The Democratic Party, Men, and Low Hanging Fruit: Number 2

Besides easing men's concerns about paternity fraud,

( http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-democratic-party-men-and-low.html  )
(https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-democratic-party-men-and-low.html)

another easy thing the Democratic Party could do to improve men's lives is to, once and for all, and in all states, have marriage always be an explicit written agreement between persons. There should never be an instance in which one person A can claim to be married to person B without the explicit written consent of person B.

First, this will protect men from nefarious women claiming that because a relationship was "marriage-like" that the woman should be entitled to "marital rights;" that is she wants to take his money without his ever having consented to her "right" to take his money.  Second, this would make US law consistent with the international standards as specified by the United Nations:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/MinimumAgeForMarriage.aspx


"Article 1

1. No marriage shall be legally entered into without the full and free consent of both parties, such consent to be expressed by them in person after due publicity and in the presence of the authority competent to solemnize the marriage and of witnesses, as prescribed by law."

Note that the above article 1 was supported by women's groups, so that except for the occasional nefariously mercenary woman, the vast majority of Democratic women would presumably support this position.

This would protect men against financial attacks by mercenary women trying to get the financial benefits of marriage without the pesky problem of a man's consent to marry.  This should throw out the mercenary claims of common law marriage, de facto marriage, palimony and every other evil "relationship" attempt to defraud men of money without their explicit consent.

The Democratic Party, Men, and Low Hanging Fruit: Number 1

In reference to my previous posts:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-2016-election-and-middle-class.html


http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-democratic-party-and-men-one-good.html

I would like to suggest something that the Democratic Party could do specifically directed at improving men's lives. It is "low hanging fruit" inasmuch as even the liberal wing on the Democratic Party could whole-heartedly support it. Only the truly evil and tyrannical elements of the lunatic fringe could possibly be against this proposal.

The Democratic Party should introduce legislation in all the states, as well as nationally, to require default paternity testing at birth so that:

1. A man is not forced to support a child that he did not father.
2. The child's medical record does not contain false information that negatively impacts the child's medical treatment.

I think most people, even most Democratic women, would agree that it is seriously wrong to force a man to support another man's child. The woman is responsible and not the man. The woman should bear the financial consequences of her behavior and not an innocent man who was not involved and therefore should bear no responsibility.

If both parents sign an informed consent waiver explaining their liabilities in the absence of establishing paternity via a paternity test (perhaps for religious reasons?), then the  paternity test can be sealed and presented to the child when the child becomes an adult and/or released to the child's physician if medically important genetic misinformation needs to be avoided.





If one wants to look at some of the ludicrous objections see:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bari-zell-weinberger-esq/paternity-tests_b_1364085.html

"First, let’s talk about women. Yes, we know that sometimes women have multiple partners, even when they are married. However, assuming that you can’t trust any New Jersey mom to be honest about (or worse, to know!) who fathered her child seems like a giant step backwards, not to mention insulting. In my experience, paternity issues affect a minority of families, not the majority."

This is ass-backwards. The only time an "assumption" is made is when a paternity test is not done. There is no "assumption" being made if the test is done. What absolute illogical nonsense. This is another instance in which the "benefit of the doubt" is being twisted for nefarious purposes. The "benefit of the doubt" reasonably applies when the doubt cannot be removed. Asking for the  "benefit of the doubt"  when the doubt could easily be removed is not only ridiculous, it is tyrannical and serves only the nefarious purpose of concealing the truth. How can a routine paternity test be "insulting?"

The fact that only a minority of families are affected by paternity issues is irrelevant. All people need to be protected against erroneous, sometimes intentionally erroneous, paternity assumptions. There is no need to make any assumptions. What this "south end of a north bound horse" is actually arguing is that she favors paternity assumptions instead of getting the actual facts.

"But what if a woman did cheat on her spouse around the time she became pregnant... and he doesn’t know it? Is it now the state’s responsibility to let men know their wives have been unfaithful?"

It is neither the state's responsibility to let men know their wives have been unfaithful nor is it the state's responsibility to conceal this information. It is not the state's responsibility to protect a woman's reputation as a cheater nor is it the state's responsibility to worry about whether a husband divorces his wife if she cheated on him. It is the state's responsibility to protect an innocent man from paternity fraud. Unless she gives birth, there is no paternity test and she can break her marriage vows at will and the state is not involved. The state must get involved to prevent a cheating wife from committing paternity fraud to steal financial support from an innocent man. Restated slightly differently, the state has an obligation to protect innocent people from fraud and no obligation to protect people who commit fraud.

"It’s hard to see who wins with this bill, except for perhaps the lab testing companies."

Is this woman crazy? Innocent men clearly win with this bill. The bill protects the innocent. It is sure easy to see who wins in the absence of this bill. The absence of a paternity test benefits liars and cheaters at the expense of honest people who have done no wrong. Family law attorneys and judges, of course, also benefit because more legal judgement is required when the situation is ambiguous. It takes away demand for their services when the facts are clear.

The Democratic Party and Men - One Good Way to Preclude Listening

As noted in a previous post:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-2016-election-and-middle-class.html

the Democratic Party seems to have written off doing much of anything for men. Now prominent Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren say that they want to listen.

Warren says:

As for the protests that have sprung up across the country in opposition to Trump, Warren said, “People are upset and they’re right to be upset. This is our country, and people have a right to have their voices heard.” But, she added, “we also have an obligation to listen.” Not necessarily to Trump, but to those who decided to vote for him despite his “bigotry.”

There seems to be a disconnect between  Warren's "obligation to listen statement" and the way her web-based email is set up. I wanted to send her a message saying that the problem was that the Democratic Party was entirely focused on women and was not doing anything for men; it should not be a big surprise that men do not vote for Democrats in big numbers. Here is Warren's email contact link:

https://www.warren.senate.gov/index.cfm?p=email_senator

Note that one must pick a topic from a drop down computer list. There is no topic on that list that would seem to fit the "listening" that Warren claims should be happening. The closest topic to allow men to comment that they voted for Trump because the Democratic Party had deserted men is, I guess, "women's issues." There is, of course, no topic choice for "men's issues," I suppose because  men do not have any issues that the Democratic Party deems worthy of attention, let alone action. Half of the constituents she represents are men. Even if the Democratic Party has no intention of doing anything for men, it would help her "listening" objective if men at least were considered in her topic list.

The 2016 Election and Middle Class White Males

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/10/elizabeth-warren-faces-president-trump-with-rachel-maddow-no-compromise-on-bigotry.html

Warren says:

As for the protests that have sprung up across the country in opposition to Trump, Warren said, “People are upset and they’re right to be upset. This is our country, and people have a right to have their voices heard.” But, she added, “we also have an obligation to listen.” Not necessarily to Trump, but to those who decided to vote for him despite his “bigotry.”

Comment:

Warren is right about listening to those who voted for Trump despite his bigotry. People need to see the Democratic Party working on their behalf. The party lost badly among men and especially badly among white men in particular. Why? It is pretty simple. The Party has become increasingly hostile toward men in general, and white men in particular. There are many members of the Party that that have adopted some of the radical women's movement practices of disparaging men by spewing "male privilege" and disparaging white men in particular by spewing " white male privilege" in any discussion of any societal problem (e.g.Ref[1], Ref[2]). While it is true that Democratic politicians generally do not use these terms themselves, it is also true that they have not discouraged the use of these terms among members of the Party. By their silence, the Democratic politicians are complicit in disparaging men. The liberal wing of the party is so focused on the mantra of "white male privilege" that white males have essentially been deserted by the party.

While it is easy to list many things that the Party has done to help women, it is hard to list things that the Party has done to help men. Even what "benefits" to men I have heard liberals mention seem to be solely side effects of policies designed to help women. The fact that men are affected by policies meant to help women is largely unavoidable. There can occasionally be some benefits to men, but that is not the purpose of the policies. There are also some deleterious side effects on men that the Party just seems to accept as some kind of acceptable collateral damage in the attempts to help women.

Are there any efforts that the Party has made that were directed specifically at improving men's lives in the same way the Party directs efforts specifically at improving women's lives? I cannot think of a single one. If there have been any attempts, the Party should do a better job of communicating attempts specifically directed at improving men's lives, just as the Party does with attempts specifically directed at improving women's lives.

It is a good guess that middle class males, especially white middle class males, are not voting for Republicans because Republicans have done much for them. How have Republican policies helped middle class men? Republican policies have not improved the lives of middle class men any more than Democratic policies. This is actually good news for the Democratic Party as many of these men have no real attachment to the Republican Party. Middle class men will return to the Democratic Party when two things happen. First, the liberal wing of the Party should stop the outright hostility toward men in favor of welcoming men. Second, the Party actually needs to show men that the Party is acting on their behalf, at least a small fraction of the time (say 20%?), if it expects men to vote Democratic. 

Winning elections is going to remain difficult as long as the Democratic Party remains hostile to men and the only "benefits" to men that the Party can point to are simply side effects of policies to help women.

Why do Some Men with Significant Assets Marry without Prenuptial Contracts?

What are some of the reasons that men with assets, especially young men, agree to marry under a default contract that is so much worse for them than they could obtain by negotiation?

1. Ignorance. Many men, especially young men, are simply ignorant about how bad the default marriage  contract can be for men. The older and wiser a man gets, the more a man has seen what the default has meant for other men and will choose a prenuptial agreement.

2. Innocence, expense, and laziness. Many men, especially young men, are predisposed to believe that the default marriage contract is fair because examining the terms of the default marriage contract is impossible; the terms are not written down anywhere. A good family attorney can explain the implications of the default marriage contract. Getting legal advice requires the man to know that he should never get married under the default contract without legal advice and to expend considerable  time, effort, and expense to become informed. The older and wiser a man gets, the more a man has seen what the default has meant for other men and will choose a prenuptial agreement.

3. Societal and family intimidation against prenuptial contracts. Men know that most fiancees believe (correctly) that the fiancees could never hope to negotiate a more favorable contract than the default and that men likely will have to endure tears, screaming fits, and unwarranted hostile accusations. Many women will rail against the mere idea of negotiating a prenuptial contract. Even suggesting that a woman have her lawyer prepare a prenuptial contract stating the marriage contract that she wants can result in  tears, screaming fits, and unwarranted hostile accusations. These intimidating tactics are not employed because a prenuptial contract is unfair in some discussable way, they are employed because the woman, or her attorney,  wants to preserve, without discussion, the favorable unfairness associated with the default contract. The problem with her attorney preparing a  written prenuptial contract? The problem is that although her attorney can write whatever provisions she wants,  the man can question the reasonableness of the provisions. If the fiancee cannot justify the provisions to his satisfaction, she is going to look like a gold digger to him. Much better to have an unwritten contract whose provisions are not even known until divorce time.

4. Structural bias. Note that the law basically requires that women get legal advice about a prenuptial contract before signing so that she understands the implications of what she is signing, there is no legal requirement that a man understand the implications of the default marriage contract that he is signing.

Comments on "Ten Things I Hate About Prenuptial Agreements"

As I have indicated on this blog before, nobody should sign a marriage contract that he/she thinks is unfair. I recently encountered a web page that includes in one place many of the specious arguments against prenuptial contracts that I have encountered over the years. The link is:



http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/


Read this attorney's "Ten Things I Hate About Prenuptial Agreements." The essential thing is that the default marriage contract so favors her clients that she would find it essentially impossible to ever negotiate a more favorable contract than the default marriage contract for any of her clients. She cannot maintain this wildly favorable bias in a negotiated contract, so she uses a number of specious arguments to disparage a negotiated contract.


I have discussed some of these issues in previous posts, but I think the following has value as it is a response to a specific attorney's collected comments on prenups.

To see some associated previous posts:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/what-people-especially-wealthy-people.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-pros-and-cons-of-forced-marriage-in.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/no-means-no-except-when-man-says-no.html



(As I think the attorney in the link does, assume the man to be the wealthier party both in assets and in income for the discussion.)

Lets take the arguments one at a time: (Note that there is a copyright indication on the page I link to, so I decided not to duplicate the author's comments on this page. You can find her original comments that I am replying to at the linked site with the corresponding numerical item label.)

"A significant part of my law practice is a steady stream of prenuptial agreements for clients who are embarking on marriage. Generally (but not always), I represent the less-moneyed spouse. She (usually) is presented with the concept as a limited means to, say, protect the fiancé’s (or his parent’s) wealth. Somehow, this morphs into an all-encompassing financial contract that drastically limits her marital rights with far-reaching effects extending into the future."

With or without a prenuptial contract, marriage is an all-encompassing financial contract. As far as "her marital rights," a prenuptial contract defines her "marital rights." This quoted paragraph above attempts to imply that something has been taken away from the woman. This of course is logical nonsense. The woman does not have any marital rights until she is married. The prenuptial contract can give her marital rights, but it cannot take away any marital rights. (In contrast, a post-marital contract can take away marital rights because the marital rights exist per the marriage contract.) The prenuptial contract simply replaces the default contract.  Inasmuch as peoples' individual circumstances are enormously varied, a "one size fits all" default marriage contract will not be fair and appropriate in many circumstances. Prenuptial contracts allow people to take their individual circumstances into account and ditch the "one size fits all" mentality.

The "wonderful" thing about the default marriage contract is that it gives her clients more than they could possibly hope to obtain in a negotiation. It is unlikely a man would sign a default marriage contract wildly in her client's favor if the man had legal counsel on the implications of the default contract. The law does not require that he understand the default contract whereas, by contrast, the law requires that her client understand the prenuptial contract. This attorney is essentially practicing a form of "gold digging" for her clients. The fact that the default contract promotes gold digging does not change the fact that it is gold digging. The beauty of gold digging by default is that her clients do not have to explicitly identify themselves as gold diggers. Gold digging by default contract depends on the innocence and ignorance of the man signing a contract whose terms are not even written down.  Gold digging in a prenuptial negotiation is much harder to do and much more likely to expose her clients as gold diggers.

Click link and go to item 1 on the linked page:

1. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This coercion argument is nonsense. Both parties have a free choice.  The fact that a man will not sign a contract that he considers outrageously unfair does not qualify as "coercion." If she refuses to sign a contract that she considers unfair and insists upon getting married under the default contract because it is much more lucrative in a divorce, is she then coercing him? The purpose of the prenuptial contract is to prevent a devastating effect on the man. Apparently this attorney thinks that it is proper for a woman to be concerned about a devastating effect on the woman, but it is somehow not proper for a man to be concerned about a devastating effect on the man?

The attorney notes that a "typical fact pattern is a couple that has been together for some time." It is also a typical pattern that the man is happy with just living with the woman and it is the woman who wants to change the circumstances. There is often a lot of pressure to get him to "commit" or "put a ring on it." The reference situation is living together with no "marital rights." Women often tell men that repeatedly "nothing will change and it will just be like living together, I just want to be married." This, of course, is dramatically false, but I am not aware of any case where this statement (even in writing or with witnesses) has protected a man's financial position. (On the other hand, women sometimes succeed at using a man's comments to acquire part of his assets. It seems to be a  "promise" when a man says something without sufficient thought nor legal counsel to a woman, but not a "promise" when a woman says something without sufficient thought nor legal counsel  to a man.)

As noted, the current reference situation (A) is living together. The proposed change (B) is being married under the terms of the prenuptial contract. When a woman gets legal advice about a prenuptial contract the legal legerdemain does not compare the woman's current reference situation of living together against the proposed future situation of marriage under the prenuptial contract. Instead, the legal legerdemain supplants the current reference situation with a fictitious reference situation (C) that never existed. The attorney advises the woman about all the things the man is "taking from her" if she signs the prenuptial contract, based on what the woman would be given in the absence (C) of a prenuptial contract. This seems incredibly dishonest. The proposed change is from  A to B and yet the attorney discusses the change from in going from C to B. In this way, the woman is made to feel that the man is "taking" something from her, despite the fact that this is impossible because she never had it in the first place.

Exactly which party is being treated unfairly under this legal legerdemain?

Click link and go to item 2 on the linked page:

2. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This argument is ridiculous for three reasons. First, it is circular in the sense that it presupposes that the default marriage contract is fair and that she is entitled  to the marital rights associated with the default contract. The entire reason for the prenuptial contract is that the man does not agree that she should be entitled to the default marital rights. She does not have these rights, so she cannot give them away. Nothing is being "taken" from her.

Second, under the default contract what "consideration" is the man getting? The man essentially hands the courts a blank check to fill in if a divorce occurs. Without a prenuptial contract he is at huge financial risk as detailed by the attorney's own words as the wife might have "access to everything the future husband presently owns, might own in the future, and any possible support rights." What "consideration" is the man getting that is commensurate with giving the woman such access? Exactly what does the law require her to give to the man because she puts him at huge financial risk, with her as the beneficiary of the risk? Under the default contract, there is indeed a severe imbalance in which she can appropriate his assets even if she has done absolutely nothing for him. Provided simply that she "married well," the default contract enriches her for the sole fact of marrying well.

Third, the attorney has some confused thinking. The fact that the law specifies default marital rights in no way means that the default is fair and reasonable in many cases. Suppose that the default were that the wife pay her ex husband 80 per cent of all her future earnings and he pay her none of his future earnings? Under the attorney's argument, if the wife wanted to change this default with a prenuptial contract, then he would be "giving up" his default marital right to the 80 per cent. Under the attorney's argument the man is giving away more and she thus should give him "consideration" on the other side to balance that fact? Except for the fact that this would be an even more unfair example of "marital rights" specified by default law, the principles involved are the same.  If the default contract allows one spouse to plunder the other, it is irrelevant what the plundering spouse "gives up" in a prenuptial contract. There is no "consideration" due because a spouse foregoes a right to plunder that they never should have.

Now consider the attorney's ridiculous analogy of buying shoes.  Suppose the shoes are normally sold under a standard contract (say, the manufacturer's suggested retail price, i.e. the msrp) that provides X dollars in exchange for the shoes and a buyer proposes paying less, say, Y < X dollars. No reasonable person would say that the seller is due some "consideration" for the fact the seller is getting less than the seller normally gets. The seller either wants to sell the shoes according to the buyer's proposed contract or the seller does not want to. It is not the buyer's responsibility to ensure that the seller makes his usual profit. If no agreement is reached, then the buyer and seller are in the same situations that they were before the proposed sale. In particular, the seller still has the shoes and the buyer still has his Y dollars.  This attorney's argument is not only without merit, it is so bad that it would be ridiculously silly for any reasonable person to take it seriously, except as a logical fallacy that, with luck, will trick the buyer into paying X dollars.

Click link and go to item 3 on the linked page:

3. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This is ridiculous. Either party can take as much time as they need to make an informed decision. The man is neither responsible for a woman's ignorance nor any bad decision she makes. At what point can an adult woman be held responsible for her actions and/or inaction? A wealthy man who gets married without a prenuptial contract, and without having professional legal advice about why he needs a prenup, is still held responsible for signing a default marriage contract that may give his wife "access to everything the future husband presently owns, might own in the future, and any possible support rights."  Despite the fact that he has far more to lose in marriage than his wife, the law cuts him no slack for not understanding just how awful the default contract can be in his case. It does him no good to say  he did not understand or that he did not have legal counsel. His wife, on the other hand, can have the prenuptial contract tossed out because she did not seek legal advice.

"Young people really have little or no idea of what marriage is and what it takes to make it successful," which is even more reason that a wealthy man needs the protection of a prenuptial contract. This is especially significant because women apparently initiate the divorce about 2/3 of the time.

Click link and go to item 4 on the linked page:

4. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

It is quite reasonable for the parents to be concerned about their son. The attorney's implication that  "real" marriages cannot have prenuptial agreements is ridiculous. Furthermore, divorce laws and settlements can be drastically different in different places and different times. It is a ridiculous notion that radically different divorce settlements (given the same circumstances except location) can all be "fair." Really?  If one location's law gives a woman ten thousand dollars and another location's law gives her ten million dollars, they are both fair? And, if they are indeed both "fair" there should be no problem with a prenuptial contract that picks the most favorable of the "fair" outcomes. I wonder how many of the parents who took her advice watched the wife divorce their son and plunder his assets?

Click link and go to item 5 on the linked page:

5. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

The attorney seems to be espousing the unsubstantiated notion that "reducing risk" by a prenuptial contract is somehow incompatible with fostering the upcoming marriage. Like most of the arguments against prenuptial contracts, this is a self-serving argument for maintaining the "marital right" to plunder a wealthy man. Women can ask for any "marital rights" they want in a prenuptial contract, so there is no reason that a prenuptial contract cannot be fair. Many women like the default marriage contract because it obscures just how much they have to gain by marriage to a wealthy man. Because they do not even have to explicitly specify the "marital rights" that they think are fair, they escape all discussion of why these default "marital rights" are fair in the particular marriage under consideration. In fact, a prenuptial contract will effectively filter out the gold diggers from the women who have more honorable intentions. This alone makes a prenuptial contract worthwhile for a wealthy man. Furthermore, if a wealthy man does not get a prenuptial contract, the default contract will pay her handsomely if she divorces him. Even if she is not, or at least did not start out, as a gold digger, this is a tremendous incentive to divorce him. The less she stands to benefit from a divorce, the less likely she is to initiate a divorce. People respond to incentives. Exactly how does providing an incentive to divorce help in "supporting or fostering the upcoming marriage?"

This attorney seems to have no "no sensitivity to the destruction" she is causing by insisting that a couple avoid an open discussion of what "marital rights" will apply to their marriage. Furthermore, on a societal level, following her ideas promotes both gold digging and divorce. In the end, neither of these things are good for either society as a whole or for honorable women who have no problems with discussing their concept of fairness.

Click link and go to item 6 on the linked page:

6. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

This argument attempts to justify simple thievery. If he has sole and separate (non-marital) property that he wants to leave to his children, or perhaps charity, he should be entitled to do so. She was not involved in the generation of the wealth represented by the non-marital property and she should not be entitled to a dime of it.  To use the attorney's own language, what did the wife give him in "consideration" for this property? Grabbing his non-marital  assets that the man intended for his children would amount to legal larceny and it rightly should be prohibited. If the man can give his children his sole property assets before he dies, he certainly ought to be able to give these assets to his children when he dies. If not, exactly what would this attorney be suggesting? The man could give his separate assets to his children 10 minutes before he died, but not after? If the man agrees to sign this attorney's "correction" to the prenup, that is his choice, but there are many circumstances in which this "correction" would be totally unwarranted.

Click link and go to item 7 on the linked page:

7. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

If there are any corrosive memories and tears associated with a prenuptial negotiation, attorneys like this one are responsible. She intentionally and inaccurately misrepresents the prenuptial contract as taking away marital rights instead of defining marital rights. Instead of focusing on the change from cohabiting to married under a negotiated prenup, she supplants this actual change under consideration to the change from the terms of the non-existent (and explicitly rejected) default marriage contract to the prenuptial terms. The tears come from an emotional reaction to the attorney's intentional misrepresentation that something the fiancee never had is being taken away from her.

Click link and go to item 8 on the linked page:

8. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

More nonsense. First, the man is not responsible if his fiancee lies. Second, "fair and reasonable" is a matter of judgement. Third,  "the very fair and reasonable laws of divorce" in practice are a farce in many cases. The very fact that divorce laws in different locales result in very different outcomes shows that the laws are most definitely not fair.

Even if the prenup has exceedingly beneficial terms for the wife, this attorney and her ilk will describe it as "unfair" if the default marriage contract is even more beneficial. The default marriage contract in some locales treats a man's premarital assets as his separate property, but any increase in value of that property is shared by default in these locales. (In California, the wife is not entitled to any increase in value of his separate property.) For example, the man may start with one million dollars of separate property in a stock mutual fund that, after five years of marriage, becomes perhaps three million dollars. If a divorce occurs under the default contract, the wife would get half of the two million dollar gain. She did nothing to enhance the value of the mutual fund, yet she is entitled to one million dollars? Why?

Suppose the man thought that this was outrageously unfair, yet still wanted his wife to benefit a little if he had good luck with his separate property 1 million dollar mutual fund. Lets say that instead of cutting her in on 50% of the gain, he has her sign a prenuptial contract that cuts her in on 25% of the gain? Rather than focusing on the man's generosity in giving his wife a 25% risk-free  (if he loses she does not share in the loss) stake in the gain, this attorney and her ilk will say that the man is taking away her "right" to the full 50%. Never mind that if the man divorced in a different locale (say California), the default contract would  not give her a dime of the mutual fund's gain.

This attorney and her ilk, because they so steadfastly assert the fairness of the default marriage contract, probably would not suggest asking a California man to sign a  prenuptial contract giving the wife a 25% share in his mutual fund's gain. The California man, and probably California society generally, would almost certainly reject such a suggestion as abject gold digging. But, a man in the other locale is lambasted for "taking away" her marital rights because he "only" will agree to give her 25%. Logically, a woman demanding to share in his mutual fund's gain is a gold digger whether she is in California or another locale. But, in some attorneys' view the wife is  not a gold digger but rather a "victim" of an unfair prenup in another locale if she "only" gets 25% of the gain.

"Very fair and reasonable laws of divorce?" The evidence shows that this is an outright lie.

Click link and go to item 9 on the linked page:

9. http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

First, this is ridiculous, they are not always unfair. Second, one can always include provisions in the prenup to give credit to the wife if she makes certain sacrifices for the family. These examples of the things that a wife might do are often times little more than a smoke screen to hide and divert discussion from some provisions in the default marriage contract that sometimes have outrageous divorce consequences.

Although this attorney focuses on what the wife might do, default divorce laws compensate the wife of a wealthy man far more for who she married than what she did or did not do. A wife may have promised to bear a man's children, and though fertile, she breaks this promise. She may start refusing to have sex with him. She may refuse even to live with him. She may break her wedding vows by sleeping with another man. But, if a divorce comes the fact that she broke her promises, refused him sex or even simple companionship, broke her wedding vows, and did not sacrifice one iota for the family makes little difference. The primary thing that matters is that she married well and he has a lot of assets to go after. In some locales, the default divorce laws entitled her to one half the gain on any of his premarital assets. She gets this independent of anything that she actually does or does not do. If he has  (premarital) 10 million dollars in a stock mutual fund that becomes 20 million during the marriage, the law in some locales gives her 5 million dollars (half the gain), independent of her contributions or behavior. So, although I am in favor of prenuptial contract provisions that recognize and reward contributions and good behavior on the wife's part, the default divorce provisions are abominable because they essentially depend on who she married, not what she did. These examples of what a wife might do are largely irrelevant because she has no obligation to do these things and can do them, or not, as she alone chooses, and her divorce settlement from a wealthy man will be almost independent of what she has done.

The attorney's stated concern about major sacrifices the wife might make by "mutual decision" can be specified in the prenuptial contract. There are a small enough number of  common major sacrifices that a prenuptial contract can specify appropriate compensation terms for common sacrifices such as a wife staying home and raising children. Indeed, this attorney indicates that she can fix the prenuptial contracts that she gets her hands on. For any uncommon major sacrifices not specified in the prenuptial contract, a post-marital agreement can be written (before the sacrifice is made) establishing both that the sacrifice was a mutual decision and the agreed upon value or "consideration" due for the sacrifice. But, this attorney is against prenuptial (and presumably post-marital) agreements that openly and explicitly deal with these concerns. Instead, this attorney prefers to wait until divorce comes and it is impossible to establish unequivocally that the sacrifice was mutually agreed upon and a mutually agreed upon valuation for the sacrifice. The attorney does this, of course, because she knows that the default law will:

1. assume that the sacrifice was mutually agreed upon (absent exceedingly strong evidence to the contrary), and

2. will obtain a better valuation than the attorney can obtain by negotiation

With respect to item 2, note that the attorney is not acting in her client's interest if the attorney could obtain a better valuation in a prenuptial (or even post-nuptial) agreement. She wants the default because she believes (with good reason) that the default gives her client more than she could ever hope to obtain with a prenuptial (or even post-nuptial) agreement. Indeed, under the default contract the man is disregarding the common wisdom "don't buy a pig in a poke." Inasmuch as the default contract is not written down and the terms vary depending on time and locale, this is very much "buying a pig in a poke."

I have some sympathy with some of the comments in this item, but there is no uniquely agreed upon definition of what is "fair."  Nobody should sign a contract that they consider substantially unfair. Indeed, this is the very reason that wealthy men refuse to sign default marriage contracts. This attorney seems to think that her assessment of "fairness" supersedes the fact that "fairness" is as agreed upon by the parties involved in the contract. Kudos to her for advising her clients about what she thinks is fair. But, in the end, this attorney has no special right to define "fair" for anybody but herself.

Click link and go to item 10 on the linked page:

10.  http://www.ivkdlaw.com/the-firm/our-articles/prenuptial-agreements-and-lawyering/ten-things-i-hate-about-prenuptial-agreements/

Inasmuch as the law includes the ability to modify the default marriage contract in accordance with needs of the parties involved, to say that there is a "disregard of the law" is absurd. The law is certainly used to modify the default contract to fit the needs of the people involved, but this is hardly "disregarding" the law. That is nonsense. The attorney's ludicrous assertion of "fair distribution" is belied by the fact that "fair distribution" can be orders of magnitude different depending on the locale where the divorce occurs.


I am done responding to this attorney's 10 reasons, but one should understand one more point about family law.

To appreciate fully just how insidiously evil family law can be, note that even when men do not sign any marriage contract, attorneys try to separate the men from their money (it would be called grand larceny except for the fact that is "done legally") by asserting that some relationship is "marriage-like." Check out "palimony." The most evil family law that I know of is the 2013 British Columbia law that simply changed the definition of "spouse" so that a woman could plunder a man even if he explicitly and publically refused to marry her.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/common-law-couples-as-good-as-married-in-b-c-1.1413551

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/no-means-no-except-when-man-says-no.html

Life in Los Alamos: Nuclear Missiles and Toasters

In the days at Los Alamos National Laboratory before we had voice mail or answering machines, office partners would routinely answer each other's phones and take messages. (For instance, see  stupid secretary.) I often knew roughly what my office partner (Jane Doe) was working on and this knowledge helped in taking a message with sufficient context. Occasionally, Jane was working on a new project that I was not yet aware of.

One day a man from General Electric Corporation called on Jane's phone. I knew that  Jane was either doing calculations for General Electric or perhaps advising General Electric about how to set up calculations for some aspect of the Navy's ballistic nuclear missile submarines. To ensure that this was not a new project and to provide context for the message, I asked "Does this concern the Navy's nuclear missile submarines?" There were perhaps two or three seconds before the man responded.  (I thought maybe there was a problem with the phone call on my end or his end.) At long last, the man sheepishly said with some hesitation and uncertainty in his voice "She called about her General Electric toaster?"

My Lingerie Calendar Interactions at the University of California

Circa 1992 my first wife and I were Christmas shopping at a mall in Newark, California. Why we had to celebrate Christmas, especially the purchase of gifts, stretches my comprehension a bit as neither of us were religious at all. I don't like shopping very much, but I tolerate shopping when I need to buy something specific that I have in mind. Christmas shopping is particularly unpleasant because it is very crowded and noisy and one needs to buy something thoughtful; because it is the thought that counts (they say).

Despite telling my wife numerous times that I didn't want anything, she kept asking and I could see that I was not escaping the mall until she bought me a gift. When she asked yet again we happened to be walking past a Frederick's of Hollywood lingerie shop that was uncrowded enough that I could see a sign by the cashier advertising lingerie calendars at a small fraction of the original price. I seized the opportunity and told my wife that I would like a calendar. So, for one dollar and less than a minute wait at the cashier, I made my escape! I felt very clever indeed.  Anyway, I actually did need a calendar and, as a bonus, there were some fetching photos on the calendar.

Although a Los Alamos employee, I had a guest office at the University of California (Berkeley) in the Nuclear Engineering Department. I posted the calendar above my desk and all was well for about two weeks. One day I arrived and saw the department secretary (who had access to my office for administrative reasons) staring at the calendar. As a matter of courtesy and consideration, I asked if the calendar bothered her. She said no, she just liked to look at the lingerie. Had the calendar bothered her, I would have removed the calendar as a matter of personal courtesy. There are a lot of things that I would do out of personal courtesy for women, or men, for that matter.

Perhaps two months later, a female student asked to talk with me. She indicated that seeing the calendar bothered her. Attempting to be courteous and reasonable, I asked if it would be okay to move the calendar to another wall inside the office that was not visible from the hallway where she walked. She indicated that moving the calendar would be okay. I moved the calendar, but the first time the phone rang, I realized I needed the calendar close to the phone as before. So, I moved the calendar to its original location and covered the photo with a blank sheet of paper, leaving the calendar part usable.

The next week when I saw her pass my doorway, I asked if I could talk with her. I pointed out that:

1. The calendar was a gift from my wife.
2. I had to be in the office roughly 8 hours a day.
3. The calendar made my work space more pleasant.
4. She seemed to pass by my office perhaps twice a week (she accepted that frequency)
5. She knew the calendar was in my office, could she just not look into my office for the half second it took to pass my doorway?

She rejected my suggestion that she could simply not look into my office and allow me a pleasant work space. She explained that my calendar was somehow responsible for nearly every problem in society and seeing it made her uncomfortable. (The explanations seemed ludicrous to me, especially the claim that my calendar was somehow responsible for slavery?) Despite her intolerance, I was a guest in the department and did not want to make an issue the department would have to deal with. So, I decided to ensure that she did not have to be "uncomfortable." I kept the photo part of the calendar covered, though I was not comfortable kowtowing to her intolerance. Courtesy and consideration were part of my family upbringing; kowtowing to self-important and self-appointed tyrants exceeding their authority was not.

It occurred to me after about a week that covering the entire photo was not a good solution to the problem. Instead, I used "post-it" notes to cover what I presumed to be the objectionable parts of the women in the photographs. The post it notes looked a bit like an exceptionally modest bikini. When the student did not complain about my "bikini" solution, I was relieved. Problem solved. Confrontation avoided.

Although the post-it notes had been a good idea, it occurred to me after another week that the post-it notes could be used in an even better manner. I took the post-it notes and folded them 90 degrees at the glue border so that the glued portion stuck to the calendar and the remainder of the post it notes protruded outward at 90 degrees from the calendar's plane. The view from the hallway was now blocked by the protruding post-it notes, but the post-it notes were no longer obscuring my view of the calendar. Again, no complaints from the student. An all around great solution: She did not have to view the calendar and I could view the calendar!

One unforeseen side-effect was that a number of people would pass by my office, do a double-take on the protruding post-it notes, and ask to see what I had blocked from hallway view. I was happy to oblige.

The Sky is Falling ...

My parents told me that from a very early age they had suspicions that I might be inclined toward science.

The evidence they gave was that when I was a toddler playing in the front yard  of our northern California house, they witnessed something both amusing and telling. As typical for California summers, it had not rained from late May to the middle of October. I was playing in the front yard and they observed my astonishment and concern when water started falling out of the sky  (It was a very light rain and my parents made no motion toward the house.) Instead, they observed my reaction to the rain. After an initial moment of shock, I toddled into the back yard and then into the house and informed my older siblings with some trepidation that "water was falling from the sky all over." 

My parents were amused that, despite my obvious concern, before I went into the house I checked the locality of the phenomenon and discovered that it was occurring all over the known world. From this they concluded that my curiosity exceeded my fear and my curiosity might incline me toward science. (They reported that when  my older sister told me that "it was just rain," I was no longer terrified.) 

The Stupidest Secretary in the World?

I had a female office partner for many years at Los Alamos. Call her Jane Doe for story purposes. I do not mean to be sexist, but occasionally it made a difference that my office partner was female.

One day I returned to my office (I think after visiting another Los Alamos Lab area) and Jane greeted me with a big grin and told me that "You have the stupidest secretary in the world." She then proceeded to tell me a story while grinning the entire time.

This was in the 1980's and our office telephones had neither voice mail nor answering machines. So, we would answer each other's phone when the the other person was not in the office. A man called on my phone with some very technical questions about MCNP (a Monte Carlo particle transport computer program) that he wanted to ask me about. According to Jane the conversation went something like this with the man becoming ever more flabbergasted:

M. Is Tom there?
J.  No.
M. Do you know where he is?
J. No.
M. Do you know when he will be back?
J. No.
M. (silent pause)
J. Can I take a message?

At this point Jane said there was a good deal of hesitation in the man's voice and tone as to whether taking a message might be beyond this idiot secretary's capabilities.

M. Well ... Okay ... I have a complicated geometrical region and I need his advice on how to define such a region in MCNP.

J. No, you don't need Tom's advice.
M. (silent pause)
J. Tom is not the expert on MCNP geometry. You need my advice.

According to Jane, the man immediately recognized his predicament at potentially having pissed off the very person he needed. Jane said that she could almost hear all his mental gears backpedaling as he apologized profusely. Jane took it all with good humor and assured the man that he need not worry as she was amused more than insulted. She then helped him solve his geometry problem,

The Los Alamos Bushy-Tailed Mushroom Security Memo

Shortly before I joined the Los Alamos Lab (1974), there appeared a series of documents about various subjects at the Lab called "The Bushy-Tailed Mushroom" series. The documents were unofficial parodies of things going on at the Lab and were identified with a hand-drawn mushroom cloud in the to/from/subject header of the documents. Unfortunately, I did not think to save a copy as they were often very funny. They were just close enough to reality to be almost believable. Too believable in one case.

For instance, there was a Bushy-Tailed Mushroom funding request in the style of LDRD (Lab Directed Research and Development for high risk but high reward projects)  ostensibly from the "Western Exploration Division" WX  (Weapons Experiments in reality). The proposal was dated in the 1490's by some Italian chap and concerned an ingenious plan to try and reach the East Indies by sailing WEST instead of east. The proposal listed the resources necessary and concluded that, while expensive, if it were successful it would open up a whole New World of trade possibilities.

There was another Bushy-Tailed Mushroom memo ostensibly from Los Alamos computer code developers to Los Alamos computer code users. (I was in a code development group, so the memo hit pretty close to home.) The memo had a list of perhaps 30 useful code notes from the developers to the users. My favorite code note to the users was something like "As usual, a punch in column 37 of the 54th input card is ignored."

The Bushy-Tailed Mushroom memo ostensibly from Lab Security terminated the series when a PhD physicist missed the bushy-tailed mushroom cloud in the memo's header. Security routinely sent out memos with security policies that did not always comport with the scientists' view of reasonable policies, so the fact that the memo was suggesting inane things did not tip off the physicist that this was parody. In this case, it was a little too close to reality ...

The physicist (my alternate group leader by coincidence) read item after item of inane security policies and got angrier and angrier. Somewhere down the list (10 perhaps?) he came across policies for protecting classified material that went something like this:

"A magnetic tape containing a classified computer code needs to be stored in a safe, as well as a computer listing of the computer code, as well as the punched cards associated with the computer code. Furthermore, inasmuch as the punch outs  at the computer card punch machines are a negative image of the computer cards, henceforth the punch outs must be treated as secret classified material and stored in an approved repository (safe)."

The physicist telephoned Security and told Security just what he thought of "their" insane memo.  Thus ended the Bushy-Tailed Mushroom document series.

Ambiguity, "Hostile Work Environment" Law, Intimidation, and Tyranny

The "hostile work environment" laws will necessarily have some gray areas, but at the very least men and their managers could be informed of what definitely is permissible. Believe it or not, many people seem opposed to at least letting men know what is permissible. One women explained that it was better to keep things ambiguous so that men would be super careful because they did not know what was permissible. When I objected that this was pure intimidation she just shrugged and said "so what?" Perhaps this is not a view of the majority of women, but I think it is not an uncommon view. Many women seem very comfortable with keeping men, and especially managers, in ambiguous circumstances. What manager wants to risk a lawsuit?  Absent proper training in what is permissible, the managers are almost compelled to deprive men of any free expression that a woman objects to, even if the law does not really require it. The best explanation that comes to mind is that the resulting intimidation gives women extra power over men, and the women like this power.

I took "hostile work environment" training every year for perhaps 30 years. I can understand that when the training first started that it was likely to need improvement. But, eventually the training should have clearly trained people about what was definitely permissible, what was definitely impermissible, and what were gray areas. Furthermore, as the courts decided more cases, this gray area should have become smaller and smaller and the permissible and impermissible areas corresponding larger.  In 30 years the training never bothered to define these areas. In practice, some portions of the  "hostile work environment" laws function via intentional intimidation. To many people that seems not to be an unfortunate deficiency in the law and training that should be corrected, but a desirable feature to be preserved.

In practice this "desirable feature" tyrannically seeks to curtail even legally permitted free expression  via intentional intimidation. Some people believe that a poster stating that "the current hostile work environment laws are tyrannical and need to be modified to be more reasonable and fairer to men," could constitute a hostile work environment for women.

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/hostile-work-environment.html
http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/12/fixing-abuse-of-hostile-work.html

"What Women Want--What Men Want" - True two decades later?

I found the experiments performed in the text linked below fascinating.

"Do clothes make the man (or woman)?  Can the right costume, income, and occupation make even unattractive men acceptable for dating, sexual relations, and marriage? Can these trappings do the same for women? In Chapter 3 we dressed homely and good-looking men in different types of costumes—including hamburger-chain uniforms,designer outfits, and silk shirts with gold chains—and described them as having appropriate incomes and occupations. The results were startling"


https://www.scribd.com/doc/29085683/What-Women-Want-What-Men-Want


This was written in 1998. I wonder how much has changed since 1998.

Getting on Fifth Base?

I went to high school before electronic calculators and "slide rules" were the calculational devices of the time. My high school chemistry teacher said that we could do the test problems (as well as homework problems) anyway that we wanted as long as we showed the work. We could, of course, use our slide rules for calculations. Well, I had known how to use a slide rule since fourth grade, but I never actually looked carefully at the slide rule until that quarter in high school. Wow. It occurred to me that the slide rule, though intended for base 10 arithmetic could be used for any base arithmetic because the slide rule was just adding and subtracting logarithms.

I had done very well on the previous two chemistry exams and always had time left over, so I decided to do the next chemistry exam in base 5 rather than base 10. I practiced using my slide rule in base 5 a bit before the exam. There were something like 4 true/false questions worth 2 points apiece, and the rest of the exam required calculations. I barely finished the exam working in base 5, but I did finish and handed in the exam. When the exams came back a day or two later, my score was 8 points out of 100 points. There was also a note to see the teacher after class.

After class, the teacher said "Tom, what happened? You did extremely well on the previous two exams." I pointed to my note written at the top of the first page of the exam. The note said "Please note that all calculations and answers are in base 5." The teacher said "You did what!" I pointed out that he had said that we could do the exam any way we wanted. The expressions on his face in the next 30 to 60 seconds as he tried to decide what to do were fascinating. He went from astonishment, to exasperation, to annoyance, and finally to toleration. He finally simply said to convert all the numbers to base 10 and hand the exam back in. It was good fun. Maybe a bit risky, because he could have failed me, but I counted on his keeping his word.

Two or three years later I stopped by the high school and he recognized me at once. He told me that he now tells the class that if they show their work, they can do the exams anyway they like, within reason. And he gave my exam  as an example of what was not within reason. The teacher said that his classes were always amused by the example.

The moral of the story is that it took a little while  for the teacher to appreciate how students might follow his instructions  (and see the humor)...

Veterans of Foreign Wars on Donald Trump

Maybe this time Trump will pay for his intolerance?


http://usuncut.com/politics/vfw-vs-trump/

Guilt by Association and Victimhood by Association

This post is in response to the facebook conversation with the Asian-American woman linked here:


http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/facebook-conversation-with-asian.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/asian-american-females-white-husbands.html


This woman (and her husband) seemed either incapable or unwilling to have a rational discussion. Continuing the discussion would have been as pointless as trying to teach a pig to sing. (For those not familiar with the idiom: “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”) For those willing to engage their brains a bit, let's consider her unsupported accusations.

The problem identified had to do with police and black men. But, this Asian-American female (xxx) almost effortlessly (how many words did it take?)  conflates problems of black Americans with problems of women.  (Note that xxx does not respond to my question about why white men are any more responsible than Asian females for the interactions of  police and black men.)  This conflation attempts to acquire additional victimhood status by coupling women's issues with black racial issues as if they were similar and commensurate problems. They are both problems, but they are not commensurate and there are far more differences than similarities.Women's issues need to be judged on their own merits, without attempting to couple them to black racial issues. This woman's comments seem to have the primary intent of trying to appropriate additional victimhood status by association with black racial problems. Otherwise, why immediately try and tie the two together in this instance?

Inasmuch as most Americans consider the slavery that existed in the past and the racism that persists to this day as the most reprehensible part of our history, associating women's issues with racism tends to put them on the same level. Although this conflation may be positive for women's issues, the conflation tends to diminish the problem of racism by putting it on the same level as women's issues. Perhaps this is the reason that it is quite common for women's groups to conflate sexism and racism but far less common (rare?) for racial justice groups to put women's issues and racism on the same level?

There are some very serious women's problems to deal with. But the women's movement also is spending an inordinate amount of effort on relatively trivial issues; the racial justice movement is not.  Unjustified killings of black males and unequal incarceration and sentencing for the same crime are a much more serious issue than "trigger warnings," "safe spaces," and girlie calendars.

Black males seem to have far more problematic interactions with police than females of any race and males of any non-black race. If some kind of "privilege" claim is necessary, the "privilege" in this case is "non-black privilege." It certainly has nothing to do with "male privilege" because males of any race seem to have more problematic interactions with police than females of the corresponding race. So, "female privilege" might be appropriate in this instance, but not "male privilege." Does anybody have any evidence that Asian males have more problematic interactions with police than white males? Why isn't this "Asian privilege?" Does anybody doubt that Asian females have the fewest problematic interactions with police? In this instance, why isn't this "Asian female privilege?"

Rather than engage in a rational conversation, this woman assigned guilt by association to me and victimhood by association to herself.

The Mainstream versus the Lunatic Fringe

President Theodore Roosevelt spoke of a "lunatic fringe." Although it would be comforting to believe that the couple in the previous posts:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/facebook-conversation-with-asian.html

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/07/asian-american-females-white-husbands.html

were part of the lunatic fringe, this is not the case.

I have known this couple for many years.  Both are very intelligent and well-educated.  Moreover, these are nice people that one would not hesitate to invite into his home. They may not be in the center of the movement spewing "white male privilege," but they are certainly not on the fringe.

One can question this couple's rationality, logic, and fairness on the issues. One can note that their inclination is to verbally attack rather than verbally convince, or even discuss rationally. Any questioning of the accuracy of their statements is deflected not by explaining their statements, but rather, by verbally attacking the questioner for having the temerity to question their statements. As a stretch, one might even call some of their statements lunacy, but this couple is definitely not part of the "lunatic fringe."

My guess is at least a quarter of the folks spewing "white male privilege" are similar. They do not want a conversation about problems. They simply want to verbally attack anybody that does not share their views. As I will note in a forthcoming post, "white male privilege" has become such a mantra for many of these people that the term is used when it applies and when it does not apply almost indiscriminately.

Asian American Female's White Husband's Contribution

I gave the Asian American woman's comments. Her white husband was a party to the  facebook interaction as well. Her comments are given here:

http://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/p/poster-shared-on-facebook-by-asian.html




His comments are reasonably similar to hers in that he feels no need to justify the poster's attack specifically and solely on white males. The primary difference is that he put a little more thought and text into his attack. Still, he manages to call me a racist and a sexist in the space of a few sentences.

He seems not to have actually read my response carefully enough to realize that I had answered the question that he asked and was not denying that white people had it much easier than black people in America. That is, I agreed with him on the race issue. Logically, that should have made me solely more sexist but not more racist than yyy? But the racist charge was not withdrawn and he continued attacking me on racism despite the fact that I indicated no disagreement with him on that issue.


xxx=Asian American woman
yyy=white husband

yyy:
Tom, you're denying there's such a thing as white male privilege? Or that you, as a member of that group have never benefited from being a member?

Ok so every black man I've ever talked to about this has to deal with police harassment all the time. 

I just read another thread in Reddit where it appears women cannot walk down a street without being harassed, ogled, or stared at. 

I was talking to a female priest who was sitting with a female Imam… oh wait they aren't allowed to be religious leaders. Female rabbis are allowed In a few sects but only starting in 1930's I think. 

I could go on. Denying WMP kinda makes you a little tiny bit sorta just a tad racist and sexist.



Thomas E Booth:
 Racism is a huge problem is this country and xxx is no less responsible than I. So, singling out white males is not appropriate. Progress on racism will happen faster when all people come together to try to find solutions. Singling out white males for defamation is neither fair nor a reasonable approach to solving racism. For some people, attacking white males seems to have attained higher priority than working with them to help solve racism. Such people are impeding progress not promoting progress.

Historically, it was overwhelmingly white Union male volunterers who died in the hundreds of thousands in the Civil War that freed the 4 million slaves. There is no remotely similar action by women of any color.

It is not proper for me to take credit for what white Union male volunterers did in the Civil War. But neither is it proper to blame me for what other white men did that was not so honorable.

To answer one of your questions, I do not deny that there is a signifcant advantage to being asian or white as opposed to black. This needs to change.

As far as "male privilege," I have already stated the most important reasons that I preferred the set of advantages my sisters had over the set I had. (There are other reasons of lesser importance as well.) People will differ on which set of advantages is more desireable. 

Your comments were worthwhile in general. But, calling me a racist and a sexist says volumes about your intolerance for people that do not agree with you on everything.

There are necessary laws and regulations to ensure fair treatment of women, but these laws and regulations have sometimes been abused. In particular, the government should not be used for the tyrannical purpose of letting women deny men the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, any legitimate reasons for denying the pursuit of happiness should at least be honestly stated. Occasionally, the reasons seem unfair, illegitimate, tyrannical, and dishonest as well.

For women to require that an employer provide women a friendly work environment, but forbid the employer from providing men a a friendly work environment is outrageous. The employer should make reasonable accommodations so that all employees, female and male, can have a friendly work environment. If women object to viewing swimsuit calendars, then reasonable accommodations should be made to ensure that women need not view these calendars. On the other hand, a woman claiming that her "mere knowledge" that such a calendar exists constitutes a hostile work environment is a tyrannical attempt to control what he sees, not what she sees. 

The great war against swimsuit calendars is an immensely dishonest propaganda success. It is immensely dishonest because the propaganda labels a workplace display of a swimsuit calendar as "sexual harassment" and treats the calendar as if it is being displayed with the intent of harassing women. Inasmuch as men have routinely, for perhaps a century, displayed such calendars in work environments completely devoid of women, suggesting that men display these calendars in order to harass women is absurd and dishonest. The calendars are displayed because men like the calendars. That fact that men and women appreciate different things in the workplace is not exactly new nor surprising. It is an aspect of workplace diversity.

It may, in fact, be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. However, the reason for removing the swimsuit calendars is women's intolerance of diversity and not men's intent to harass women.

To truly appreciate the propaganda success (about swimsuit calendars) , one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. Women have been absolved of the intolerance of diversity, for which women are responsible, while simultaneously blaming men for harassment, for which men are not responsible.


yyy:
Hm... OK Tom. Go find a man of color and ask him if he's ever been harassed or subjected to overt racism. Then go ask one woman if she's ever been subjected to unwanted attention from men or subjected to sexism. 

The best way to learn about WMP is to talk to our non-WMP neighbors. One WMP cannot convince another that this is real.

yyy:
This is the end of my participation in this thread.

Facebook Conversation with Asian-American Female

Poster "shared" on facebook by an Asian-American female stating:
"Imagine if powerful white men were as vocally outraged about an innocent black person being shot as they are about the improper use of email."

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/photos/a.347907068635687.81180.346937065399354/1178176795608706/?type=3&theater

edited xxx =asian female


Thomas E Booth

This idiotic sentiment is as unreasonable as blaming Muslims for Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, "white men" are a significant minority of the population and we all need to be part of the solutions to the problems society faces. It is hard to see how attacking "white men" will encourage them to be part of the solution. That is against all human nature. Indeed, part of the reason that Trump is popular with some "white men" is because they are tired of being singled out and unfairly blamed for the actions of a few white men.

Exactly what problem in society is helped by singling out and targeting "white men?" Why am I any more responsible than xxx for society's problems?


xxx:
This is targeted at 'powerful white men' --specifically the do-nothing members of Congress.

Thomas E Booth
I still find this statement idiotic, pejorative, and counter-productive. There are women and other races that are "do-nothing members of Congress." There are plenty of powerful "white men" that want to solve problems and are not "do-nothing members of Congress."

The message should have targeted "the do-nothing members of Congress" instead of "powerful white men." Such a message would be more accurate and would avoid using "white men" pejoratively.This poster is inaccurate, a defamation of "white men" as a group, and unnecessarily disgusting. If one wants the help of "white men" generally and/or "powerful white men" specifically to help solve problems, it would be wise to stop attacking a whole group of people.

When people are under attack, they are usually not inclined to support their attackers. Put another way, accurately target your true foes and try to avoid inaccurately targeting a whole group that includes supporters as well as foes. If supporters are targeted along with foes, especially when it would have been EASY to target just the foes, some of those supporters may not stay supporters. What sense does this inaccurate targeting make?


xxx
Two words, Tom: "white privilege." No, make that three words: "white male privilege." It can make one blind to the suffering of non-whites and women.



Thomas E Booth
Instead of responding to my comments in a reasoned way, and trying to explain what is wrong with my arguments, you have launched a fallacious ad hominem attack that is devoid of any intellectual merit or even content.


Thomas E Booth
 A Personal View of Male vs Female "Privilege"

Shouting "male privilege" is often a meaningless attack on males used when the attacker cannot supply convincing evidence for her/his assertions. It is a convenient ploy that is used instead of a rational discussion. In fact, it is often used specifically to shut down rational discussion.

For instance I received this comment recently:
// Two words, Tom: "white privilege." No, make that three words: "white male privilege." It can make one blind to the suffering of non-whites and women. //

The first problem is that many, if not most, of the so-called "privileges" are really advantages and not privileges. There are advantages to being male and there are advantages to being female. Which group is "more advantaged" obviously depends on how one ranks the importance of the various advantages and disadvantages. So, the second problem is that men and women are dueling over which group is more "privileged" without any kind of metric for "privilege." It is quite possible that women see their advantages as unimportant compared to men's advantages while men see their advantages as unimportant compared to women's advantages.

My personal assessment of relative advantage/disadvantage is just that; it is personal. I make no claim that somebody having different importance rankings would, or should, agree with my assessment. Similarly, there is no reason that my assessment would, or should, agree with anybody else's assessment.

The closest comparison of advantages/disadvantages that I can think of is myself to my sisters. On average, they will live substantially longer. There is no "fault" involved; I simply drew the short chromosome. Additionally, inasmuch as having biological children was one of the most important things to me, I would much rather have had my sisters' set of advantages/disadvantages than my own set of advantages/disadvantages. I absolutely required a woman for children. My wife and I agreed on three children before we got married, but she only gave me one and kept putting off any more children, even as she got older and older. Women do not need men for more than a few minutes to get their biological children. (If women use a sperm bank, they don't even need the men for a few minutes.) Women are essential, men are not. This procreative advantage has been expressed as "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

It is not unlikely that my sisters would rather have had my set of advantages/disadvantages than their own set. So, without specifying a metric, the discussion of who is more "privileged" is meaningless. Partly perhaps it is simply that "the grass is always greener on the other side."

Note that, on average, women live substantially longer than men. To add insult to injury, the retirement age and pensions (or social security) take no account of this difference in longevity. On average, men subsidize women's retirement. Thus, men will work a longer fraction of their shorter lives so that women can work a shorter fraction of their longer lives.

xxx
My, my. Someone is very defensive... There's no shouting here. Just quiet weeping..