Mens Rights Thread

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a Poe-on-purpose. Chill.



Pretty good imo!

It's N.I. politics and abortion mixed in, makes our boyos look liberal.

Seriously though, it says in the article she was making a point about the recent court case and the legislation in the North. Took me a while to cop it wasn't a serious suggestion.

As for people taking it seriously, trigger words: Greens, abortion, equal rights, N.I.

Build it and they will come.

silverharp

K-9 wrote: »

The pay gap is a tough one, the 21% figure is a simplification. Freakonomics did a recent podcast on it and it seems recent studies suggest, all things being equal, the gap is 3-5%, not that much but worth further research to see what
can de done.

Sometimes the state has to step in. Take Sweden and paternity leave, they found after the first few years of shared parental leave very few men took it up, so they made it mandatory for men to take so many months. Sometimes society needs a nudge because we can be a stubborn species, both sexes!

in many situations the husband has a higher paid job, say the husband makes €100K and the wife €50K , it doesnt make sense for the husband to stop working

K-9

silverharp wrote: »

in many situations the husband has a higher paid job, say the husband makes €100K and the wife €50K , it doesnt make sense for the husband to stop working

Exactly, the man would never take it than case, cold hard economics, so somebody else has to step in. Not sure on how the parental leave payment works in Sweden, whether it's a set amount or a percentage of income earned.

Sleepy

I'm all for equal paternity / maternity leave, I know I certainly resented having to use an entire year's worth of annual leave to take a few weeks off after my daughter was born, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with forcing economic decisions on families tbh.

How many family homes would be put at risk if people were forced to take time off after their kids were born? Unless the suggestion is that the state or the employers must pay their employees full salary during that leave, I can see it being quite difficult for many families (e.g. those with a stay-at-home parent or those where one partner significantly out-earns the other).

Realistically, I don't see the gender salary gap closing until large numbers of women start pursuing relationships with men who earn less than them or who want to be the primary care-giver. Since social / career status is a fairly large factor in attraction for many women, I'm not sure I can see the gap closing any time soon. The salary gap that exists at the macro level, is the result of millions of personal choices at the micro level. It's not a systemic problem imo and the only ones I know complaining about it are those that over-value their own contribution to society.

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly, the man would never take it than case, cold hard economics, so somebody else has to step in. Not sure on how the parental leave payment works in Sweden, whether it's a set amount or a percentage of income earned.

It's a fixed allowance which the parents can allocate between themselves as I understand it.

Maguined

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly, the man would never take it than case, cold hard economics, so somebody else has to step in. Not sure on how the parental leave payment works in Sweden, whether it's a set amount or a percentage of income earned.

The state pays you 80% of your wages in sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father's_quota

A study conducted by several economicts (Jon H. Fiva et al.) found that the father's quota has not contributed to promoting gender equality. The study found that the quota led to women working less, that it did not contribute to equal pay, and that it did not appear to alter the distribution of tasks in the home.[23][24][25]

orubiru

https://features.wearemel.com/i-was-a-men-s-rights-activist-55a0d2eb6052#.tqgdj7a5u

mzungu wrote: »

What exactly were these beliefs? He never went into that in depth in the article. All we got was a clumsy critique of Home Improvement? If thats what his beliefs were based around then I'm not surprised they stood up to no scrutiny. Although a class in film theory would have enlightened him just as much...or possibly a bloomin book.

On a brighter note, I reckon Tim Allen must be chuffed that somebody analysed his (lets face it) woeful comedy to the point of extracting a ideological outlook from it.

Yeah, he basically fails to come up with a single example of how MRAs are wrong and Feminists are right. Except for a very shallow analysis of a very shallow TV sitcom.

What makes it worse is, and I can't believe I'm doing this, that he basically misunderstands the entire point of the show "Home Improvement" even down to misunderstanding the title.

Home Improvement has a dual meaning, that's the "joke". He's big into his DIY etc but he also has to do things like learn how connect to his family and grow his relationships etc.

When he is supposedly an "MRA" he misses the point that this is just your standard "fish out of water" fare and the point is that he ISN'T a bumbling idiot but just a guy dealing with "problems we can all relate to".

When he becomes a "Feminist" he makes the same goddamn mistake and ignores the fact that this is just a light comedy, in favour of a deep analysis about stereotypical gender roles. The stereotype IS the joke, you idiot.

This is the problem with applying deep analysis to pop culture.

It's like hearing your kid singing "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall" and taking them aside to explain how the song trivialises the deaths of people who have fallen from walls and died before the paramedics showed up. We need to challenge societal norms that people who sit on high walls and fall were somehow responsible for their own deaths. Songs like "Humpty Dumpty" just normalise victim blaming.

The other ridiculous take-away from that article is the idea that MRA = Misogyny. Even going as far as to liken MRAs to White Supremacists.

To be honest, I have never advocated for the rights of men exclusively. I think that many of the issues focussed on by MRAs also affect women so they do not only affect men. I've never really been an activist ever.

I know enough to know that an article like that one is just designed to create a bad impression of people who are MRAs. What makes it worse is that many people will nod along and agree

So, when a guy comes along who is an MRA, and he is worried about things like child custody or how education could be improved from the perspective of boys, he finds himself being glared at by women in the workplace or women within his circle of friends. It's ridiculous.

If you are Pro-Men's Rights then, to be honest, anyone who is aggressively going against you is probably not a nice individual. Fair enough of they are destroying your stupid analysis of Home Improvement. Fine if they are pointing out that suicide and homelessness are not exclusively male problems. If they are just going with the "MEN ALREADY HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS" approach then you're probably better off without them.

"Misogyny" has to be one of the laziest labels around right now. Jeez.

silverharp

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm all for equal paternity / maternity leave, I know I certainly resented having to use an entire year's worth of annual leave to take a few weeks off after my daughter was born, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with forcing economic decisions on families tbh.

How many family homes would be put at risk if people were forced to take time off after their kids were born? Unless the suggestion is that the state or the employers must pay their employees full salary during that leave, I can see it being quite difficult for many families (e.g. those with a stay-at-home parent or those where one partner significantly out-earns the other).

Realistically, I don't see the gender salary gap closing until large numbers of women start pursuing relationships with men who earn less than them or who want to be the primary care-giver. Since social / career status is a fairly large factor in attraction for many women, I'm not sure I can see the gap closing any time soon. The salary gap that exists at the macro level, is the result of millions of personal choices at the micro level. It's not a systemic problem imo and the only ones I know complaining about it are those that over-value their own contribution to society.

I don't think its on the cards that women will marry down in any great numbers and probably men would have reasons not to want to be the minority earner. What seems to be happening is more people marrying people of equivalent incomes which maybe down to pure economics or to reduce the financial consequences of a divorce.
But I don't see many female doctors or lawyers on €150K "settling" for a teacher on €50K, even if he would make a perfect husband and dad.

Lemming

silverharp wrote: »

I don't think its on the cards that women will marry down in any great numbers and probably men would have reasons not to want to be the minority earner. What seems to be happening is more people marrying people of equivalent incomes which maybe down to pure economics or to reduce the financial consequences of a divorce.
But I don't see many female doctors or lawyers on €150K "settling" for a teacher on €50K, even if he would make a perfect husband and dad.

I seem to recall a large upsurge in the number of divorce/seperations/marriage-in-difficulty cases being reported with the economic downturn, with the apparent common denominator being men struggling to find new employment whilst the wife became the primary bread winner. With that in mind, I wouldn't put too much faith in societal attitudes towards men as the primary bread-winners changing any time soon when it would appear that women themselves are enforcing * it.


* Enforcing is perhaps the wrong word to use, but I'm not quite sure what else fits either.

K-9

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm all for equal paternity / maternity leave, I know I certainly resented having to use an entire year's worth of annual leave to take a few weeks off after my daughter was born, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with forcing economic decisions on families tbh.

How many family homes would be put at risk if people were forced to take time off after their kids were born? Unless the suggestion is that the state or the employers must pay their employees full salary during that leave, I can see it being quite difficult for many families (e.g. those with a stay-at-home parent or those where one partner significantly out-earns the other).

Realistically, I don't see the gender salary gap closing until large numbers of women start pursuing relationships with men who earn less than them or who want to be the primary care-giver. Since social / career status is a fairly large factor in attraction for many women, I'm not sure I can see the gap closing any time soon. The salary gap that exists at the macro level, is the result of millions of personal choices at the micro level. It's not a systemic problem imo and the only ones I know complaining about it are those that over-value their own contribution to society.

Is paid paternity leave mandatory mandatory? I suppose we assume the vast majority of men will will take it, some may not. Self employed people aren't entitled to it either which is another problem that has faced women for years.

As for the gender gap, tbere still seems to be a gap of 3-5% in the States anyway when it's compared like for like, as I said, small but enough I don't think we can dismiss it. It could be there's something at play the studies don't take account of but only time and more research will tell the tale!

K-9

Maguined wrote: »

The state pays you 80% of your wages in sweden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father's_quota

If in the vast majority of cases women take most of the joint parental leave, the logical conclusion is women will take more time off!

Tbh I'm not sure if anybody expects shared parental leave to make that much of a difference to equal rights, shared tasks at home is something that is changing over time but it's a slow process. Men are definitely more hands on at home and with childcare than 30 or 40 years ago.

Men taking more parental leave is generally a good thing, it stands on its own merits.

Maguined

K-9 wrote: »

If in the vast majority of cases women take most of the joint parental leave, the logical conclusion is women will take more time off!

Tbh I'm not sure if anybody expects shared parental leave to make that much of a difference to equal rights, shared tasks at home is something that is changing over time but it's a slow process. Men are definitely more hands on at home and with childcare than 30 or 40 years ago.

Men taking more parental leave is generally a good thing, it stands on its own merits.

I think having a choice is a good thing. I think the state stepping into the lives of people and demanding they take a mandatory paternity leave is a bad thing.

I also am not convinced that state funding the parental leave is a good and fair thing either.

silverharp

K-9 wrote: »

If in the vast majority of cases women take most of the joint parental leave, the logical conclusion is women will take more time off!

Tbh I'm not sure if anybody expects shared parental leave to make that much of a difference to equal rights, shared tasks at home is something that is changing over time but it's a slow process. Men are definitely more hands on at home and with childcare than 30 or 40 years ago.

Men taking more parental leave is generally a good thing, it stands on its own merits.

What I would question is the attempt by society to shame men as a collective or women for that matter that like more defined gender roles. I generally think there is a happy medium now, my dad's generation might have missed out a bit and had less face time with the kids than today but the idea of everything being 50/50 isn't some magical perfection like eliminating crime would be an absolute win win goal.
lifetime relationships are complex things and I think the current cultural wave is too driven by blank slate ideas that men and women are absolutely interchangeable. If I was to be blunt the perfect "feminist" isn't hat attractive to men and the perfect male feminist isn't that attractive to women

K-9

But then who is going to fund it?

If it's a good should we not try and facilitate it? Or do we want just want to discuss the idea of it and say the choice is a nice thing, in theory!

Just seems pointless saying on a men's rights thread that paternity leave is a good idea, but then saying the state funding it may not, without saying who would.

Maguined

K-9 wrote: »

But then who is going to fund it?

If it's a good should we not try and facilitate it? Or do we want just want to discuss the idea of it and say the choice is a nice thing, in theory!

Just seems pointless saying on a men's rights thread that paternity leave is a good idea, but then saying the state funding it may not, without saying who would.

Well the funding was more to do with the fact in Sweden all parental leave is state funded at 80% of your salary. In Ireland it is not paid as a percentage of your salary. I do not think a CEO of a company at 200k a year should be paid 80% of their wages by state taxes.

Maternity benefit here is paid at a flat rate and some employers will top that up to your regular wages but that is at the discretion of the employer and I believe paternity leave could be handled the same way at a flat rate and it would be at the discretion of employers to top up wages if they wanted.

LostinBlanch

orubiru wrote: »

The other ridiculous take-away from that article is the idea that MRA = Misogyny. Even going as far as to liken MRAs to White Supremacists.

That kind of thing started in Sweden and the Nordic countries AFAIK (Where else?). The Feminists there wanted to stop any critique of feminism so went along the lines of people who disagree with feminism aren't nice people. White Supremacists / Neo Nazis aren't nice people ergo those who disagree with feminism are White Supremacists / Neo Nazis.

Which in their minds gave them carte blanche to label any critique of feminism as hate speech. Such conflation of anti feminism and racism was evident in this 2013 report on Nordic countries seeking to make anti feminist views classed as hate speech.

- Why this focus on Antifeminism?

- Hate attitudes towards gender equality and women in particular is a problem and something we have to face with more debate, more knowledge and measures, the Secretary of State.
What is Antifeminism?

Reform leader admits that the definition is difficult, but the report writes the following:

Anti Feminism is:

attitude, behavior and action.
opposition to feminism and gender equality.
a desire to recreate a hierarchical social order where heterosexual men are privileged.
reluctance to challenge gender, seksualitet- and racial categories.

Reading down you'll see that the report also calls for annual reporting and research on antifeminism i.e. more jobs for the girls.

They also tried, to get the EU in 2013 to recognise critques of feminism as hate speech. Even wanting holding feminists / feminism up to ridicule to be classified as hate speech.

In the Section 1 of the document, the EU defines its terms. So terms like “hate crime”, “group” and “tolerance” are being introduced. Of particular interest is the EU’s definition of “group libel”[5]:

“Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.
As we will soon see, feminists are also de facto part of the “group” notion – so holding feminists to ridicule, as they deserve, will now be a crime. We know this from the Section 2e of the document which says[6]:

The purpose of this Statute is to: […]

e) Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.

What reports, so full of micro agressions and triggers.

TL;DR Feminist have been trying to conflate critiques of feminism with White Supremacists / Neo Nazis / Hate Speech in order to shut down any debate.

iptba

Lemming wrote: »

I seem to recall a large upsurge in the number of divorce/seperations/marriage-in-difficulty cases being reported with the economic downturn, with the apparent common denominator being men struggling to find new employment whilst the wife became the primary bread winner. With that in mind, I wouldn't put too much faith in societal attitudes towards men as the primary bread-winners changing any time soon when it would appear that women themselves are enforcing * it.


* Enforcing is perhaps the wrong word to use, but I'm not quite sure what else fits either.

On a US 2011 study:

Unemployment Can Spell Divorce for Men, But Not Women

http://www.livescience.com/14705-husbands-employment-threatens-marriage.html

Wibbs

iptba wrote: »

On a US 2011 study:

That can be a problem IP. The US is a different culture and one with few enough fiscal safety nets. It's possible for someone to go from full time employment with the house and car to living in that car in Walmart's car park within a couple of months. It's a far more dog eat dog world. The dating/mating game reflects that(it would be subtly different in China, or Russia and different again in Ireland). IMH it's why PUA and MRA was born there. While men being the breadwinner is pretty much universal, in a society like the US a man is going to be on the countdown clock more quickly and that countdown is shorter than he would be here.

Pawwed Rig

Given the recent discredit of the Crown Prosecution where that poor man suffered a year of torment for brushing past a Game of Thrones actress this may be another big own goal (pun intended)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-36099522

If this guy is actually innocent the Uk policies severely need reviewing.

ancapailldorcha

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Given the recent discredit of the Crown Prosecution where that poor man suffered a year of torment for brushing past a Game of Thrones actress this may be another big own goal (pun intended)

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-36099522

If this guy is acrually innocent the Uk policies severely need reviewing.

Was considering starting a thread on this actually. What was this brushing thing?

Pawwed Rig

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Was considering starting a thread on this actually. What was this brushing thing?

Might be worth a separate thread alright. Start away

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/my-year-of-hell-commuter-of-preposterous-sexual-assault-case--wa/

ancapailldorcha

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Might be worth a separate thread alright. Start away

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/my-year-of-hell-commuter-of-preposterous-sexual-assault-case--wa/

Jesus. Fairly strong Orwellian tinges on that alright.

tritium

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Was considering starting a thread on this actually. What was this brushing thing?

Am I right in thinking that we can't discuss the ched Evans case given the court has ordered a retrial? (Albeit definitely a case of the horse well and truely bolted)

silverharp

tritium wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that we can't discuss the ched Evans case given the court has ordered a retrial? (Albeit definitely a case of the horse well and truely bolted)

this isn't the UK, of course you can.

ancapailldorcha

tritium wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that we can't discuss the ched Evans case given the court has ordered a retrial? (Albeit definitely a case of the horse well and truely bolted)

Excellent question. I have no idea.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

That can be a problem IP. The US is a different culture and one with few enough fiscal safety nets. It's possible for someone to go from full time employment with the house and car to living in that car in Walmart's car park within a couple of months. It's a far more dog eat dog world. The dating/mating game reflects that(it would be subtly different in China, or Russia and different again in Ireland). IMH it's why PUA and MRA was born there. While men being the breadwinner is pretty much universal, in a society like the US a man is going to be on the countdown clock more quickly and that countdown is shorter than he would be here.

I do think the "man the provider" attitude is very much alive, the crash definitely effected many men and being the bread winner is still a big part of male identity. More women than would care to admit it believe it deep down IMHO.

One of those things that take a lot of time for old attitudes to readjust to new norms, 2 income families and women earning more becoming more common.

The other side is men being the main carer for the children don't get quite the same "horn on head" looks. Men are just as bad if not worse for that. One of those cases were discrimination from the other sex isn't the problem at all.

jackofalltrades

Dailymail article on the agony of being a 50/50 mum.
Some choice quotes from the article.

Imagine, then, the agonising pain of being privy to your child's life for only half the time. The milestones missed.
The lost cuddles before bedtime. The long nights spent wondering if they are sleeping sweetly or crying out for Mummy.

This is the reality for Britain's growing legion of 50/50 mothers, who divide their time with the children equally with their exes.
It's a growing phenomenon that - on the surface - might seem the fairest way for separated parents to organise their lives.
But it comes at an emotional price for the mothers involved - and the consequences for children are as yet untold.

Loving the insinuation that fathers minding their children could be bad for them.
The author obviously din't stop to think that if a 50/50 spilt was bad for mothers, then fathers seeing their children every second weekend could be significantly worse.

smash

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Dailymail article on the agony of being a 50/50 mum.
Some choice quotes from the article.


Loving the insinuation that fathers minding their children could be bad for them.
The author obviously din't stop to think that if a 50/50 spilt was bad for mothers, then fathers seeing their children every second weekend could be significantly worse.

Quite frankly, that's shocking. Even for the Dailymail.

FortySeven

You have no idea how angry that article has made me. The absolute sh1t I have had to put up with from my ex these last few months, to read that kind of guff has made my blood boil.

Sleepy

Shocking standards of journalism. The last mother is basically speaking as to how well herself and her ex co-parent their child and mentions that she misses her when she's not there, while the other two are simply whining about the "trauma" of not having full-time custody of their kids. Can you imagine how these special snowflakes would cope if they were in the typical position of a separated Irish father and only seeing the kids every second weekend?

If you have kids with someone and subsequently split it's your moral obligation to maintain a working relationship with the other parent imho.

Judging from their whinging (and the simple fact they agreed to be in the article in the first place), I'm guessing the first two mothers are likely the main source of the "acrimonious" relationships they have with their exes tbh.

DeadHand

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Might be worth a separate thread alright. Start away

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/my-year-of-hell-commuter-of-preposterous-sexual-assault-case--wa/

Needs its own thread for sure.

Has the falsely accused pressed charges against the accuser? Can he?

Because he bloody well should.

iptba

University of Melbourne mathematics school advertises women-only positions

School’s head says hiring policy a necessary step due to lack of representation in maths and statistics

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/19/university-of-melbourne-mathematics-school-advertises-women-only-positions

The University of Melbourne was unlikely to run into any legal issues by advertising for women only, Kamal Farouque, a principal in Maurice Blackburn’s employment practice, said.

“Under discrimination law there are exemptions for special and positive measures directed at achieving substantive equality, as this measure clearly is because of the low number of women appointed to academic positions in this field,” he said.

“Anyone who challenged the university’s scheme would find it very difficult to win.”

Who says they're necessarily "positive measures".

Pepe LeFrits

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/25/amber-heard-divorce-johnny-depp

Amber Heard files for divorce, less than a year after she and Johnny Depp got married... and she wants spousal support. Dafuq?

silverharp

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/25/amber-heard-divorce-johnny-depp

Amber Heard files for divorce, less than a year after she and Johnny Depp got married... and she wants spousal support. Dafuq?

the US divorce system is rotten to the core , it make you wonder why any high net worth men get married at all. In terms of actors leonardo dicaprio is doing it right.
I thought as bad as the US was you needed to be married 10 years to get a serious chunk of change?

Sleepy

Americans seem to get married ridiculously early in relationships and pay the price as a result.

That said, if I had a high net worth I'd have been unlikely to get married anywhere. Irish and UK courts don't have a great track record of measuring the individual contributions to the "marital assets" in divorce cases either.

py2006

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

and she wants spousal support. Dafuq?

Her sole reason for getting married I would imagine.

Wibbs

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Amber Heard files for divorce, less than a year after she and Johnny Depp got married...

I'm shocked. :eek: *sarcasm*

and she wants spousal support. Dafuq?

Well clearly she deserves it. After all she was married to him for under a year. *sarcasm*

Seriously, does this even begin to sound shocking anymore? Especially in Hollywood and among the famous generally. Actors tend to be a bit out there in the first place, helps with their trade. Add in blind adulation and cash massaging egos and look out. Throw in a US divorce culture* that rewards women, especially those who are on the money gouging train and it's hardly any shock at all that she and others like her would expect it. A few million in the bank for shagging an older guy for a year, listening to his wafflings and being on his arm at premieres? Cheap at half the price. Not. They were hardly sharing domestic duties, building a business and family together. The ink ws barely dry on the wedding cert. The very highest end escorts would cost a fraction of what he's gonna be paying now and they'd at least be honest about the whole arrangement.

Still he was daft enough to go up the aisle, after of course abandoning a long term partner, the mother of his kids who he didn't marry who appeared to have caused no stress at all(though maybe she was the sensible one who was agin a marriage). Common sense bypass in a man well old enough to know better. Midlife crisis in a mini skirt. Then again he always came across as nice, but a bit dim to me. "I'll speak slowly and lowly so you won't notice" in full effect. No fool like an old fool. She on the other hand comes across as very clever. An affair? Grand(morality aside), but marriage? How did he imagine that would play out as the years passed?




*We may have issues, but we're not nearly so bad here

iptba

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/gender-and-business-women-better-bosses-for-investors-1.2657594

Gender and business: Women better bosses for investors

Firms led by women appear to a sounder investment

---

A few points about this.

Would a similarly one-sided article be written in the Irish Times about how men make a company better? My guess is not.

Also I wonder whether there is selective reporting in the first part of this article. Are there no studies which didn't find an effect or even which found an opposite effect? Even if there are no published studies, is there a bias in the academic community e.g. somebody could do a preliminary analysis of a dataset and find no evidence for a benefit from females or even that it led to some sort of negative effect, but the researcher never pursued/published this (I can see this particularly happening with gender studies and feminist researchers or even researchers who feel they might have difficulty getting published or that it could negatively affect them if they publish such research).

Also in the 2nd part of the article, there supposedly is evidence of sexist attitudes because people view a company led by a woman differently. However you can't have it both ways: either women are in some way different to men or they are not. You shouldn't say they are different when it suits me but if anyone else thinks they are different when it doesn't suit, that's sexism.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm shocked. :eek: *sarcasm* Well clearly she deserves it. After all she was married to him for under a year. *sarcasm*

Seriously, does this even begin to sound shocking anymore? Especially in Hollywood and among the famous generally. Actors tend to be a bit out there in the first place, helps with their trade. Add in blind adulation and cash massaging egos and look out. Throw in a US divorce culture* that rewards women, especially those who are on the money gouging train and it's hardly any shock at all that she and others like her would expect it. A few million in the bank for shagging an older guy for a year, listening to his wafflings and being on his arm at premieres? Cheap at half the price. Not. They were hardly sharing domestic duties, building a business and family together. The ink ws barely dry on the wedding cert. The very highest end escorts would cost a fraction of what he's gonna be paying now and they'd at least be honest about the whole arrangement.

Still he was daft enough to go up the aisle, after of course abandoning a long term partner, the mother of his kids who he didn't marry who appeared to have caused no stress at all(though maybe she was the sensible one who was agin a marriage). Common sense bypass in a man well old enough to know better. Midlife crisis in a mini skirt. Then again he always came across as nice, but a bit dim to me. "I'll speak slowly and lowly so you won't notice" in full effect. No fool like an old fool. She on the other hand comes across as very clever. An affair? Grand(morality aside), but marriage? How did he imagine that would play out as the years passed?




*We may have issues, but we're not nearly so bad here

Considering the length of the vast majority of Hollywood unions (5 years a lifetime, 10 years plus and you wonder if it wasn't a business arrangement after all) I'm shocked that robust pre-nups are not the norm. Getting taken to the cleaners is the rule rather than the exception and it's not like Johnny Depp (or other men of means) can't afford good legal advice. No fool like an old fool indeed!

iptba

mzungu wrote: »

Considering the length of the vast majority of Hollywood unions (5 years a lifetime, 10 years plus and you wonder if it wasn't a business arrangement after all) I'm shocked that robust pre-nups are not the norm. Getting taken to the cleaners is the rule rather than the exception and it's not like Johnny Depp (or other men of means) can't afford good legal advice. No fool like an old fool indeed!

A problem is bringing up the possibility of a pre-nup can threaten a relationship.

Maireadio

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/25/amber-heard-divorce-johnny-depp

Amber Heard files for divorce, less than a year after she and Johnny Depp got married... and she wants spousal support. Dafuq?

I not sure she'll get spousal support even if she wants it. She worked during the marriage and so didn't sacrifice her own career and that will be taken in account. As will the brevity of the marriage (though they were married for 15 months. Just pointing it out because it annoys me from a fact-checking point of view. Do journalists even bother anymore?). And the fact that there are no children involved. She will probably get a lump sum though, which is still ridiculous for such a short union.

py2006 wrote: »

Her sole reason for getting married I would imagine.

Ah gawd, we don't know that. The sole reason?


I think if I was married for such a short amount of time, I would feel ridiculous asking for anything. It seems to be the thing to do in the US. Ask for money just because you can. Billie Piper (UK, I know!) famously looked for nothing from Chris Evans in their divorce despite his considerable fortune. And I'm sure she could have got something, and she was a bit broke after her music career ended. But nope, she looked for nothing. And they are still friends to this day. How very civilised.

Maireadio

Well, she was rightfully denied spousal support but, jays, that escalated quickly! :eek: What a clusterfúck.

Wibbs

Maireadio wrote: »

It seems to be the thing to do in the US. Ask for money just because you can. Billie Piper (UK, I know!) famously looked for nothing from Chris Evans in their divorce despite his considerable fortune. And I'm sure she could have got something, and she was a bit broke after her music career ended. But nope, she looked for nothing. And they are still friends to this day. How very civilised.

+1. I've had a huge amount of time for her since I heard that. Never mind that she was barely out of her teens. And him too for that matter. They handled that very well indeed and it can't have been easy at all. They clearly had very deep feelings for each other and as you say are still mates to this day.

Actually maybe that's part of it? In couples I've known that have split up "well" there was either little enough affection going on so there was no need to go nuclear, or they had very deep feelings for each other, so after an initial shock those deep feelings meant they weren't going to hurt the other. In the bad break ups I've seen, they were infatuated alright, but I'm not sure they liked each other if you know what I mean? I suspect a strong element of that in this Depp thing.

I would reckon there may be cultural differences at play too to some degree. The US is a more dog eat dog society, with fewer social safety nets, so money is more important, so if you can get it, take it. It's hard to be noble sleeping in your car in a Walmart car park.

Even so I know two lads who met, married and subsequently divorced American women. In one it was a Billie/Chris type thing. They were both very saddened it was over, but no way in hell were they going to hurt each other further. They liked each other too much. Oh and this went against both their lawyers advice in a big way. Her lawyer in particular wanted him to end up living in a ditch. The second example got very ugly and she couldn't have been more of a thundering wagon if she had tried. Though again they were "crazy for each other" for a time, but I never saw much evidence of them actually liking each other. She went full thundering wagon simply because the divorce laws favoured her gender and enabled that. I am quite sure if they had favoured his, he'd have gutted her like a fish in court.

Lemming

Wibbs wrote: »

I would reckon there may be cultural differences at play too to some degree. The US is a more dog eat dog society, with fewer social safety nets, so money is more important, so if you can get it, take it. It's hard to be noble sleeping in your car in a Walmart car park.

Bear in mind as well that in the US, given how widespread observance of religious values is (particularly outside of the east & west costs ... ), a lot of people tend to end up marrying stupidly young or really soon after entering a relationship so that they can have sex and not be told they're committing sin. So young Johnny & young Mary hook up and are all over each other for weeks, but the preacher says sex before marriage is a sin, thus the solution is to get married. Then six weeks later again they realise they don't really like each other and then hey-presto, divorce.

Maireadio

Wibbs wrote: »

Never mind that she was barely out of her teens. And him too for that matter.

No, no, he was out of his teens. :pac:

Yeah, I'd say there was a lot of infatuation going on with Depp/Heard. I mean, Amber's a gorgeous girl. And whilst Johnny looks a bit rough these days, he's hugely successful and famous and that can be potent.

But there is no good reason for her to look for money, even if it turns out he was abusive as she is alleging. Actually that'd make me want his money less. I'd want nothing to do with anything to do with him including his money. I think in the States, there a culture of a lot of women feeling they are entitled to their former husband's money even if the marriage is brief and she didn't sacrifice anything to be with him. Billie Piper actually said the idea of taking any of Evans's money was "disgusting" and a lot of the time, it is, but some women still seem just go after it just because they can.

Wibbs

Maireadio wrote: »

No, no, he was out of his teens. :pac:

True! IIRC that was around the time she started in the rejigged Doctor Who and she joked along the lines of; "hmmm young woman falls for exciting kinda crazy bloke, old enough to be her dad and flies off around the universe with him. Nah, nothing at all I could bring from my own life there". I'm so not into the celeb thing at all(and I'm more a brunette man ), but I have a lot of time for her. Comes across as very clued in, well read, self deprecating, ambitious and honest about it and does great work. Good to see someone like that do well among the usual wafer thin of personality types chasing fame for the sake of it. A Judy Dench in the making IMH.

Yeah, I'd say there was a lot of infatuation going on with Depp/Heard. I mean, Amber's a gorgeous girl. And whilst Johnny looks a bit rough these days, he's hugely successful and famous and that can be potent.

Hard on the eye she is not. And from the bits I've seen, not hard on the ear either, but just my take, she's a young woman, younger than her chronological age. And I don't say that as a negative. He's an "icon", but… the vibe I get is age hasn't made much of an impact on his wisdom, not unlike his face. May December unions can work and work well. Hell most of the men in my family married younger women and most worked out(16 years between my folks), but coming from a background like that the clear thing I take from it is the life stages involved. In the worked well cases, mentally the women were "older" than their ages, the men "younger". So their mental age gap was more equal. Indeed in a few cases the "younger" women were the more mature. In career terms they were equals too. Like was very much with like. None had the substitute daddy, Electra complex stuff going on, that's for sure. I would say that every relationship has differences in some way. Age gaps are but one. Social/career/financial/looks are others, but if in the overall balance sheet those differences largely cancel out then it's game ball. If not, then…

*bans self for off topic posting*

But there is no good reason for her to look for money, even if it turns out he was abusive as she is alleging. Actually that'd make me want his money less. I'd want nothing to do with anything to do with him including his money. I think in the States, there a culture of a lot of women feeling they are entitled to their former husband's money even if the marriage is brief and she didn't sacrifice anything to be with him. Billie Piper actually said the idea of taking any of Evans's money was "disgusting" and a lot of the time, it is, but some women still seem just go after it just because they can.

I do think culture has a huge role to play in it. As I said, the fewer fiscal safety nets - which tend to affect women more(though depends, as generally women have more social safety nets and networks. There are far more homeless/unemployed men) - the more likely that women in such a culture will be quick to look for what they can get. If a judicial system enables that, then Ohhh boy. As I've said before; if I was a 20 odd year old American lad, especially one living in the east/west states, I would be increasingly wary of walking down any aisle and I can see why so many are going the whole "MGTOW" route. The culture itself is increasingly anti male, at least anti the male who isn't within quite narrow parameters. Plus as Lem points out, the whole god fearing thang adds to it.

Ben Gadot

Heard seems a bit strange, according to a source she even tried to get a restraining order for one of her dogs against him?

About the spousal support, Hollywood is a strange place, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was her career that ended up effected. Johnny Depp is one of Hollywood's darlings after all.

Maireadio

Sorry for a further off-topic post, will wrap it up after this.

Wibbs wrote: »

In the worked well cases, mentally the women were "older" than their ages, the men "younger". So their mental age gap was more equal. Indeed in a few cases the "younger" women were the more mature.

Yeah, when I firsted started college, one of my housemates was 18 and her boyfriend was 30. In some cases, this would seem soooo wrong. Like, 18 year old me was a childer and wouldn't seem right even with a mid-twenties guy. But they were a really good couple. She looked and acted, like, 23, 24 type age, and he looked and seemed under 30. There was no "Eeeeewww" element to it at all. They broke up a few years later for the normal, adult reason that the spark went out, no drama at all.

Ben Gadot wrote: »

Heard seems a bit strange, according to a source she even tried to get a restraining order for one of her dogs against him?

About the spousal support, Hollywood is a strange place, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was her career that ended up effected. Johnny Depp is one of Hollywood's darlings after all.

Yeah, both Heard and Depp come across as oddballs and I think it was probably a toxic relationship because of it. He seemed to be on a much more even keel with Vanessa Paradis, who seems very sane.

I think Heard is fecked career-wise no matter happens, but how Depp's career is affected depends on whether there is any truth in Heard's allegations.

Pepe LeFrits

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36481127

"Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales last year and can be applied to any individual who the police believe poses a risk of sexual harm - even if they have never been convicted of a crime.

The order requires him to disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison."

That's unbelievable. Sounds like something to be applied to convicted sex offenders, but nope, can be done to anyone.

ancapailldorcha

How would something like that even be applied though? I mean, how does your average single lad know when he's going to have the opportunity to have sex much less fill out a form to disclose it.