Wow, i'm sorry but you are clueless. I'll let somebody else address this because it's too easy.
We'll agree to COMPLETELY disagree
/exits
I have a strong tendency to agree with Triple Cs. I'm new to this site so I'll try to mesh in without ruffling too many feathers.
IMO, marriage can be good for men if they get lucky and find the right woman, and both the man and woman are happy. If one of the two chooses wrong and the ex-wife or about-to-be ex-wife is really angry about it, (a woman scorned...) she has many ways to totally screw him and get "even" with him and the government will totally support her. A good example of this is the wacko woman in New Mexico who a little way back filed for a restraining order against David Letterman in New York and told the judge that he was harassing her using brain waves through the TV. The judge granted the restraining order! His justification? She completed the required form. Of course, David Letterman had the money to hire an expensive lawyer in New Mexico to get the restraining order thrown out, but many men don't. And having a restraining order against you automatically causes problems for you, as a man, as far as rights are concerned. For example, having a restraining order against you automatically makes you ineligible to buy or own a gun. Imagine if the guy is a cop. Of course, the David Letterman case was all over the news, so it was hard for the judge to ignore Letterman's legal efforts to get it thrown out. If he was a regular guy, fagetabaaaaat it! Why? To ensure the wife's and children's safety against us mean, sick, mentally deranged male predators, they will always be willing to err on the side of the woman's and children's safety. And by the way, by federal law, the Violence Against Women Act, no proof is required for a woman to get a restraining order. It only takes her word that she's afraid of you. Furthermore, unless you have the money to appeal stupid judgements by stupid, feminist-brainwashed judges, you don't stand a chance in these family courts. They almost always side with the woman, no matter what, and then justify it by saying that if they err, they want to err on the side of the woman's and children's safety.
In marriage, all a woman has to do is choose a guy with decent money-making ability and she makes out no matter how the marriage goes. Why? Because in most instances, unless she agrees otherwise, she will get primary custody of your children and men get every-other weekend visiting rights. Whoo-Hooo! And if she and her new boyfriend want to move 1000 miles away, tough! (In most cases since it's not usually all that hard to justify if she's moving for better money... remember the welfare of the children is paramount). And of course, your child support obligation remains the same. Not only that, child support isn't based on the cost of child support. It's based on a percentage of the man's earnings. If I remember correctly, a ways back P-Ditty was ordered to pay his ex something like $7200 per month child support for his one child. So if a woman plays it right and has a different child by different well-heeled men, there is no limit to the monthly income she can accumulate. Certainly enough to hire help if she finds she's having trouble managing the kids. And the government's justification will always be that their actions are in the best interest of the children. And the women don't have to account in any way for how they spend the "child support". For men? How many divorces can a guy take if each time he has to give up a percentage of his income. How long does it take before he doesn't have the money to properly support himself? And by the way, there doesn't have to be children involved to be ordered to pay alimony if the ex says she can't live without it. And if she finds it's not enough, she can always go back and request that it be raised. Just try to get child support reduced when the welfare of the children are involved. The accrual of child support doesn't stop even after you lose your job or even if you go to jail (best interest of the children). In fact, since the 1970's, there's a federal law that says there is no reason whatsoever that justifies stopping or reducing child support retroactively. And that includes a man's death. Die and the money will still be taken from your estate if the children are still of age. And that's even in the case of paternity fraud. If the baby's not yours, you had better find out fast! In fact, in many cases after two years, you pay even after finding out later that the baby isn't yours, even with a DNA test. Nice, huh! The feminists have a very strong lobby. Men? Almost none because men in most instance take it like men. And women are so much better at whining.
And concerning getting lucky in picking a woman, we don't seem to get better at it because 2nd and 3rd and 4th marriages have progressively higher rates of failure than 1st marriages do.
And by the way, since divorces are filed about 70% of the time by women, don't you think this shows that women know how the laws and judges are biased in their favor? Even if we have a good marriage (she hasn't found someone she thinks is better than you yet), don't you think this affects how she acts and we can act towards our wives in any disagrement? And also, with all the situation comedies and advertisements on TV that repeatedly portray women as intelligent and us men as child-like and stupid, do you really think that after so many years of this brainwashing our women are going to show our side of a disagreement a whole lot of respect when she disagrees with us?
I say the only way to maintain a proper relationship with a woman is not to marry her or get her pregnant because at the marriage and baby point, she has the entire deck stacked in her favor, whatever the case may be. And by the way, nice guys get screwed even worse than bad boys in family court because women are least afraid of screwing nice guys. In most cases, nice guys take all the screwing "like a man". While your woman loves you now, how do you think you might be treated if she finds someone better and feels based on all the brainwashing in the media that a father contributes almost nothing to a child's well-being and she feels that having you out of the picture will make the situation between her and the new paramour better.
Sorry if I got a bit long. I could go on, but won't. A good book I recently read was by Stephen Baskerville entitled, "Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family". Another, shorter book by a lawyer, Jed H. Abraham is also good entitled "From Courtship to Courtroom: What Divorce Law is Doing to Marriage..."
Marriage can be good with the right woman, but they fail more than 50% of the time (bad odds) and when they do, we are easily dead meat, especially if the wife has found someone she thinks will be better in one way or other, like he would be a better father to "her" kids. I say, ignore all this at your peril.
A good website to keep up with because of all the current articles about the latest on the subject and other related subjects is glennsacks dot com.
:cheers:
