70% of divorces are initiated by women. Now a Pedestalman might say that’s because more than ever men are horrible, but a Pedestalman would say the same if 70% of divorces were initiated by men.
Kids, don’t do pussy pedestals.
The truth about the Divorce Industrial Complex is exactly as I have described it here on this blog: INCENTIVES MATTER. And American women respond to the personally advantageous incentives of the divorce market which massively redistributes money and children away from ex-husbands to ex-wives at no cost or stipulation to the women.
Proof? It’s as plain as the mangina in your midst who never took a risk with the opposite sex in his life. But if you prefer STATS AND DATA, here you go:
Rise of women backing out of divorces as court settlements shrink
Women are backing out of divorce cases because settlements are becoming less generous, experts have said.
Fewer wives are being awarded income for life and they are increasingly having their divorce settlement limited to a few years.
This is making some of them back off from going through with a split, law firms say.
Yo yo yo….ayo hol up….so what you’re sayin is….
WIVES DON’T FRIVORCE WHEN THE GRAVY TRAIN IS SHUT OFF
How about that! Women ARE rational creatures! This is an astounding discovery to the world of white knights who had been laboring under the belief that women bear no moral culpability for social ills, nor exercise any self-serving sex-based calculus which might fray the social fabric.
I’m happy to see that at least in some White redoubts the direction of reform is heading away from incentivizing EatPraySlut frivorce rape and toward equitable treatment rooted in a wise understanding of the inherent, innate, and intractable biosocial differences between men and women.
Trump’s tax reform eliminates the tax exemption for alimony payments.
Feminists are up in arms because they know women will be getting less generous settlements since Uncle Sam is now taking a slice of the pie.
LikeLiked by 5 people
“Trump’s tax reform eliminates the tax exemption for alimony payments.”
WHOA!!! Gotta URL? That one slipped under (((the radar))).
LikeLike
Alimony tax changes may scorch divorcing couples https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/loss-of-alimony-tax-break-in-tax-law-may-inflame-divorce-negotiations.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Under Trump’s tax law, you now have a year to avoid a nasty divorce https://www.marketwatch.com/story/under-trumps-tax-plan-divorces-are-about-to-get-a-lot-nastier-2017-11-03
LikeLike
I know a chick whose story is the dude has a thing for 18 year olds and he was cheating and a drinker. Best part is bc she earns like a mfer (political family) she has to pay HIM for 6 months. I need to get on this gravy train lol
women ARE rational if you say $2M or $1M which would u like?…they aren’t STUPID after all, just venal. As the Little Caesars ads used to show “they seem to prefer two.” By that logic, even children are rational.
If a woman tries to “back out,” you go forward. It’s only the price tag keeping her around. A FOOL would stay with a woman who filed on him. From that day forward, you hide money, you put on lojack or PI to find the liaisons, even if you have to encourage em, and then you blow her out of the water. Let her come home to a house with a For Sale sign, drained accounts, and all the furniture gone.
Welcome to equality bitch
LikeLiked by 3 people
“If a woman tries to “back out,” you go forward. It’s only the price tag keeping her around. A FOOL would stay with a woman who filed on him. ”
Damn right! I was going to say this but you beat me to it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
great newsz for da betasz!
now dat you wife won’t be rewarded handsomely
for divociring you
she will stay married
while working her coportate jobz
and giving her boss and boss’s boyz
blowjobz
lzozozozolz
LikeLiked by 2 people
i’m with GBFM on this
not sure how it’s a win that more women will stay with their men just for the money.
if she wants a d1vorce in the first place, she’s basically done with you. there’s no respect or desire left.
a man would be better off ending it and finding a decent woman who truly respects and desires him than settling for a loveless m@rriage with a woman who is only with him for the money.
LikeLike
C, it will be VASTLY better for the kids, however. The moar time the kids have in the same house as their Bio-Daddy, the better the results will be for the kids.
[Compare the tragedy of poor Lucas Glover, who was raised by a single mom, and then a stepfather, and who ended up with an alcoholic shrike of a w!fe who takes a pair of scissors to his ball-sack whenever he doesn’t shoot a quality round of golf on the PGA tour. And that dude was Alpha enough to win a US Open.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
i agree for the most part.
ideally keeping the family intact is best. but i also have experienced and witnessed too many cases of couples staying together for the kids and providing a shitty example of what m@rriage and family should be like
forcing your kids to be exposed to ongoing tension/fighting and showing your kids it’s okay to stay with a shitty woman who disrespects you, probably hates you, and has no desire for you, is not something that’s good for kids to grow up with.
sure, if you can somehow turn things around and make a girl who doesn’t have any respect or love for you, great. all the better for everyone.
but in most cases, that’s not going to happen if she’s already gotten that close to leaving, has cheated, etc. all you’re doing is putting off the inevitable and making your kids suffer longer by being exposed to that dysfunction
better to find a good woman and show the kids what real love and respect should look like. that’s what my dad did when he found my stepmom. without that example, i’d have kept playing out the same shitty relationship dynamic he had with my mom in my own life.
kids need an example of what a good life can be like. without that, they’re doomed to have shitty lives just like their parents
LikeLiked by 1 person
also, d1vorce doesn’t automatically mean the kid grows up without a dad. if you do it right, you can actually have more time and a better relationship with your kids after divorce than you did when you were together.
LikeLike
NM, for the record, CH’s link appears to involve UK common law, rather than US statutory law.
But it will be very, very interesting to see what happens to d!vorce statistics when the Trump alimony provision takes effect in 2019.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The UK High Court decision dated from 2014, so I guess it takes a few years for all of this to start percolating out into The System.
LikeLike
righteous!
LikeLike
What tax exemption? I had to pay out the nose for every cent my ex wife sent me
LikeLike
Under previous tax law, the person receiving the alimony, typically the ex-wife, was supposed to declare it on their return and pay the tax … as you properly did.
However, the IRS found that many ex-wives receiving alimony WERE NOT reporting the income. Thus, the change in the law, much to the chagrin of women’s groups.
LikeLike
Guys, I read one or two of these articles and it actually seems to be the opposite of what you describe. It will make the “payee” pay the taxes for both of them instead of splitting the taxes up. Can someone else confirm that I don’t have this backwards? quote from link:
“or individuals who must pay alimony, this change can be expensive — because the tax savings from being able to deduct alimony payments can be substantial.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-tax-law-eliminates-alimony-deductions-but-not-for-everybody-2018-01-23
LikeLike
I heard about this when it was first in the news and remember it as you say. It makes a man even more of a debt slave.
LikeLike
Right now, the person who pays the alimony gets to deduct those payments from their federal taxes so they get a huge tax break. The person who receives the alimony has to claim that as income and pay taxes on it. The person receiving the alimony is almost always in a lower tax bracket so they’re paying less in income tax than the payee would’ve paid on that income.
Both parties were getting a tax break and Uncle Sam was getting the shaft. Not to mention that the IRS had compliance issues with many women not declaring alimony income on their federal returns.
The old law encouraged courts to grant larger alimony settlements to ex-wives because the man could afford it.
From 2019 forward, the person paying alimony isn’t allowed to deduct it from their taxes (so they’re carrying the whole tax burden, both on his income and the income he pays to the ex-spouse) and the person receiving, usually the ex-wife, it doesn’t pay any tax. Under the old law, she was supposed to pay tax on that alimony, but at a reduced rate since she would be in a lower tax bracket than the man.
On the surface this sounds very unfair to men paying the alimony and a great deal for women, but in practice it will mean going forward that alimony will be reduced to take the tax differential into account. Either through legislative changes at the individual State level, or courts will be less likely to order alimony, or, if they do, it’ll be lower amounts.
Divorce lawyers and feminists sniffed this out really quick and started complaining loudly right after the legislation passed.
Off Topic: When will Jordan Peterson’s wife divorce his beta ass and take the money and run? We need a betting pool.
LikeLike
Courts have grown accustomed to a lifestyle of assraping the men. I don’t see how the new tax code is going to change that.
What the fem groups should be worried about, is that losing the tax writeoff may be the final straw that sends Mr. Ex down to the hardware store to shop for a good shovel.
LikeLike
Nostalgia – Thanks, it seems the tax liability change in and of itself is a raw deal for the payers.
I have a concern with your 3rd to last paragraph:
“but in practice it will mean going forward that alimony will be reduced to take the tax differential into account. Either through legislative changes at the individual State level, or courts will be less likely to order alimony, or, if they do, it’ll be lower amounts.”
Will it actually in practice mean any such thing as stated? Ideally, yes. However, these after-the-fact changes are not assured in the slightest and with the court history having total disregard for the man’s needs, I see it getting worse before it gets better.
If ass-raping a man via alimony was a stock that went up when the man got raped harder, I would call the short term outlook positive with mid and long settling to neutral territory.
TL;DR Alex said it best:
“Courts have grown accustomed to a lifestyle of assraping the men. I don’t see how the new tax code is going to change that.”
LikeLike
Don’t ever buy a house. RENT.
ALWAYS have hidden assets… gold coins if you have to.
Being an ATM for the gal is the ultimate in beta.
She’s only ever happy when she’s dependent upon you.
A truly independent woman = spinster.
They’re not wired for independence. They are wired to be slaves to their children.
Darwin’s law strikes again.
LikeLike
>Feminists are up in arms because they know women will be getting less generous settlements since Uncle Sam is now taking a slice of the pie.
It’s so delish when, suddenly, the parasite shows concern for the host….
LikeLike
When you think about the implications of this, however, it’s truly gut-wrenching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can you imagine the vicious bl00dy psychological jujitsu warfare which must going through the typical ho’s brain when she’s contemplating all of this?
Her Hamster is screaming bloody murder to be released from bondage so that it can go prancing out on the town every night in search of Alpha Phux at the Chardonnay Wine Bar, all while the forebrain* is ruthlessly calculating the financial implications of abandoning Beta Bux?
If there’s any luck, maybe the Zyklon chicks will have come from sufficiently good genetic material that there’s a chance we’ll see more classically stable loving spiritual marriages in the near future, as opposed to the pure unmitigated societal disaster which was Boomer & Xer & Millennial marriage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*Female Forebrain == Whorebrain?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Woman’s Forebrain == Whorebrain.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Let’s let those of us who’ve gone through a contested divorce speak on this.
what’s going through her head? RAGE, dude. Anger, hatred, envy, bitterness.
There is no calculation. There is no logic. These d!vorce$ are $$$$$ clusterfucks precisely because women CANNOT make it just business; it has to be personal. They blow it all trying to get back at you for…whatever.
What CH describes is child rationality not true logical thinking. A rational person says 2 cookies are too much high fructose corn syrup. A child says gimme 2 instead of 1. Give any monkey a crack lever and he’s pulling it every time. That’s all this is. Money is chick crack, we all know that (or should) by now.
If I told you the utterly insane shit my wife said during the divorce you wouldn’t even believe me. Nobody does, they assume I must be exaggerating, but I have it all in writing from authorities. Black ink on paper transcribed by state professionals.
LikeLiked by 2 people
contemplating?
during the exit, her head is filled with pure rage.
No reason here, it’s a crack lever, a monkey will pull it. Money is chick crack. Childlike rationality.
People don’t even believe half the shit my ex said and did during my bitterly, tooth-and-nail, contested attempted StateRape. The State never lifted a finger to help me, but the cops when called were typically sympathetic. And CPS finally after I raised these sprogs alone for 9 years, backed me up one time in court.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I was a women I’d divorce Trav777 after suffering through his umpteenth lecture on how great the haute cuisine in those DC sh*tholes are, and blowing our nest egg on $400 pasta & truffles.
LikeLike
Um, no you wouldn’t.
You’d be the one who would be there…with me. I have no shortage of women who would LOVE to go to Fiola.
Let’s just fast forward the hyperbole to $500 meatball subs, ok?
LikeLike
Trav, did you at least get a decent amount of truffle with the pasta to justify the price? That is what drove the high cost. Most truffle sauces have a few tiny slivers in them and no real truffle flavor.
LikeLike
Which are the gut wrenching implications?
LikeLike
That women generally aren’t good for anything but casual sex and have careers because they aren’t held accountable in the workplace and thus see work as a social and vanity endeavor.
LikeLike
“Which are the gut wrenching implications?”
That yuge numbers of women [throughout the course of history] m@rried their husbands not because they l0ved the guy, but because the Wh0rebrain over-ruled the Hamster and said, “Yeah, I know this gonna suck, but it’s time to give up that Alpha Fux fairytale nonsense & accept Reality for what it is & settle down with a dependable Beta Bux and start pushing out the substandard ch!ldren.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
And then the Hamster whispered in the Whorebrain’s ear, “Well maybe we could sneak out every once in a while and score some most excellent Alpha seed.”
And the Whorebrain grimaced, and thought briefly about slaying the Hamster right then and there, in righteous anger, but hesitated at the last moment, and finally walked away, muttering under its breath, “Maybe.”
And the Hamster smiled a wry grin of Ultimate Victory.
LikeLike
What’s the definition of a bachelor?
It’s a guy who’s never made the same mistake ONCE.
– Cpl. Hicks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marriage is a great institution.
I just don’t want to be institutionalized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
^^This^^
LikeLike
[…] The Divorce Industrial Complex Responds To Incentives […]
LikeLike
70% is the exact same figure as in France after divorce was legalized in the French Revolution. Methinks hypergamy plays a huge role here. Lots of women think their pussies are dipped in gold. Cause and effect, intelligence, logic, extrapolation of trends are not their strong suits. They excel at making goo goo noises with children and household skills if properly controlled. Look how many of these stupid slots demand more and more for less and less in return as they age. The only hope for the white race will be a strong pimp hand in the future, changes to the laws that favor men and family formation once again and a strong pimp hand.
LikeLike
There’s an exceptionally difficult problem in statistics here, which involves whether or not you can extrapolate from the set of all m@rriages which end in d!vorce back to the set of all m@rriages which do NOT end in d!vorce.
And then there are further difficulties as to whether “filing for d!vorce” versus NOT “filing for d!vorce” is a good indicator of each respective spouse’s appraisal of the m@rriage.
But if you can kinda/sorta do the extrapolation, then 30% of men’s libidos are are being stunted by their m@rriages, whereas 70% of all women’s Hamsters are su!cidally miserable in their m@rriages.
LikeLike
Those back-of-the-envelope first-order approximations do bear an eerie resemblance to the 80/20 rule, however: In pure unencumbered libertine R-Selected polygynous societies, 20% of all men get 80% of teh p00ntang.
LikeLike
It’s 30% of divorces that are initiated by men. Not 30% of married men …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Less so if your population is those m*rri*ges that end in divorce. That is a finite number and independent of manipulation. If you find that in 70% of those instances the woman filed for the divorce that is a solid figure.
LikeLike
These are tricky statistical problems, and it’s not always safe to study marriages which end in d!vorce and then attempt to draw conclusions about marriages which do NOT end in divorce.
[Nor vice versa.]
The problem for statisticians is that you have myriad public records for the marriages which end in divorce, versus essentially no public records whatsoever for the marriages which do NOT end in divorce.
So one set of statistics is a completely open book, whereas the other set of statistics is a dark, murky, potentially unknowable mess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That requires too much reading into the reasons for the divorce and is less relevant from a statistical perspective.
LikeLike
this should be the start of the solution to problems like this
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/beta-of-the-month-when-you-cant-hide-it/
LikeLike
(((It))) will never stop. (((It))) is gloating about the biracial triumph. Carlos nailed this one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/05/16/feature/the-making-of-meghan-markle-a-confident-mixed-race-woman-marries-into-the-royal-family/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dd302bd25023
LikeLike
Shit it is obvious as the nose on Laura Loomer’s face.
LikeLike
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/05/AFP_14946U.jpg&w=988
LikeLike
So doing the math, if 50% of marriages end in divorce and 70% of divorces are imitated by women. Then I have a 35% chance of risking 50% of my current and future assets because she doesn’t like me anymore.
Sorry, Ill pass. Most women are not appreciating assets worth the investment risk.
LikeLike
Sancta Simplicitas!
or is it …. (((simplicitas))) 😉
The land of a rich man produced plentifully, and he thought to himself,
‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’
And he said,
‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.” ’
But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’
So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.
LikeLike
That’s some basic bitch statistics you are rocking there.
Consider that some guys go into marriage with a 100% chance of divorce and some guys near 0%. A lot of guys falling somewhere in the middle. What type of man are you?
Do people like you learn anything from reading this website?
LikeLike
Don’t mean to poke fun at you elooie, you are probably just used to coasting on your high verbal IQ
LikeLike
Alimony has traditionally been taxable, and is almost always temporary, even if it goes on for years. For all but the stupendously wealthy, the way around this is to be generous with child support, which is not taxable. This tax change affects couples without kids where one spouse earns far more income than the other, and the stupendously wealthy who can’t hide taxable income in child support. Also for others paying alimony, this just eliminates a distortion in how much is truly being awarded, i.e., an award of $60k/year is really $60k, not some unknown lower figure after taxes.
LikeLike
Backing out of divorces? Imagine being the pathetic twat waiting to take her back after she calls off a divorce because it’s not lucrative enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
my thoughts exactly
no chance in hell i’d keep a woman who is only staying for the money
LikeLike
Yeah, as I was saying up above here, when you think about the implications of this, it’s truly gut-wrenching.
It makes you wonder how many m@rriages were ever the honest-to-goodness Chr!stian ideal of l0ving one another until D3ath Do Us Part, versus how many were simply the result of the Whorebrain winning the battle with the Hamster and settling for Beta Bux rather than Alpha Phux.
LikeLiked by 1 person
it’s like that famous saying, “domestic bliss comes through the barrel of a gun.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It makes you wonder how many m@rriages were ever the honest-to-goodness Chr!stian ideal of l0ving one another until D3ath Do Us Part, versus how many were simply the result of the Whorebrain winning the battle with the Hamster and settling for Beta Bux rather than Alpha Phux.”
Well, just as an anecdotal observation, don’t most mothers train their daughters with such bon mots of motherly wisdom as “It’s just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is with a poor one”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everything we see around us is because of (misguided) government policy. From all asian or all arab suburbs in your state. To the latest crisis, it’s because of government policy. The real reason why we have high divorce and a high number of single mothers is because of government policy and the laws that support it.
If we want to keep family’s together, and live in a 1950’s style utopia. Then a number of things would need to take place to end this failed feminist experiment. 1) end no fault divorce 2) end alimony and end the asset forfeiture to the spouse who didnt work. -This will stop in part the gold digging that we see with celebrity entertainers and celebrity business men. 3) Out of wedlock births get no social security, or financial support from the man and custody goes to the men and make it retrospective – This would stop poverty stricken women from having kids and those kids joining the prison industrial complex. It would also stop gold diggin’ hoes from getting knocked up. 4) Make the burden of proof and due process the same for civil cases as it is for criminal cases. 5) Stiffer (actual) penalties for false accusations in the press and unsubstantiated accusations. – Much of the #metoo movement is based on ‘he said she said’ accusations that are unsubstantiated and then printed in the press. If journalists and publications had jail time waiting for them. Many of the accusations we saw in the press would never have seen the light of day. It’s time for governments around the world to wake up and realize what keeps its machine running, and hint it ain’t the womynz.
LikeLike
Well look at what the G0d Emperor gave us in the 2017 tax package: No moar subsidization of Bluetropolis state & local income taxes, and no moar subsidization of Divorce Industrial Complex alimony payments.
That’s two massive financial pillars of The Poz which were gutted in one fell swoop.
It’s pretty amazing that the cuckservatives found the g0nads to vote for that sh!znat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
Also no moar subsidization of Sh!tlib Mega-McMansions in gated communities beyond the first $750,000 in mortgage value.
LikeLike
I was reading that as a result, some companies are moving.
One finance firm from NYC is moving to Nashville. The downside is that all those shitlibs from up there will transform wherever they move back into the places they left.
Next year will be telling as I figure many people are beginning their exodus or about done. We’ll see how those blue states that lost a chunk o’people fare.
Even before the tax breaks, in IL (thanks to Chicongo) the average person leaving IL was making 70k and the average person moving in IL was making 50k. For a bankrupt state like IL, that doesn’t bode well.
LikeLike
Evidence of women as rational actors – eh? Rationality = you gotta be able to see and weigh consequences. Weighing consequences is about self-agency ……. belief in one’s ability to make meaningful non-deterministic decisions for which one should therefore be personally responsible for the consequences thereof.
The constant shite I often hear in some parts of the sphere, about women’s reduced capacity for self-agency, vis-a-vis men, is bunk, and an idea that should be thrown in the dung heap with alot of similarly shallow so-called ‘redpill’ perspective.
Look – seeing women as being disadvantaged by way of inferior self-agency, normatively, is just another way to excuse women for their responsibility avoidance tactics. Which really isn’t quite ‘responsibility avoidance’ anyways, given that the intersexual game, as played now, allows for this easy out for women – i.e. – the easy out as upheld by the lie that women are more solipsistic, therefore less self-agentic, therefore not as responsible for the consequences of their actions and decisions.
No, the idea that women are less self-agentic is bunk ….. instead it is much more-so about the skewed incentives, and in the modern era, always has been.
(((Who be it))), in the modern era, that has been so degenerate with respect to promoting such wrong-headed ideas around incentives, meant to allow for unwarranted responsibility-avoidance among certain groups (pretty much all groups outside of white men …… but now the white men are losing their way too …. and falling for some of this shite too ……. but to be clear – the promotion of ‘responsibility avoidance’ is akin to tactics for breaking an animal, breaking it’s spirit, bending it’s will towards an agenda of domestication …… by way of the careful management of incentives and disincentives – operant-conditioning-style)?
(((Fuck these psychos))).
LikeLike
Dude, have you ever tried to hold a woman accountable for something?
WTF good does it do, you gonna put your dog on trial for shitting on the rug?
LikeLike
trav – yes I hold women accountable. But like you say, very often it is better just to leave it unsaid, but the frame I hold nevertheless, is …. you be accountable (woman or man) for the decisions you make, and the actions you take. If the woman be like ….. ‘that not apply to me’ …. OK …. I gonna tend to discount her, just like I would discount a man who shirks.
So the formula is: You are accountable (man or woman) — > if you shirk — > you be discounted — > you will not get the full benefit of any fair-minded exchanges I would otherwise prefer to enter into.
The submission females ache for, as CH discussed in the next post, is actually about submitting to this masculine frame (frame of maintaining individual accountability for those within the man’s sphere of influence). If she won’t or can’t submit to that – what man would be wanting that, then? Be gone, with her then.
This treating women like the most responsible teenager in the house, or something along those lines, is BS. Though that strategy often works to some degree, it is shallow, and the woman actually be framing it to herself like you are a fool for putting up with her shite, and therefore you deserve her immature hijinks at your expense, ….. that be pretty much a co-dependency.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So the formula is: You are accountable (man or woman) — > if you shirk — > you be discounted — > you will not get the full benefit of any fair-minded exchanges I would otherwise prefer to enter into.
Libertarianism in one house. How’s that working out so far?
LikeLike
Not sure what your libertarianism is meant to imply? Maximizing autonomy is not the same as being free of the consequences of exercising said autonomy. What’s your point?
LikeLike
i didn’t understand the libertarianism reference myself
IMO your whole comment was right on the money Wild Man
LikeLike
Know a guy that is 100% disabled veteran collecting a fat check every month tax free. He deserves every penny because he is seriously f-uped, but that’s not the point. He also makes good money as a stevedore.
His wife moved out and wanted a divorce. She hits the bar scene pretty hard and found a man to move in with.
She then found out that she can’t touch his disability payments. On top of that, he quits his job claiming it’s because of his disability.
She wants to call of the divorce proceedings move back in with her husband and “work things out.”
LikeLike
no means no
LikeLike
he’d be a fool if he falls for that trap.
LikeLike
Work this out, twat….GFY.
LikeLike
Almost. He got weak a few times and his wife has a really cute as$. All we had to do was remind him that another man’s c0ck has slid in between those cheeks and to remember the squeals and faces she made. We remind him that she made those same faces and sounds for the new live-in bull.His weakness turns into anger.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ex had a degree and career but only freelanced for low pay. I encouraged her to get a job. She did. Two years later, youngest graduated high school, I filed, as I found younger, much hotter, much tighter, much more agreeable, after warning her for YEARS that I couldn’t take it anymore. No alimony, no child support. That was 7 years ago.
LikeLike
you encouraged her to get a job then when she became the career woman you wanted instead of a sweet loving wife who focused all her energy on pleasing you instead, you dumped her.
you were fully complicit in furthering the downfall of our society and ruining a woman in the process. you should be ashamed of yourself.
LikeLike
It looks to me like they already couldn’t stand each other, he encouraged her to get a job to lessen the chance he’d have to pay alimony, and it worked. I don’t think he dumped her because she got the career, i think he dumped her — and told her to get a career — because he hated her guts for many years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ah okay
i misread it the first time. i see now that you’re right.
my apologies Neuday
LikeLike
Bingo
My daughter is an RN and just got married to a great guy she met in high school. Zero carousel. My son avoided college but has a decent job and open carries with his hb7 gf
Wife v2.0 adores me and is size P2. I have no regrets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
nice work man
and like i said in another comment, finding a great new woman is good for you and the kids.
gives your daughter a better role model than her mom and showed your son that he doesn’t have to settle for a woman who makes him miserable
we could with a lot more fathers like you.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Write alimony out of legislation. Just abolish it completely.
I have no quarrel with no-fault-divorce. I know women married to genuine face-punching manipulative bullies.
The state has asserted primacy in care for the de-married. Let it have the whole bag.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The difficulty in that, for those of use who realize that marriage is a shit deal and didn’t make the same mistake *once*, is that now, on top of paying the ‘gibsmedat’ Danegeld for the bastard spawn of millions of dindus, we will be required to pay *MORE* in tax to support the children of men who were white enough to know better. You broke it, you pay for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] Source: Heartiste […]
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Nicht-Linke Blogs.
LikeLike
“Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in all divorces after Dec. 31, 2018, alimony will no longer be deductible for the payer, and taxes don’t need to be paid on it by the recipient. ”
Why? Because the payer usually pays a higher rate of income tax. This is a straightforward money grab. Under the current system, it makes financial sense to divorce as a tax dodge. A whole chunk of money is suddenly tax-free (if the payee receives little enough other income).
LikeLike
I do a fair amount of divorce work. I think there are two forces at work driving women’s overuse of the divorce industrial process – 1. Perceived financial incentives – as noted in the original post, women are surprisingly rational when it comes to mate choices. So much so that I don’t think they are conscious of it. I think they subconsciously perceive all the social cues that cause them to “crush” on the guys that just so happen to be the socially dominant/successful from among their pool of available mates. Similarly, i’m not convinced that they’re conscious of the financial incentives/disincentives to divorce, yet subconsciously they are affected by it.
2. Eroded social networks with other women. As a counterpoint to point 1, divorce has never been a rational economic choice in the vast majority of cases, even when alimony and child support were at ridiculous levels. Many studies in the 80s and 90s demonstrated that nearly all divorcees experienced a decrease in their standard of living when single. Women still make this irrational choice because they are poorly suited to thinking out the long term economic costs. They don’t like to be responsible for that stuff. In prior generations, women had much stronger social networks with other women (church, neighborhood, bridge club, civic organizations, PTA). So while individually they are short-sighted, irresponsible, often irrationally emotional, they are the superior social animal when compared to men, and can make up for their individual information deficits through their social channels. When they had stronger bonds with other women in their community, they received better advice, and were able to punish male misbehavior through their social networks. Now they are much more isolated, and more prone to making poor life decisions.
LikeLike
Nice read from Reddit Red Pill. tl;dr Man gets rich, goes full Beta provider and gets cucked and divorced
LikeLiked by 1 person
great post. hope everyone on here reads this. some really good lessons in this.
for one, you can’t buy a woman’s attraction or love. two, there’s no recovery after a woman cheats. also true about counseling. don’t know a single case of counseling helping a relationship and i’ve known many who have gone that route.
LikeLike
Indeed Cracker, sadly many of my relatives have gone through this hell, and even after that they refuse to get red pilled.
I loved the final quote:
“The way to show value through money is to spend it on yourself. Buy yourself some dope shit show it off. By a Tesla for you. Wear the most expensive brands if you feel like it. But above all else, make sure she gets the point that you’re doing it selfishly and that she has to earn every penny you bestow upon her.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’re men who make their pussies tingle and there’re men who make their pursey’s jingle.
[CH: nice one]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why don’t more men who are about to get ass raped in divorce court simply just employ scorched Earth tactics? Things like:
-burning the house down
-deliberately quitting their job and become a burden of society (and hence avoiding alimony payments)
Because is the so-called social stigma of “deadbeat dad” really give that much of a sting anymore? The response to that is to simply have a DGAF attitude.
–
LikeLike