a lecture about that, but the the solution is not hardening one’s heart or swearing off marriage. If my love would love me, I wouldn’t wait long to propose to her.

Jan 9, 2009 - 11:03 pm 112. Tood:

“I don’t care how long the odds supposedly are, I still want to get married. Unrequited love is painful;”

God will not save you from financial ruin of divorce court. We can save you a lot of time. Just post your credit card number here, and let everyone use it. That is still better than divorce, because at least over here, we are not people out to cause you harm simply out of spite.

Jan 10, 2009 - 12:13 am 113. Acksiom:

Chaz, as far as I can tell, you’re the only person here who’s talking about absent and uninvolved fathers who wouldn’t be there for their kids. So I really have no idea why you’re directing such comments towards me. The rest of us have made it very clear that we’re talking about active and involved fathers who are trying to *prevent* loss of access to their children.

As for your “something” about marriage that cements paternal bonds, I’d like to see you compare its effect to how communities support and engage in the severing and destruction of paternal bonds, and how committed but non-marrying partnerships protects them from that

Here’s a couple of links for you to deal with in the process:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3128

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3131&cp=all#comments

Tood, the fraction of decent women are *among* those who will agree to have children under such circumstances. Nobody said you wouldn’t have to weed out the unacceptable, unreliable, untrustworthy ones, because you’d still have to do that anyways.

I certainly wouldn’t want to have children with, let alone commit to, a woman who refused to recognize how badly the community is biased both against men and in favor of women.

If you explain to a woman that you love and trust her but you’re refusing to marry anyone at all because of how the *community* around the two of you can’t be trusted to protect your rights, and she says, ‘Well, that’s not good enough for me,’ OWTTE, then you do what any rational adult does in such situations: you kick her to the curb and move on to the next prospect.

Because if you’re so certain that there are enough women out there worth committing to and marrying, then what are your grounds for arguing that there simultaneously aren’t enough women out there to be worth committing to but *not* marrying?

Myth buster, again, it’s about the community, not the woman. Regardless of your subjective revelational opinion, the objective replicable reality is that you’re incorrectly conflating marriage and committment without support; my point all along has been to separate the two. Plenty of people throughout the history of this country have married without the involvement of religion, let alone in religious traditions very different from whatever yours are.

And I’ve made it clear throughout all this that I have no problem with men taking the risks involved in creating a family. Substitute “family” and appropriate variations thereof for “marriage” throughout your post, and we agree closely. The only difference is the mystical aspects of your personal belief, and with all due respect, those aren’t extensible to the vast majority of the rest of us, so they’re simply not relevant to the wider discussion here.

In short, you haven’t managed to justify marriage at all, because you’ve presented no reason for it other than your subjective revelational opinion, and while that might be good enough for you, it simply is not and never will be good enough for the rest of the world.

Jan 10, 2009 - 2:29 am 114. Gilligan:

Tood: Sure, it is easy to say ‘never marry’. But what if a man wants children? What if that is one of the major things he wants in life?

Become a Muslim.

Jan 10, 2009 - 4:24 am 115. BB:

Tood sez:

“You’re wrong.”

————

I find it admirable that you live in a world of bright-line laws and sharp, black-and-white legal distinctions. Don’t ever go to law school and lose that wide-eyed innocence. It’s refreshing.

If you care to look, there are cases in which a judge has vacated a prenuptial agreement when both parties were represented by lawyers and the terms were not unconscionable. I gave you a great example, but you didn’t care to look, so I won’t waste the time of finding further examples.

I agree that you have better chances with a prenuptial agreement if you follow certain precepts – no third parties involved (i.e. kids), wife understands what she is signing and has a lawyer, terms aren’t unconscionable or lop-sided etc.

But think about this: Even if prenuptial agreements WERE iron-clad today (and they’re NOT), family law could simply change in the future. Many men ran into that in the early 1970s. They got married in the 1960s thinking that their wife would not divorce them if they behaved properly, or at least she would be penalized, and then along came no-fault divorce. Whooops. Now the terms under which they married had changed.

And the legislature can always do this. The rules you married under may well not be the rules you divorce under.

I don’t understand for the life of me why men get married.

Jan 10, 2009 - 6:57 am 116. BB:

For the guys above who say that THEY will determine what their marriage is and what the terms are between themselves, their wives and God(?):

A divorce court judge doesn’t give two rips what you think. And if you have a court order against you, the police don’t give two rips what your personal terms were. You follow the order or you pay a fine or go to jail.

Jan 10, 2009 - 7:04 am 117. BB:

Last comment:

I have personally seen relatives (they were usually wind-bag types to start with) who have dramatically stated that they don’t care what the divorce statistics are because THEY PERSONALLY know how to pick the right woman. Plus they have a great relationship because communication is key, blah-blah.

And then they get a divorce after 20 years. And the guy gets absolutely smoked in divorce court.

Once again, I don’t understand why men marry. You certainly don’t “capture” the woman, you don’t ensure her loyalty, you don’t ensure anything. The woman HAS NO obligations in a marriage, she can leave whenever she wants and take a lot of your stuff with her. YOU, on the other hand, may well have an obligation to continue supporting her.

Jan 10, 2009 - 7:08 am 118. BB:

Oops, forgot to cite my case in Comment 115:

In re Marriage of Noghrey (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 326

Jan 10, 2009 - 7:39 am 119. captain crab:

Not having money is a good way to avoid having to give it all away when you get divorced!

Worked for me!

Jan 10, 2009 - 8:31 am 120. Tood:

BB,

Spielberg’s pre-nup was scribbled on a napkin. That is not a valid pre-nup. At least his marriage to Kate Capshaw seems to be solid, particularly since they have many children together.

I gave you the Donald Trump/Marla Maples example.

Your point on family law changes is valid. People who got a traditional marriage pre-1970s got blindsided later. That is sad. That is why a pre-nup, while not foolproof, is important. It is possible that pre-nups get waived by law in the future, but that has not happened yet.

Jan 10, 2009 - 10:30 am 121. Knights13:

“Once again, I don’t understand why men marry. You certainly don’t “capture” the woman, you don’t ensure her loyalty, you don’t ensure anything.”

BB, you don’t ensure her loyalty nor do you capture the woman. The only thing you are ensured is death. I would assume that most men marry to have and raise children. When the couple decides to marry they make it public to friends and family. Basically, they are saying to each other and everyone that their intentions are to be together and work together to raise children in a healthy environment. Of course, this applies to the genuine heart.

The question is how do you ensure where your hard earned money goes and what effects will it have in the future? It takes two unselfish and hard working people to produce a better and brighter future. The other route would be; blow all the money on yourself until you are alive and then it wouldn’t matter what you had left over. You’d have to find a way to donate it I guess. Although; your funds could be managed very poorly since it came to someone a lot easier. It will most likely evaporate a lot quicker as well as fall into the hands of thieves.

Those who dedicate their lives to marriage and work hard lay a stable foundation for the future.

Jan 10, 2009 - 10:35 am 122. momof3:

NO prenump is ironclad. They can be overruled by the presiding family court judge, and frequently are. When they aren’t, typically, is when the terms are good enough the wife doesn’t bother pushing.

The best way to keep yourself safe, guys, since you’re so worried, is 1) Marry someone you KNOW! 2) don’t marry a great set of tits. Make sure there’s a brain under there, and some morals. 3) don’t cheat. Insist on counseling if you think she is. Shows you’ve made effort, looks good to judges. Oh, and it might actually help, who knows?

Jan 10, 2009 - 10:48 am 123. J:

“The best way to keep yourself safe, guys, since you’re so worried …”

—–

I’m not worried at all, momof3. I haven’t gotten married and can comfortably smirk now at men my age (mid-40s) who are paying and paying and paying. Kind of like how you can smirk at how the laws unfairly favor your sex (but you instead give advice to men, as women customarily do).

Let’s change the divorce laws and see if you are still doling out advice: If there is a divorce, each party takes the money he/she earned. If the wife sat home on her fat ass, she gets a per hour amount (on the scale of hotel maids) if she can show she worked those hours. Otherwise, she has to pay the man back for all the money that flowed her way during the marriage (plus rent, use of cars, huge amounts of food that went into her cake hole etc.).

Jan 10, 2009 - 11:11 am 124. J:

Knights13:

Is there some kind of hidden point in your mass of words?

The best I can make out is that you better share your money with a woman in marriage – or just kind of let her take it – otherwise you will just blow it all on yourself until you are dead or thieves will get it.

Is that kind of close?

I guess I better get married then, I don’t want thieves to get my money.

Jan 10, 2009 - 11:24 am 125. Knights13:

Nice removing my post. I want to express my thoughts to smart a@@ Jay over there.

On top I hear cries about freedom of expression? So, can I express my thought or are you as bullcrap as any other hypocrite?

Jan 10, 2009 - 12:02 pm 126. Rambling Rose:

The woman is the mother of his children. If he loves his children as more than object and respects their right to love their mother, then he would never even consider thinking about asking for the kidney back, or payment for it.

Jan 10, 2009 - 12:12 pm 127. Western Comfort:

I think it’s obvious this man got infected with “if I give enough, she will love me” thinking. That is a one-way ticket to hell. Not only that, but it’s obvious the man is immature enough to actually demand his kidney back, which explains why he was vulnerable to that kind of thinking to begin with.

Also, can anyone say “bad perceptual skills”? This poor guy needs a crash course in reality. (And maybe some therapy, too.)

Jan 10, 2009 - 12:52 pm 128. Western Comfort:

Oops. Correction – immature enough to demand compensation for his kidney. My mistake.

Jan 10, 2009 - 12:53 pm 129. Evil Pundit:

I think the guy got infected with “marriage is a good idea” thinking, which has not been true for men since the 1970s.

He’s already had his crash course in reality. That’s why he’s publicly shaming his worthless ex-spouse, and sounding a warning to other men at the same time.

Jan 10, 2009 - 2:53 pm 130. Tood:

He should have not given her the kidney. He would have retained both his kidney and his hard-earned money. Now, he has neither.

If women know what is good for them, they will read what is written in #58 by Carl Pham. Feminism is reducing families, reducing children, and this opening the way for Islam to make its way into America.

If women, despite being treated better than men in America, are still greedy for more, well…. perhaps the strong men of the military will simply stop keeping Islam out of America…

Jan 10, 2009 - 3:22 pm 131. Vey:

Rambling Rose:

He maybe shouldn’t ask for the kidney back for other reasons, but your world view is that the kids are to be used to shield mommy from anything and everything.

If it’s really “for the children” maybe they should go to daddy instead of the clearly morally inferior (exploitive whore) mommy. That can’t be a good role model for the kids.

But when a statement is made that something is “for the children” usually the man is being hit up for more money. It’s not really about the children at all.

Jan 10, 2009 - 4:51 pm 132. Dabir Dalton:

Women do indeed change that is they go from being sugar and spice to vinegar and spite not long after they leave the altar…So choosing wisely only becomes an option if the groom in question is a fool…I agree with #1 avoiding not just marriage but any and all intimate relationships with women is the wisest course of action that is if one isn’t inclined to be taken to the cleaners in a divorce…The rest of you who did make that choice please stop whining about getting cleaned out for it is both unseemly and unmanly…

Jan 10, 2009 - 5:14 pm 133. Western Comfort:

Evil Pundit:

Cynicism is not the solution.

Jan 10, 2009 - 6:40 pm 134. barry 0351:

Never marry.
A wife in the house is like having an enemy live with you one who will sabatoge every plan you make, drain your bank account and walk out and leave when you need her most.
A wife is the one who will give you children then use them as weapons against you to gain money or revenge for slights imagined or real.
Set a goal in life and the little wife is the one you will fight more than the world to obtain that goal just to show you she is in charge.
A wife is that person who will cut her own nose off to spite her face and cut your balls off too for the same reason.
A wife is a liability and is the one person most likely to make you homeless and alone flat broke while the wife gets everything with the courts and sheriffs to make sure “SHE” gets it all.
Never get married.

Jan 11, 2009 - 7:52 am 135. Western Comfort:

barry 0351:

It’s called ‘never marry a bad woman’; it’s not called ‘never marry at all’. It’s a man’s own fault if he gets burned by a bad one if he didn’t screen her properly before proposing. I mean, what are you going to say? She wasn’t really married to you, she was married to someone else?

Jan 11, 2009 - 10:01 am 136. Western Comfort:

And by the way, what happened to taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions and being accountable instead of blaming marriage?

Jan 11, 2009 - 10:02 am 137. NahnCee:

THe guy in California who dressed up like Santa Claus, shot his ex-wife and her family, and then torched their house had evidently been complaining to anyone who would listen that he felt like she was taking him to the cleaners in the divorce.

It’s difficult to tell whether he was nuts because the reporters at the LA Times are more interested in quoting the Mexican relatives of the dead family than in talking to people who knew the equally dead husband. The few quotes I’ve read about him were consistently not-bad, although he cheated on his income tax and wasn’t supporting a handicapped child from a previous relationship. He doesn’t seem to have had anger management issues, was a church-goer, and was liked by the very few people the LA Times did manage to quote.

But if he was pushed to such rage because his ex-wife got the dog and a measly $10,000 then how much more furious must Mr. Kidney be? Maybe the difference in the two cases is that Mr. Kidney is getting a full public hearing of his grievances so that everyone now knows that whereas he may be stupid, Mrs. Kidney is certainly evil; while Pardo the Santa Claus man couldn’t get anyone to listen to him or to take his anger seriously, and even his very own mother was going to attend his ex-wife’s Christmas party.

We now pay more attention to teenaged boys who threaten to shoot up their school. It would appear that attention also needs to be paid to these wounded divorced men lest they find creative and explosive ways of lashing out to make their point.

Jan 11, 2009 - 10:29 am 138. L:

Western Comfort:

People like you never have any empathy until it directly happens to you.

Aside from that, whether men can pick the right wife or not, why on earth should the situation in divorce courts be so awful for men? Why not make it fair, even for those stupid, stupid men who can’t pick the right woman.

And for a special present, I now wish you a divorce in your future so that you gain the gift of empathy. There is plenty of time.

Jan 11, 2009 - 10:47 am 139. L:

Barry 0351:

It is bizarre to me that many women try to block and obstruct their husbands, just because they can, but I’ve also seen it.

Women want to “marry up”, but then many don’t like it that the husband has more skills than them. And many women are just naturally bossy.

There is not really any reason for a man to marry. It is simply one-sided: She has no obligation at all.

Jan 11, 2009 - 11:14 am 140. NahnCee:

“And many women are just naturally bossy.”

It’s a hoot in a professional environment when you get a mommy colleague who expects her co-workers to obey her micro-managing the same way her children do. You just know that these women would like to reach over and cut your steak for you at lunch, because that’s how they’re used to behaving.

Jan 11, 2009 - 12:29 pm 141. Mayor of R'lyeh:

When I was in my twenties all of my friends thought I was either mental or gay for expressing the desire to never marry.
Now that we’re in our forties and nearly all of the group have been divorced at least once, I’m considered a sage.

Jan 11, 2009 - 4:14 pm 142. Knights13:

The men who complain about the laws; just don’t get married. If you are not comfortable or confident enough to find a good woman or would have second thoughts about your judgement then please do not get married. All you will have in the end is regret. You might have regrets of not having your own kids later on but at least you didn’t get screwed over like the person with the kidney. This reminds me of a worse situation to a man in Ontario, Canada.

This was a letter he wrote before taking his life:

On October 17th, 1995, Andre Renouf decided that life was not worth living. He took his last few cents and
purchased enough rope to hang himself. He wrote the following suicide note the day before he took his own life. While the media and government love to create the “deadbeat dad” demon, the truth more often than not is stories like Andre’ Renouf’s. Suicide and homelessness after family break up is very common for men, however Stats Canada refuses to release any statistics on these epidemics.

Bill Whatcott
————————————————————————————

A.T. Renouf
7470 Ninth Line,
Markham, Ont. L6B 1A8

16-October-1995

To Whom It May Concern

Last Friday (13-October) My bank account was garnisheed. I was left with a total of $00.43 in the bank.

At this time I have rent and bills to pay which would come to somewhere approaching $1500.00 to $1800.00.

Since my last pay was also direct deposited on Friday I now have no way of supporting myself. I have no money for food or for gas for my car to enable me to work. My employer also tells me that they will only pay me by direct deposit. I therefore no longer have a job, since the money would not reach me.

I have tried talking to the Family Support people at 1916 Dundas St. E. Their answer was: ”we have a court order,” repeated several times.

I have tried talking to the welfare people in Markham.

Since I earned over $520.00 last month I am not eligible for assistance. I have had no contact with my daughter in approx. 4 years. I do not even know if she is alive and well. I
have tried to keep her informed of my current telephone number but she has never bothered to call. I have no family and no friends, very little food, no viable job and very poor future prospects. I have therefore decided that there is no further point in continuing my life. It is my intention to drive to a secluded area, near my home, feed the car exhaust into the car, take some sleeping pills and use the remaining gas in the car to end my life. I would have preferred to die with more dignity. It is my last will and testament that this letter be published for all to see and read.

Signed

A.T. Renouf

Jan 11, 2009 - 5:59 pm 143. gordo:

Here’s the sad story much of the time.

1. You are an earner with a future.
2. She gains an introduction to you after you have been vetted by her advisors (i.e, girlfriends)
3. She meets you for coffee with a Wall Street Journal under her arm and a copy of Homer’s Iliad. She discusses world politics and chess theory
4. She hints at great sexual desire for you and soon she has you in bed – the sex is great and she does the oral sex thing as often as you want it
5. Going against your gut instinct you propose
6. Her mother stresses that their family opposes long engagements
7. The wedding date is set and its over – your head is spinning
8. Honeymoon sex was good including one oral encounter
9. New house is bought
10. She presses for a kid and becomes pregnant
11. You notice she never reads a book and she doesn’t follow the market, only your joint bank account, and is clueless about what is going on in the world
12. Another kid – kids are being trained that you are incompetent and irrelevant as a father
13. No oral is three years – sex is once a month whether you need it or not
14. Kids look to you for ice cream and periodic zoo visit – she complains its too much walking (she has gained some weight which you never mention)
15. Begin thinking of exit strategy but feel guilty, raised not to divorce, and worried about relationship with kids
16. Its too much – you leave home to figure it out. Kids are told you are the bad guy. Advisors give her names of top ball-cutting lawyers
17. You get a legal notice that she filed
18. You scramble for a lawyer – you are a man so you get hosed on kids and money
19. You pay through the nose while she brainwashes the kids that you abandoned them and are an asshole.
20. You do your best to make ends meet and to maintain some relationship with your kids – she continues to harass you in every way possible – its her sport and joy
21. You move to Tahiti and move in with a native beauty who can’t speak english, has no desire to get married, and likes sex with you, including oral
22. You are happy and as kids get older they seek you out.
23. Your ex is on number 3 and still consulting with her advisors most of whom have also been divorced twice
24. Your kids move to tahiti after realizing what a witch their mother is
25. She flies to TAhiti to confront you on kids – your girlfriend, daughter of the chief, has her disappeared – and you avoid the cookout the following night

Jan 13, 2009 - 12:49 pm 144. Acksiom:

So, yeah. . .since none of the nay-sayers seem willing to answer my questions, it appears that we should just go ahead and conclude that it really does not matter how righteous or well-vetted any particular woman may be; men in north america should not marry regardless, period, because of how biased and discriminatory their communities are.

Dr. Helen, please note this conclusion for future reference, and that it turns out that at least one meaningful lesson here, in addition to any others, is clearly that men in north america should not marry at all, period.

Jan 13, 2009 - 9:45 pm 145. Mike:

And don’t marry anyone you’re related to closely enough to donate organs to her.

Jan 14, 2009 - 8:07 pm 146. Knights13:

Boo, darn we north american men are shaking in our boots. Just don’t go terrorizing anyone with anger. I’m sure Mr. Renouf felt terrorized by these invisible terrorists but no one gave a sh-t about him.

Oh pardon my not so intellectual language. It gets to the point.

Jan 14, 2009 - 9:26 pm 147. Acksiom:

No, actually, it doesn’t, because your point is still an unknown. Something about terror? What?

Jan 16, 2009 - 6:01 pm 148. Knights13:

The invisible terrorist is the government. Taking your money and children and leaving you with nothing. That is a lot more terrorizing than someone blowing you up.

Do you get it or should I make it more clear to you genius?

Jan 17, 2009 - 1:45 pm 149. mohan kandari:

sir or madam
i am coordinator , i want make a good scripts some guys are playing a rolls are doctor and patient
how can we do plz. write me full scripts spouse i am doctor what should i say to patient and how handle.

thanking u

Jul 25, 2009 - 2:19 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: