|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Luek on 04:16 PM January 7th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
" The upshot? Men: don't get married!"
It is a mystery why men in of all places, Massachusetts still get married and particularly in a misandric backward state like that. I hope he does appeal and win. I don't like to think he is just laughing about getting royally screwed by the state.
Oh, well, maybe someday hogs will learn to fly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 06:46 PM January 7th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it is time to refuse to marry American Women. Maybe it is time to let American Women reap the Whirlwind that they have been sowing. Refuse to Marry them for say 3 years. Imagine the economic impact that would have on us Retail Sales? The message that would send the females in the US. We are tired of the Bull Sh**. Better yet recruit overseas. I say we outsource or marriage to cultures that are not ingrained with Misandry and leave the US Harpies for something less nasty and angry.
When any comodity gets too expensive or too difficult to obtain acceptable substitutes will arise. Imagine if 50% of the Women who married in the Next 3 years came from outside of the US? What a message that would send to our Women. Mainly we are sick of how you have perverted the normal interaction between our genders since the Dawn of Civilization. We can breed out feminism, but we must come to a concensus that the current system is utterly broken and must be scrapped. I have two friends whose wives are from outside the US. They are deliriously happy. They would never go back to the harpies in the US. They are good from just one thing. A substanceless Scr***** and even then use protection. They have no loyalty and are totally predatory in their behavior. I say we should return the favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:02 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"It is a mystery why men in of all places, Massachusetts still get married and particularly in a misandric backward state like that."
Massachusetts has a long history of "backward" treatment of its inhabitants. It appears that it remains "backward" in its treatment of men to this day. One can only wonder what "progressive" Massachusetts will dream up next as "fair treatment" for its male citizens.
Just Another Cruel and Unusual, Massachusetts Matter of Law
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 09:11 AM January 10th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
No mystery.. till you get your caught in the system you didnt know that it will grind you up and spit you out, but by then its too late.
now if men read relationship articles the way women did, then men would be informed in something early.. like, maybe Boys Life... good old goofus and galant.. see goofus grow up to be a avowed bachelor, see galant on his second marraige up to his nose in alimony, and child support, and foolish enough to have thought the first time was a fluke...
ok,ok.. couldnt help myself.. : )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LSBeene on 08:00 PM January 7th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
This bothered me:
" ``It was unreasonable to expect that his spouse, who then had no assets and negligible earning capacity, would contribute to the marriage by raising his child and by supporting his ability to work outside the home, with no expectation of future support, no matter how long the marriage, and regardless whether she might never acquire assets of her own,'' Justice Fernande Duffly wrote in the court's opinion. "
So, we both agreed to it, we both signed it, but later one of us can disregard it.
Now, I don't know if she was working full time at the time of marriage or not.
If she was working then they may have agreed to have her stay at home. But even so, then she should have aaid: "ok, let's talk about this pre-nup again as things have changed." She changed the parameters of her working status. Women have a choice as to have children. And if she choose to do so: guess what ---> live up to your decision!
If she was NOT working at the time, then NOTHING changed and the contract was STILL valid.
....... but .... onto the rest of our feminazi mastabatory fantasy cum true:
"But Donna Austin's attorney said, ``The court is saying that by waiving her right to alimony, she was essentially waiving her future rights, which was not a realistic thing to do.''
Ummmm no, she was not givng up her rights at all. It is not her right to agree to no money and then later get a divorce and change her mind.
Imagine what this same attorney would be saying if it was a woman who was getting screwed.
This is such bullshit.
I believe in marriage. I do. I'd just enter it VERY carefully.
There was this one guy who knew a divorce was coming. He got his boss to pay him something like $1000 a month (like 1/10 of what he was getting before). He then had the company pick up his mortgage and put the house in the company's name. And the same for his car.
The wife's attorney was whining about how her client got screwed. Maybe. Maybe not. But, since the femis love our "strike first" family court system: they only got themselves to blame!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:58 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Wow.
Men haveing to COMPLETELY honor the rules, and women able to break them at will, and have no responsibility. Now there's a shocker. (sarcasm)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MAUS on 05:02 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Last year there was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that this court would no longer overturn pre-nuptual agreements unless it could be proven they were made at gunpoint. At least here, people are starting to recognise that if you want to be taken seriously you should seriously consider saying what you mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:02 AM January 9th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
MA is the MOST mest up state in the union. I live in MA. Most men are second class citizens and don't realize until it is their own ass getting screwed by the misandy in MA courts/laws....
This place sucks. Do not let the feminists ruin your state or country. Oppose any and all legislation regarding sexist "gender" issues where you live. Feminists have taken over control of any gender issue, and they aim to ruin men with hate laws...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand the judge's reasoning. This is a dangerous precident. I hope he appeals all the way up the line.
Peace,
Blessed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:00 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, obviously this judge has no reasoning...,
As far as American judges go, he is in good company.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:51 PM January 9th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"He" is a "she".
The Hon Fernande R V Duffy is a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:30 PM January 10th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Oops!
Yep, You're right "he" IS a "she". My bad.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous User writes "The Boston Herald ran an article titled 