Friday, February 23, 2007

We Need Men`s "Ishews"

The end of Marriage has been in the Press all week and Ellee has got a super post up about it specifically on the fairness or otherwise of the current divorce laws. She is on my Blog Roll and I never miss a day , do visit

This was my comment in which I think I have discovered why men get treated so badly in this country

. It is obviously not going to be fair to have prenuptial agreements on an voluntary basis which will leave the husband, generally, in a lottery. Clearly divorce does not happen when the feelings that pertained to the marriage are still current so if there is a decision at that time it will, be sheer luck as to whether it was the right one
I `m not sure there are not two different subjects here . The end of marriage as predicted in the Press this week does not seem to have stopped all of my friends getting married .. It does stop young girls who are hoping to collect the maximum benefits and accommodation even admitting to a relationship.
This single piece of ham fisted benefits and welfarism must be responsible for about as much woe and misery as any ,and Frank Field foresaw all of this before he was ambushed by Gordon Brown and the old Left.
Higher up the income scale there is problem about an imbalance of power in the relationship that is inherently destabilising. The woman can at any time decide she has had enough of the marriage and , once there are children , walk off with an assured income and a family .The man will walk away ruined, with little prospect of restarting life, and separated from the children he , for the most part, will have centered his hopes around. It is no wonder that men are simply refusing to cooperate with this manifest injustice and are not paying the money due .If the courts actually enforced access it would help, but generally the woman eventually starts a new relationship and the children will become part of that supported by the law.
I saw David Cameron’s silly remark about stigmatising fathers, you have to treat fathers fairly for them to accept there is a guilt to be had and at the moment they are treated disgracefully in the divorce courts.

I put this favouring of women down to the strange quirk that women vote on women’s issue, whereas, men vote of national issues . Women are more likely to change their vote, and this voting pattern, has slowly turned men into beaten farm animals expected to work and sacrifice but sent down to the knackers yard like dear Old Boxer if it happens to suit the woman.


Ellee said...

I wonder if British judges give divorced women a good deal perhaps they have to do more housework than men, just thought I would wind you up, but it's true in my house, mabe more than you realise:

Newmania said...

I saw that article this morning Ellee. I was only following you like a stray dog really

CityUnslicker said...

not in my household. stay at home mrs cu has cleaners too.

I think the laws have gone too far, always a problem when everything is set on precedent.

that is the ishew N, I would posit.

No doubt the socialists will answer that we should abolish marriage all together and have a ceremony at birth where we all 'marry' the state.

What a fab idea....

Newmania said...

stay at home mrs cu has cleaners too.
Oh Christ I do hope stay at home Mrs. N doesn`t ever read that. The "go to work" Newmania cannot afford it

electro-kevin said...

Nice one CU.

Precedent is simply meant to be a judge's interpretation of legislation - they're meant to stick to the spirit of the law as intended on enactment.

Lawyers !

I do feel they've been at liberty to change the nature of our country on so many issues right under our noses.

David Allen said...

ek _ yes, there has been a darned sight too much judicial activism in recent years. All OUR sort of lawyers are too busy in corporate work to don a wig an heal the country ;-) Time for elected judges, I think.

Ellee said...

DAvid, judges won't be wearing wigs for much longer, they are being brought up to date.

Newmania, thank you for the great plug, btw, I've had an exhausting day, and really need a blog free evening. Have a good weekend.

electro-kevin said...

But back to "Ishews" if I may...
(best Parker impersonation)

Divorce ought to be difficult - really very difficult indeed. In its religious sense marriage has permanence. In its Christian sense it is monogamistic and absolute, you are committing adultry if you remarry or fornicate with the exception of certain conditions.

People wonder at the degeneracy in our society and are blind to just how eroded the struts and ties that bind it together have become. You don't really become aware of this until you attend High Church services beside a WW11 generation congregation and as an adult in 'reborn' ernest with fresh eyes to see and ears to hear.

The issue of fair division of wealth post marital breakdown has become a much bigger one than the sin of abandoning solemn vows - how sad, but what else did we expect in this 'progressive' age ? If divorce were harder then this problem of settlement wouldn't have arisen. Divorce was always there as an option for the abused BTW.

When there are children invonlved one has to accept (if you are to consider yourself to be an adult) that your satisfaction is secondary to theirs. Part of being a wise, strong and stoical adult is that the children must never know about your unhappiness, so you put a brave front on it - a veneer. And a veneer is ALL that 'civilistion' is or ever was.

We now see the cracks in this carapice as grown adults are now known to bleat "'snot fair" as petulently as any child "What about my fulfilment ?". Last week I had a friend walk out on his family and his parting shot to his 9 year old "This is your fault, we were happy 'till you came along." This sums it all up don't you think ? Where was his quiet manly stoicism at this moment ? Well he was out of practice obviously, as so many of us are.

To those whose exhortations are for divorce with impunity:

We're a spoilt generation in need of a smack. Don't you think we're pushing in the wrong direction ?

(I don't expect the divorce lawyers would welcome my ideas, bad for business - always a good sign that)

Newmania said...

That was a very thoughtful piece Kevin and I think you make a good point or two.However we can`t have disvorce laws that reflect what good people do at their best. Thta is not when they comne into play and what people should be is hardly the "Ishew".

On the other hand I must admit your words are most thought provoking,. I `m afraid /" Its bnot fair " is a bit of mantra of mine

electro-kevin said...

Why can't we have laws which reflect what good people do at their best.

Isn't this the issue ? Always the lowest common denominator ?

(That goes for crime and education too)

Newmania said...

Why can't we have laws which reflect what good people do at their best

Because thats not when they commit crimes or abuse eachother or etc.

electro-kevin said...

Oh Newmania, that's not what you're meant to say !!!

Blog Archive