Divorce misconceptions persist

The NY Times got a couple of family law experts to discuss couples getting prenups for their ideas, and one says:

Women have, historically, been short-changed in divorces. A familiar pattern was that of a wife who supported her husband as he worked his way through law school or medical school by taking low-wage jobs with little opportunity, believing she was helping invest in their collective future. Once the marriage dissolved, though, the husband walked away with the fruits of their human capital.

Greenspun responds:

The law professor who makes this assertion doesn’t make any attempt to explain why most divorce lawsuits are filed by women (see the classic Brinig and Allen paper referenced in “Causes of Divorce” as well as this statistical study of a Massachusetts courthouse where 72 percent of the cases were filed by women).

Greenspun also points out that the other expert is wrong about divorce law.

Family law is not complicated, but even experts get it wrong. I do not know whether these experts are stupid, or are blinded by ideology and self-interest.

I started this blog with a belief that the family (and juvenile dependency) court system could not really be as bad as it appears. Then I believed that the system would be reformed, if only the public understood how screwed up it was. Then I thought that at least it would be useful to document my own experience, so others can be alert to the pitfalls.

I don't think that I persuaded anyone. I heard from lots of people who had their own bad experiences, and who appreciated the blog to get the bigger picture. So I am happy to leave this blog up, in case it helps anyone.

Donald Trump was elected because, in part, the public wised up to the fact that the powerful and influential elites were lying to us about trade, immigration, Islam, police work, foreign wars, and many other topics. They also lie about marriage and parental rights, but that is too sensitive for even Trump to address.

Take the red pill. Our society is destroying the family. Find out how it works before you get married or have a kid.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Jolie wants child support from Brad Pitt

I cannot keep up with the Brad Pitt Angelina Jolie divorce, and the bizarre way they are raising their first daughter as a boy and buying kids from other continents.

As Pitt and Jolie are super-rich, popular, famous, well-liked, beautiful actors, you would think that they would find a way to avoid the trashy accusations of divorce court. They can each in one movie make more money than the rest of us can spend in our entire lives.

They claimed that they did not get married earlier because they were waiting for same-sex marriages, and only got married because their kids nagged them into it.

They had waited for gay marriage to become legal, with Pitt telling Esquire magazine in 2006: "Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able to." source

Nevertheless, Jolie is making accusations that could win her as much as $50 million in child support payments.

It is all about money. The bad incentives are huge.

Republicans blame family without fixing incentives

I have quit posting this nonsense, but someone sent me this WSJ op-ed from behind a paywall:

The Poverty Cure: Get Married
Black children bear the brunt of single parenthood’s harms.

... Of the many barriers to equal opportunity for African-Americans, differences of family background may well be the most consequential — and the least likely to yield to public policy. ...

In fact, the researchers conclude, neighborhoods and schools are less important than the “direct effect of family structure itself.” ...

the advantages of marriage for child well-being are “hard to replicate through policy interventions other than those that bolster marriages themselves.” And as evaluations of the George W. Bush administration’s marriage-promotion efforts show, we don’t know how to do that.

Liberals just want to give black people more welfare, so that they will vote Democrat. The conservatives, like this author, make more of an attempt to address the problems, and correctly notice the breakdown of the family as a cause, but then they are stumped. They have no idea how to strengthen the family, except maybe to promote religion.

A letter to the WSJ editor correctly explains:

Federal and state laws have created incentives for mostly poor individuals to not marry and to throw fathers out of children’s lives. Federal laws such as Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the Tax Code, the Bradley Amendment and the Violence Against Women Act have perverse incentives that help to throw biological fathers out of children’s lives and promote single-parent households. Until we create the incentives to bring back dads and bring back marriages, we can never help these children rise out of the poverty the government helped to create.

Peter G. Hill
Weston, Mass.

Another letter points out that the WSJ publish a 2014 op-ed by a Bush administration official blamely the family, just like the above op-ed:

Given how deep the problem of poverty is, taking even more money from one citizen and handing it to another will only diminish one while doing very little to help the other. A better and more compassionate policy to fight income inequality would be helping the poor realize that the most important decision they can make is to stay in school, get married and have children — in that order.

The Republicans may recognize the breakdown of the family as a problem, but they show no sign of attempting to reverse the bad incentives that killed the family.

Reason and morality don't work

A reader comments:

as has been pointed out in this blog before and shot down: you have to fight these people with their own weapons of emotionalism, victimhood, and irrational blatherings. Reason and morality don't work with them.

Here is someone trying to have a logical conversation with a liberal, about a big Hollywood celebrity divorce:

me: What is interesting to me is that you highlight the shortcomings of the man as a “husband/father”. You don’t mention the possibility that the woman (who sued a previous husband for divorce on May 9, 2003) might have any shortcomings as a wife/mother.

Cambridge liberal: She has no shortcomings as a mother if she’s raising 3 children effectively on her own [the Daily Mail quotes Garner saying “You have to have a great nanny…” and has photos of the father caring for the children while the mother parties; also shown is a nanny; litigators such as Floyd Nadler in Illinois told us that a female parent who stays home with a nanny wins “primary caregiver” status but not so for a male parent]

me: What’s your basis for saying that “she’s raising 3 children effectively on her own”? Do you know this couple personally? Or you are relying on a plaintiff’s assertion in litigation? (keep in mind that every additional day of custody that this plaintiff [actually a “petitioner” in California] can obtain will result in additional cash paid to her under California’s child support formula)

Cambridge liberal: Based on the article’s claim that she was disillusioned with his workaholicness and that she pretty much was left to raise the kids alone.

me: is it reasonable to accept uncritically the statements of a plaintiff looking for tens of millions of dollars merely because she is a woman? What’s your basis for the idea that the parent who initiates a divorce lawsuit, thus breaking up the children’s home, is automatically the superior parent? [papers from Malin Bergstrom show the harm done to children by an American-style divorce; ironically, Garner is a trustee of Save the Children]

Cambridge liberal: I do put more faith in women than men, yes. Men have a spotty record to put it mildly. Nearly all mothers have to be good at motherhood for us to survive. Fathers on the other hand can get away with being pretty shitty at that job.

me: Would it be okay if I were to say, after hearing about a plaintiff of Race A suing a defendant of Race B, that “I am pretty sure that the plaintiff is telling the truth and is not motivated by cash considerations because people of Race B are ‘pretty shitty’ parents and ‘have a spotty track record’ as parents”?

Cambridge liberal: No that would not be ok because you’d have no scientific basis for making such claims. Human fathers, on the other hand are demonstrably worse caregivers than mothers on average, by far. [he had no research or data to cite]

Yes, the Cambridge liberal is loaded with unscientific prejudices as much as he vigorously denies them.

Maybe the reader is right. You cannot reason with such a liberal, using logic and common sense. You have to emotionally call him a bigot, or something like that.

Lesbian basketball wedding goes bad

Here is a celebrity lesbian wedding that did not work out so well. Usually I just except the ridiculous parts, but here I post the story in its entirety.

AP/NYTimes reports:

OKLAHOMA CITY — Brittney Griner filed for an annulment with Glory Johnson-Griner on Friday, a day after Johnson-Griner announced she's pregnant and a month after the two WNBA players married.

"Last Wednesday, Glory and I agreed to either legally separate, get divorced, or annul our marriage, Griner said in a statement. "I can confirm that today I filed for an annulment. In the week prior to the wedding, I attempted to postpone the wedding several times until I completed counseling, but I still went through with it. I now realize that was a mistake."

Johnson-Griner's sports marketing agent, D.J. Fisher, said in a statement that Johnson-Griner was unaware that Griner was filing and was "extremely hurt and blindsided."

"She loves Brittney and made a huge sacrifice to carry a child, put her career on hold, invest in their relationship and their future," Fisher said.

Griner, the 6-foot-8 Phoenix Mercury star, married Johnson-Griner on May 9, three weeks after they were arrested on domestic violence charges for a fight at their home in suburban Phoenix. Both players were suspended seven games after their arrests and Griner agreed to undergo 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling as part of a plea agreement.

Both players apologized and said they worked out their differences, saying they were happy about the marriage. Johnson-Griner, a two-time All-Star with the Tulsa Shock, announced on Instagram on Thursday that she was pregnant and would miss the WNBA season.

Fisher said Johnson-Griner was in it for the long haul.

"She knows how important marriage is, and made a lifetime commitment and decision to spend the rest of her life with Brittney," Fisher said.

Earlier Friday, a post on Johnson-Griner's Instagram account showed a photo of Griner and a message about seeing her again: "One day until I'm reunited with my Wife @brittneygriner ... This is about to be one CRAZY SUMMER!!!"

Her tune changed later in the day.

"She wishes to ask for privacy at this time as they work through these trials and tribulations," Fisher said. "She asks her fans for all their love, support and prayers during this trying time."

Johnson-Griner's player agent, Boris Lelchitski, said the Women's National Basketball Players Association was planning to file a grievance to appeal the suspensions for both players, but Griner backed out at the last second. Lelchitski said the deadline has now passed, and his client did not appeal.

"With what has happened lately, Glory has a lot more on her plate to worry about," Lelchitski wrote in a text message.

Johnson-Griner's suspension will not start until the 2016 season because she will not play this season.

Griner was the WNBA's defensive player of the year and helped the Mercury win the league championship last season.

The WNBA season started Friday night.

There are many things wrong here. How does a woman get to be 6-foot-8? Is she really a woman and is this really a sport?

Getting pregnant a month after the wedding is usually a cause for celebration. But not when the husband is a 6-foot-8 lesbian, I guess.

Not all domestic violence is the fault of men.

You used to be able to get an annulment if the marriage was never consummated. But what if the parties are physically incapable of consummating?

Usually marriage law provides for the husband being the presumed father. But who's the daddy here?

Someone should send this story to the US Supreme Court.

Yes, marriage has been redefined a couple of times. It was redefined when polygamy was outlawed, whenever that was. It was redefined by no-fault-divorce, by BIOTCh, and by formula child support. Also by abolishing penalties for adultery and illegitimacy. Now it is being redefined by pregnant pro basketball fighting lesbians, and maybe by whatever Bruce Call-Me-Caitly Jenner decides to marry next. He is essentially a neutered male, and I am guessing he will marry a neutered female.

I just wonder how far this is all going. I heard someone say that our society is on the brink of giving everyone dignity. I do not see it that way. Indulging mental illness is not giving dignity. I expect to be forced to accept wackier and wackier practices, while normal people are marginalized.

Men get blamed for divorce

Wash. Post writer Darlena Cunha has an article titled: Men are to blame for the high divorce rate among America’s poor.

Two-thirds of all divorces are initiated by women, according to Bill Doherty, professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota. In the 1960s and ’70s, he said, highly educated mothers got divorced at about the same rate of less educated mothers.

In the last decade or two, these two groups of women have been moving in opposite directions: fewer divorces for graduates, more divorces for non-graduates. In intricate lifetime marriage and divorce studies that span decades, done by Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, 29 percent of married, college-educated couples have ever divorced. In contrast, those studies show that nearly 50 percent of married couples not holding college degrees have divorced.

Doherty theorizes that the reason for this has something to do with the changing expectations women have for their partners.

The explanation is that an unemployed husband is a huge liability for the poor mom, because unless he is bringing in a lot of money, she can do much better with the welfare benefits for single moms. Hence she gets a divorce.

A number of comments there say the obvious.

Divorce notice on Facebook

I was once in family court when a woman claimed that her husband moved to Canada, and she wants a divorce, but she has no current address. The judge suggested that she put a classified ad in a Canadian newspaper, and that might be considered legal notice of the divorce action.

In view of that, this is not so silly:

Want to divorce your husband or wife but can't give them the papers in person? Just use Facebook. No, apparently this isn't a late April Fools' joke. The New York Daily News reports Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper has allowed 26-year-old Ellanora Baidoo to serve her husband Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku divorce papers via a Facebook message. In fact, Baidoo won't even be the one sending the message. Her lawyer has been granted permission to message Blood-Dzraku using her account. "This transmittal shall be repeated by plaintiff's attorney to defendant once a week for three consecutive weeks or until acknowledged," the ruling states.

Meanwhile, in case you thought that lawyers will do anything for a buck, there are apparently some limits, according to the NY Times:

The stacks of Supreme Court briefs filed on both sides of the same-sex marriage cases to be heard this month are roughly the same height. But they are nonetheless lopsided: There are no major law firms urging the justices to rule against gay marriage.

Leading law firms are willing to represent tobacco companies accused of lying about their deadly products, factories that spew pollution, and corporations said to be complicit in torture and murder abroad. But standing up for traditional marriage has turned out to be too much for the elite bar. The arguments have been left to members of lower-profile firms. …

They will defend terrorists, but not traditional marriage. I can only assume that the law firms are scared of some sort of gay retaliation.

Dog or Jewish Boyfriend

Fox News reports:

Lena Dunham is not one to hold her tongue. The “Girls” star has become known for her controversial comments about sensitive subjects including rape and molestation. Now the actress has offended even more people with an article she wrote titled “Dog or Jewish Boyfriend? A Quiz.”

The piece, which ran in the New Yorker, asks “Do the following statements refer to (a) my dog or (b) my Jewish boyfriend?”

The article includes tidbits like “He doesn’t tip. And he never brings his wallet anywhere.” Another portion of the article adds “…he comes from a culture in which mothers focus every ounce of their attention on their offspring and don’t acknowledge their own need for independence as women. They are sucked dry by their children, who ultimately leave them as soon as they find suitable mates.”

Fans and critics of Dunham alike have reacted strongly and swiftly to the article, which is part of the March 30 edition of the magazine. Dunham’s mother is Jewish and her father is Protestant.

I have occasionally been criticized for mentioning Jewish stereotypes, but this is a bizarre attack on her Jewish live-in boyfriend, Jack Antonoff.

I realize that she is a comedienne and I do not want to censor offensive jokes. But this relationship is doomed.

The stereotypes here are that of the spoiled, whiny, ungrateful, high maintenance, and nagging Jewish American Princess and the foolish mensch who puts up with her. But my objection here has nothing to do with Jewish values.

When a woman publicly badmouths or belittles her man, then she is unfit to be a wife. It is as simple as that.

This is one of the things I have never liked about Hillary Clinton. She acts as if Bill is not good enuf for her. That makes her a loathesome character.

If you do not know who Lena Dunham is, she is the creator of a successful HBO show. Otherwise, she is every parent's nightmare. She is exactly what you do not want your twenty-something daughter to be.

Update: A Jewish woman writes:

Most striking about the enraged responses was what they did not include: The impunity with which women are allowed to express contempt for members of the male sex, while cloaking their own neediness and hunger for love in outdated feminist lingo.

Indeed, nobody calls them out on things that men could never get away with saying, certainly not in print. ...

Her true problem with her boyfriend is not that he is typically Jewish. Nor is it due to his apathy in relation to her "many accomplishments." It all boils down to her insecurity, love-starvation and fear of abandonment. Nothing feminist about it. Merely female.

This slightly more honest version of the war between the sexes is precisely what comes across in "Girls," which partly explains the show's popularity.

More puzzling is Antonoff. Why would he stick around with Dunham after she whipped him so publicly?

The answer is going to sound just as anti-Semitic as Dunham's dog analogy. It is precisely the "enlightened" -- emasculated -- Jewish male, conditioned to accept the bullying of women waving their "minority status" in society like a machete, who dares not unleash the beast.

In Antonoff's case, it didn't help. But that's what he gets for shacking up with one.

Huff Post says better to be a single mom

Kerri Zane advertises herself as a "Single Mom Lifestyle Expert" and explains in the Huff Post:

Although the gold standard in child rearing has traditionally been a dual family unit, being a single parent has a myriad of benefits. Rather than navigating the treacherous territory of constant parental compromise, you can independently make choices for your children that you feel is best. Eleven years ago, when my former husband and I split, I saw my divorce as a glorious opportunity to parent solo. ...

In fact, based on the latest Census Bureau statistics, there are over 14 million single parent households with children under the age of 18. That is a lot of people and a good reason to celebrate. Which is why, March 21 has been designated as National Single Parent's Day. ...

I would like to honor the day and offer you five solid reasons why it's better to be a single mom or dad then half of a parenting pair.

Return of Kings http://www.returnofkings.com/59694/5-reasons-its-better-to-be-a-divorced-parent-according-to-the-huffington-post:

Here are Zane’s five excuses she uses to justify her terrible life choices and convince you to do the same:

1. You always get your way
2. You Can Encourage Your Daughters To Pursue An Inflated Ego
3. Teach Your Children To Die Alone
4. You Get To Be A Slut!
5. It Motivates You To Lose 30 Pounds

Apparently Zane is so self-focused that attracting new dick is more motivating than pleasing the man she promised forever and ever. Maybe she’s losing so much weight because now she has to work an actual job instead of watching Lifetime tv movies all day.

The best way to handle the inevitable life shifts is to stay positive, reach out for support from your friends and family, relish the time you spend with your children and most importantly, create a daily space for some much deserved me-time.

If this doesn’t summarize the narcissistic entitlement of the author, I don’t know what does.

Her advice would have been considered nutty a few years ago. Now it reflects the breakdown in our society.

Save Europe by destroying the family

This UK Guardian article argues that destroying the traditional family is essential to the survival of Europe, because of falling fertility rates:

Most countries in southern Europe are based on something akin to the Japanese package, with fairly rigid family norms in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, Malta and Greece. There is social pressure on women not to work while their children are still young, just as it is ill-thought of to live with someone or have a baby outside wedlock. In all these countries the proportion of births outside marriage is below 30%, whereas in France, Sweden and Norway it exceeds 50%. In Japan the traditional family package clearly has a dramatic impact on fertility, with fewer than 1.4 births per woman.

The picture is very different in Scandinavia and France. “In these countries the family norm is much more flexible, with late marriages, reconstituted families, single parents, much more frequent births outside marriage and divorces than further south,” Toulemon adds. “People are far less concerned about the outlook for the family [as an institution].” The positive impact of this open-ended approach to families on fertility is borne out by the statistics, at more than 1.8 children per woman in Sweden, Norway, Finland and France.

This seems ridiculous to me, but it is out of my expertise.

I think that Japan is overpopulated, and their low birth rate is a good thing. France has boosted its population by bringing in millions of Moslem immigrants, with disastrous results. Same with Sweden and other Euro countries.

We are in the midst of a vast demographic experiment. I am predicting that in 50 years, Japan will be a civilized country that will be very happy it resisted the immigrant repopulation plans being undertaken by France, Sweden, and Korea.

The Atlantic magazine asks Is It Time for the Jews to Leave Europe? While they are always complaining about whites, Christians, and nationalists, the real problem is Moslem immigration.

Whatever problems Europe has, I don't think that they are going to be solved by immigrants having illegitimate babies on welfare.

If I am wrong, then the future does not belong to the free and autonomous white families that have marked American history. It will look more like black ghettos, where welfare queens do all the breeding while being visited by a series of men who are in between jail and jobs to pay child support debt.

Suing for alimony 20 years after their divorce

London Telegraph reports:

The ex-wife of a former new-age traveller who later became multi-millionaire wind farm entrepreneur has been told she can bring a claim for financial support from his fortune more than 30 years after their marriage broke down.

Dale Vince, owner of the green energy provider Ecotricity, described the Supreme Court ruling as “mad” and said it would leave people “looking over our shoulders” for decades in case a former partner came after them for a share of money they made later in life.

Divorce lawyers described the ruling in favour of Kathleen Wyatt as “unprecedented” and said it meant spouses could keep their options open “indefinitely” before staking a claim.

The foolishness of this is explained here, if it is necessary.

Chained wives hire rabbi for torture

NPR Radio complains about orthodox Jewish divorce law:

In Israel, religious law governs family matters.

For a Jewish divorce, an Orthodox rabbi oversees a ritual that begins with the husband placing a folded decree into the wife's cupped hands. But that paper can be hard to get, because the husband can refuse to grant the divorce.

A new Israeli film playing in the U.S. shows how patriarchal Jewish divorce laws can trap even secular women for years. ...

These rabbinical judges almost never watch movies. They study Jewish religious and legal texts — all day, most days. The texts guide their lives and their court decisions.

They would probably like these feminist rabbis:

The trial of Mendel Epstein, a New Jersey Rabbi and alleged ringleader of a kidnapping scheme designed to force husbands into granting their wives religious divorces, entered its second day in court in Trenton today.

Epstein, 69, was arrested in October 2013 for allegedly charging undercover FBI agents $60,000 to kidnap a man and coerce him into granting his wife a Judaic divorce decree.

Rabbis Arrested in Cases of Alleged Torture

Epstein and his son David, along with two other rabbis named in the federal complaint as Jay Goldstein and Binyamin Stimler, face federal charges of conspiracy to kidnap and kidnapping. If found guilty, the men face a maximum penalty of 20 years to life in prison.

During Wednesday’s opening statement, prosecutors played a video of allegedly Epstein discussing a staged kidnapping with two undercover FBI agents, wherein he can be heard openly discussing the use of stun guns on men's genitalia.

"If it can get a bull that weighs five tons to move," the man on the video identified by the FBI as Epstein is heard telling the undercover agents, "you put it in certain parts of his body and in one minute the guy will know."

"Mendel Epstein talked about forcing compliance through the use of 'tough guys' who utilize electric cattle prods, karate, handcuffs and place plastic bags on the heads of husbands," said FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman shortly after Epstein's arrest.

Epstein's defense claims he was a "champion of women's rights" and employed "torture as term of art" in order to get a husband's "evil" recalcitrance to "leave his body." According to the strictest interpretation of ancient Jewish law, a religious divorce, referred to as a "get", can only be granted by a husband regardless of the circumstances that may have caused a marriage to break up. Without a "get", a religious Jewish woman cannot remarry or get on with her life and she becomes an ostracized member of the community called an “agunah” or a chained person. Convincing reluctant husbands to grant their wives divorces is a specialty among ultra-Orthodox rabbis.

The women can get civil divorces and remarriages, and only need the "get" for the approval of the Orthodox Jewish authorities.

A comment says this is not the whole story:

Many inaccuracies here. He was a thug for hire and made 100k a pop. of the 100+ men he tortured only 2 were actually refusing to divorce their wives. The rest were still going through custody disputes and he tortured the men to sign off everything to the wives. In fact he caused many problems (the Orthodox Jewish media has been on this for over a year). Also the article misrepresents Jewish Law on divorce, I know because I am in a Rabbinical College right now and have studied such laws. This guy was a thug for hire, not some champion of women's rights

Buried in some of these stories of "chained wives" is a crucial detail -- the wife ran off with the kids and she wants the husband to concede custody and child support rights. Here is the latest:

Rivky Stein, 25, testified at King's County Supreme Court in Brooklyn, New York, in a civil case against her estranged husband Yoel Weiss, 32. ...

'Whenever I refused anything from Yoel, he raped me, physically hurt me, verbally abused me and threatened me,' Ms Stein said. ...

The civil case, which began last month, will determine the custody of the couple's five-year-old son and daughter, four; child support payments; and alimony for Ms Stein.

Ms. Stein said that she wants the court to award her full custody of the children with supervised visitation with their father 'in a healthy way'. ...

In a separate matter, Ms Stein, who is an Orthodox Jew, continues to seek her get - a religious divorce which can only be granted with her husband's approval.

Ms Stein therefore lives as an 'agunah', a chained wife, unable to marry again in an Orthodox synagogue.

She told Daily Mail Online on Wednesday: 'He has continuously refused to give me a get. I don't know what I can do any more I have tried everything: Jewish court, Beis din rabbis and mediators but he refuses.

'He said he will never give me a Get, and that I will die old and alone.'

Brendan Lyle, CEO of divorce finance company BBL Churchill, is an expert in divorce cases and has met with Ms Stein and her rabbi.

He told Daily Mail Online: 'While the court can not force Mr Weiss to grant the Get, they do have several tools at their disposal to make him think twice if he doesn't provide Rivky with the get that she deserves.' ...

In court on Wednesday, she described the 'escape' from her marriage with her two children on July 2, 2012. ...

She testified that she had approached rabbis about the physical abuse by her husband, adding: 'I would ask them what I should do and if I had permission to call the police. They told me that I can’t. They wouldn’t give me permission to.'

So she kidnapped the kids and wants to be rewarded with child custody, support, and alimony, and with the judge to somehow pressure her husband for a religious blessing that she cannot get in Jewish court.

She has some outlandish allegations against him, but I have no way of assessing them.

Homewrecker sues for sex discrimination

It used to be that homewreckers outcasts.

Ellen Pao is an overeducated (3 Ivy degrees) Chinese-American who is currently CEO of Reddit.

The NY Times reports:

Now, in a high-profile suit set to go to trial this week, a jury will pass judgment about whether one woman suffered discrimination. The proceedings could resonate widely: A guilty verdict will be billed as a sweeping indictment of the high-tech world, while a dismissal might supply ammunition to those who feel gender issues are being overplayed.

The accuser is Ellen Pao, who worked at one of the valley’s most prominent venture capital firms, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. At the center of the suit is John Doerr, a legendary investor who was Ms. Pao’s boss and, according to court papers, practically a father to her.

She had an affair with a married East-Indian-American, and broke it off when he refused to divorce his wife. Then she married and had a kid with one of richest African-Americans, whose hedge fund has since gone bankrupt and may have been a Ponzi scheme.

30 years ago, I think that most men and women would say that a firm ought to fire any woman who is poaching married men at work. Such women were known as homewreckers, and were especially despised by women. It would not have mattered if the man made flirtatious comments that contributed to her seducing him.

Now, I don't know. I no longer have a feel for whether a jury would consider this acceptable behavior. Yes, it is a feminist dogma that a woman has a right to be a sexual predator and seduce whomever she pleases, regardless of anyone marital or employer obligations, and if anyone objects, she has a right to sue for millions of dollars.

But will a jury of 12 buy into such nonsense? I have no idea. We will soon find out, I guess.

Even if she loses, there will be big pressure on the tech world. The LA Times reports Women are leaving the tech industry in droves. And the masculine culture is to blame, as Pao will also argue at her trial.

Halfway to the Misandry Bubble

I cited The Misandry Bubble, a 2010 Futurist essay about what might happen by 2020. We are now halfway there.

If you want a contrary view, this feminist fact-check complains about a statement that women married at age 20, not too long ago. The feminist says that the median age was 20.3 in the 1960s and has not been below 20 since 1845.

Tell her that 20.3 rounds off to 20.

She also claims that no-fault divorce laws have not contributed to the divorce rate. I think that the point is that the states made divorce easy before going all the way with a no-fault law. Or maybe social acceptance of no-fault divorce preceded legal acceptance. I am too lazy to figure it out. Regardless, today it is socially and legally acceptable for anyone to unilaterally walk out of a marriage for any reason, and that was not true in the 1950s.

So, to review, the differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0 are:

a) No fault asset division and alimony, where the abandoned spouse has to pay if he earns more, even if he did not want a divorce, and even if he is a victim of abuse, cuckolding, or adultery. There are rare instances of high-earning women getting caught in this trap as well.
b) Women marrying after having 5 or more sexual partners, compared to just 0-1 previously. This makes it harder for the woman to form a pair bond with her husband.
c) Women marrying at an age when very few years of their peak beauty are remaining, compared to a decade or more remaining under Marriage 1.0.
d) Child custody is almost never granted to the man, so he loses his children on a 'no fault' basis. ...

A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock." ...

For this reason, after lunatic 'feminists', these pedestalizing White Knights are the next most responsible party for the misandry in Western society today. ...

Instead, all that exists are Men's Rights Authors (MRAs) that run a few websites and exchange information on their blogs. ... Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. ...

The destruction of the two-parent family by incentivizing immoral behavior in women is at least as much of a threat to American safety and prosperity as anything that ever could have come out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. ...

A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out a comfortable existence by working for two months out of the year. ...

'feminists' are leading average women into the abyss.

He calls it a bubble, so presumably this aspect of our society will become unsustainable and crash.

Feminists often complain of the "double standard" where women are held to higher moral standards than men. That analogy to keys and locks is particularly effective.

Five years ago, I might have disagreed with him about the prospect for a men's rights movement, and about his blame for White Knights. Now I think he is right.

Separately, Matt Forney writes 20 Signs That We’re Not Living In A Patriarchy.

Another leftist attack on men's rights

I mentioned that Mother Jones has a hit piece on Warren Farrell and now the leftist BuzzFeed has one on Paul Elam, of A Voice For Men. He responds. BuzzFeed found an ex-wife or two with some nasty things to say about him.

It was too long, and I didn't read much of it. What I read was minor and unverifiable. While AVFM is a leading men's rights site, the arguments were never based on the details of some marriage between 20yo kids decades ago. Who cares?

The men's rights movement rarely gets any attention at all. Why this? When leftist sites like Mother Jones and BuzzFeed really hate a movement, they launch personal attacks, and make them as nasty as possible.

Their readers do not function on reason and logic. They form political stances from emotional responses. If they can somehow trigger a negative emotional reaction to Farrell and Elam, then their typical liberal reader can dismiss whatever they have to say.

Divorcing wives wants bigger boobs

London news:

For most couples caught up in a divorce the prospect of dividing the property or making arrangements for the children are more than enough to worry about.

But for surprising numbers of British couples one seemingly unlikely expense is being viewed as an essential part of the separation process - plastic surgery.

Divorce lawyers have noticed a marked increase in seperations involving significant expense on cosmetic surgery including cases where the wife spends a significant slice of the initial settlement on treatments such as liposuction and breast enhancements.

One such firm, JMW Solicitors, based in Manchester, says it now handles dozens of such cases every year.

The firm, which handles about 300 separations annually, calculates that between five and 10 per cent of its caseload over the last three years involved cosmetic surgery.

I don't know what the reasoning is here. Is she trying to become more competitive in the dating market? Is she trying to make her ex-husband jealous? Is she more interested in pleasing an imaginary boyfriend than her husband? Is she mad that her husband did not buy her that stuff during the marriage?

Divorce rate up or down?

Economist Justin Wolfers writes in the NY Times:

The divorce rate has been falling for more than three decades. That fact is not news, but it still surprises a lot of people. ...

By this measure, the divorce rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per thousand people in 1981, before falling to 4.7 in 1990, and it has since fallen further to 3.6 in 2011, the most recent year for which data are available. Of course, the marriage rate has also fallen over this period. But even measuring divorces relative to the population that could plausibly get divorced — the number of people who are married — shows that divorce peaked in 1979, and has fallen by about 24 percent since.

Others dispute this:

The number of demographers who believe that overall divorce risk has declined is small. Other than Stevenson and Wolfers, we identified only Heaton (2002) and Ivers and Stevenson (2010). The consensus of most demographers, as Schoen and Canudas-Romo (2006) put it, “it is premature to believe that the probability of divorce has begun to decline.” You are entitled to argue that ACS is wrong and SIPP is right. Nevertheless, I think you should acknowledge that the decline of divorce narrative is a minority viewpoint among professional demographers.

I don't know who is right. It sure seems as if we have a lot more broken homes, but I often do not know whether the parents were ever married in the first place.

Whether the divorce rate is going up or down, it is clear that fewer Americans are married today, and fewer are having kids. We are being repopulated by immigrants from Third World countries.

I quoted Wolfers last year on how the US Supreme Court and other laws have promoted divorce by redefining marriage. He has his own peculiar marriage to another economist.

Driving female promiscuity and big balls

I follow the science on questions of human nature. For example, kids do best with their natural parents. Evolutionary theory predicts this, and all the studies show it.NewScientist reports:

Infanticide drives female promiscuity and big balls

Great balls of furriness! Among mammals, large testicles are a sign of a species with a history of males that have no qualms about killing the babies of their competitors.

A study of more than 200 mammals from mice to lions reveals that in species where infanticide is frequent, females make it hard for males to know which baby to kill by mating with lots of different males during the same season. The study also finds that the ancestor to all great apes - including humans - probably committed infanticide.

Infanticide is widespread among mammals. Lions do it, chimps do it, many adorable-looking lemurs do it. Why? A leading theory is that males kill infants sired by other males because it frees up females to have their own offspring, perpetuating their own genes rather than those of their competitors.

The NY Times is less sensationalist about the same study:

There had been earlier reports of infanticide by adult male mammals, but scientists mostly dismissed the behavior as an unimportant pathology. But in 1974, Dr. Hrdy made a provocative counter proposal: infanticide, she said, is the product of mammalian evolution. By killing off babies of other fathers, a male improves his chances of having more of his own offspring. ...

The authors of the new study, Dieter Lukas and Elise Huchard, started by plowing through the scientific literature, looking for evidence of infanticide in a variety of mammalian species. The researchers ended up with data on 260 species, and in 119 of them — over 45 percent — males had been observed killing unrelated young animals.

I don't want to read too much into animal studies, but whenever you hear about a father abusing a kid, it is usually a step-father or a foster father. Efforts to remove a kid from a real dad usually make things worse.

The pacifist anti-violence feminist types might argue that all male aggression is harmful, and should be bred out of the population by separating such men from kids. Research indicates that men are naturally aggressive, and women are more attracted to the more violent and aggressive men.

Statistics on stable marriages

Some of this may be obvious, but here are the tips:

Randy Olson, a Computer Science grad student who works with data visualizations, writes about seven of the biggest factors that predict what makes for a long term stable marriage in America. Olson took the results of a study that polled thousands of recently married and divorced Americans and and asked them dozens of questions about their marriage (PDF): How long they were dating, how long they were engaged, etc. After running this data through a multivariate model, the authors were able to calculate the factors that best predicted whether a marriage would end in divorce. "What struck me about this study is that it basically laid out what makes for a stable marriage in the US," writes Olson. Here are some of the biggest factors:

How long you were dating: (Couples who dated 1-2 years before their engagement were 20% less likely to end up divorced than couples who dated less than a year before getting engaged. Couples who dated 3 years or more are 39% less likely to get divorced.); How much money you make: (The more money you and your partner make, the less likely you are to ultimately file for divorce. Couples who earn $125K per year are 51% less likely to divorce than couples making 0 — 25k); How often you go to church: (Couples who never go to church are 2x more likely to divorce than regular churchgoers.); Your attitude toward your partner: (Men are 1.5x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's looks, and women are 1.6x more likely to end up divorced when they care more about their partner's wealth.); How many people attended the wedding: ("Crazy enough, your wedding ceremony has a huge impact on the long-term stability of your marriage. Perhaps the biggest factor is how many people attend your wedding: Couples who elope are 12.5x more likely to end up divorced than couples who get married at a wedding with 200+ people."); How much you spent on the wedding: (The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced.); Whether you had a honeymoon: (Couples who had a honeymoon are 41% less likely to divorce than those who had no honeymoon)

Of course correlation is not causation. For example, expensive weddings may simply attract the kind of immature and narcissistic people who are less likely to sustain a successful marriage and such people might end up getting divorced even if they married cheaply. But "the particularly scary part here is that the average cost of a wedding in the U.S. is well over $30,000," says Olson, "which doesn't bode well for the future of American marriages."

A commenter once said that atheists have good marriages, but this study favors church goers.

Biggest lesson here is to have a large cheap wedding. Altho I suspect that the wedding has nothing to do with it, but is just an indication of the sort of community support that makes for a better marriage.

Unmarred Texas lesbians want Texas divorce

Here is the latest LGBTQIA gripe about family law:

Divorce law out of sync with same-sex marriage

By LEANNE ITALIE
Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) -- Cori Jo Long, 31, and Brooke Powell, 30, did everything right before they married. They fell in love slowly, based on years of friendship stretching back to high school. They planned their nuptials carefully for about a year, choosing to travel from Texas to New Hampshire in 2010 as same-sex marriage spread.

No they did not do everything right. That is like saying:

The dope-smoker did everything right. He started smoking dope in high school, and traveled to Colorado to get some legal dope. But when he took it back to Texas, he was not allowed to smoke it.

The lesbians main complaint is that they don't want to go back to New Hampshire for the divorce:

Sadly, bad times set in three years later, but uncoupling has proven far more difficult. The two women are now trapped in a state of bitter, desperate "wedlock," an emerging antithesis to same-sex marriage victories for those who want to divorce but can't find a way around legal snarls that prevent it.

Texas doesn't recognize the marriage of Long and Powell, and a judge there ruled recently he had no jurisdiction to either void the union or formally grant a divorce.

"It's hard to feel like you don't exist, like you're invisible under the law," Powell said by phone from Fort Worth, Texas.

Added Long: "It's a limbo. It's waiting and seeing. That's all I can do."

Why do they even want a divorce? They live in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage, so they are not married under the law. They could each marry a Texas man without the divorce. Any they cannot marry another lesbian anyway.

Sadly, bad times set in three years later, but uncoupling has proven far more difficult. The two women are now trapped in a state of bitter, desperate "wedlock," an emerging antithesis to same-sex marriage victories for those who want to divorce but can't find a way around legal snarls that prevent it.

Texas doesn't recognize the marriage of Long and Powell, and a judge there ruled recently he had no jurisdiction to either void the union or formally grant a divorce.

"It's hard to feel like you don't exist, like you're invisible under the law," Powell said by phone from Fort Worth, Texas.

Added Long: "It's a limbo. It's waiting and seeing. That's all I can do."

This is news to me. Nevada is famous for having easy heterosexual divorces, but I did not know that California had gotten into the business of easy homosexual divorces.

"It's all very challenging for people," Sakimura said. "If people have adopted, for instance, then they can just file a separate custody action in their state as an unmarried couple after they divorce, but for people who have not, they may find themselves in a situation where one parent is not going to be recognized. It can be a huge problem."

They act as if this is some LGBT problem, but it is not. In all states, as far as I know, a step-parent has no child custody rights unless he or she adopted the child.

The main point of this AP article seems to be to push for some sort of national marriage law reform that makes life easier for the LGBT crowd. Top priority is for lesbians to gain stronger rights to non-biological kids, cutting dads out of the picture.