The Defense of Default Marriage Entitlements and Epicycles

The Defense of Default Marriage Entitlements and Epicycles

(Note: A number of references herein attempt to use "feminism" to justify their views on marriage entitlements.  It is worth noting that many women calling themselves feminists regard marriage and marriage entitlements as part of a past era when women were not considered competent, responsible, and rational enough to make their own decisions. I agree with the feminists that believe that women are competent, responsible, and rational enough to make their own decisions.)

This note will deal mostly with current marriage laws and their inconsistencies with women as full-fledged, responsible, and rational adults from one scientist's viewpoint (i.e., mine).  I will speculate occasionally about how the current situation arose historically,  but have not studied the history in detail. Thus, the comments and speculations about the past may be wrong in some instances, but the present day inconsistencies exist whether or not the speculations about the past are valid. In what follows, it is assumed that the man is the more moneyed spouse.

Before about 1920 (in the USA anyway) a prevailing prejudice was that women were too emotional and not rational enough to have the same rights and obligations as men.  Women were denied many basic rights such as the right to vote, and in many, perhaps most, circumstances the ability to sign contracts solely on the basis of their signature alone. The prevailing view seemed to be that either fathers or husbands should make important decisions for women. Upon marriage, men had an entitlement to sex and women had an entitlement to support.  Because abortion was illegal and relatively rare, the man's sexual entitlement usually guaranteed children.  Marriage was a lifetime commitment unless one spouse could be faulted for breaking his/her marriage vows.  Divorce was relatively rare. If a man broke his vows, divorce could ensue with him at fault. Her obligation to provide his sexual entitlement was terminated by divorce, but his obligation to provide her financial entitlement to support continued because she was not at fault. On the other hand, if she broke her vows, divorce could ensue with her at fault. His obligation to provide her a financial entitlement was (largely) terminated when she was at fault and she got very little, if anything. Call this the "entitlement/obligation" marital fairness theory.

Around the mid 1970's a man's entitlement to sex was terminated (a very good idea) but a woman's entitlement to support continued (a very bad idea). This was called "no fault divorce." Rather than starting with a blank slate and expecting legally equal adult partners to negotiate a suitable marriage contract, the law kept the old support entitlements despite a radically different marriage and divorce environment. One could understand if women who got married before the change were "grandfathered" (grandmothered?) into support entitlements in divorce, but the new laws also applied to new marriages. That is, women married after the laws changed had marital entitlements but no marital obligations. The new laws generally still entitled divorced women to live in "the  style that they had become accustomed to," otherwise known as the "marital lifestyle." Absolved of any responsibility to show that their husband was at fault for the divorce, women could freely divorce and yet still retain their marital lifestyle entitlement.  Not surprisingly, with their "marital lifestyle" guaranteed after divorce, many women decided that divorce was a good option and the divorce rate skyrocketed. One should not blame the women for choosing to divorce; these women responded rationally to the new laws and the incentives they contained. This is a completely rational response to the new incentives.  Men had no new incentive to divorce, so the divorce rate increase was largely due to women.

With the marriage and divorce incentives changed, men modified their behavior in line with the new incentives. This was more difficult for men because the default (no-fault) divorce terms were now heavily biased in favor of women. No doubt it was nice for women to divorce men at will and still be entitled to the marital lifestyle, but it was, of course, men who had to supply this entitlement. At least before the no-fault divorce laws, a man who had kept his vows did not need to supply an entitlement to a woman that broke her vows and divorced him.

Rather than starting from a blank slate and negotiating a marriage contract, some women very much wanted to keep their default entitlements. These default entitlements to women violate the principle of equality between men and women. How to make default entitlements consistent with equality so that a marriage contract does not start as a blank slate between equal parties?

From a scientific viewpoint, this is very reminiscent of the situation in astronomy. Before Copernicus (1473–1543) the prevailing astronomical principle was that Earth was the center of the universe ( Ptolemy's geocentric system)  and heavenly bodies had perfect circular motions about the Earth. The Ptolemaic system (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ptolemaic-system) was inconsistent with the motions of some of the heavenly bodies, most notably the planets. To justify the "perfect circular motions" idea with the actual motion of the planets, epicycles were introduced. When superimposing epicycles on top of the "perfect circular motions" still did not quite match the actual motion? Why, just add epicycles to the epicycles!

Scientists know that even a totally erroneous theory can match reality if enough specialized "tweaks" are invoked to adjust the theory every time the theory would be inconsistent with reality and/or other well-established and verified principles. If one adds enough "epicycles", one can make almost any theory work. Even though Copernicus' heliocentric theory explained the motion of the planets vastly better than the Ptolemaic system, the legal authority of the time (The Catholic Church) just had to keep Earth as the center of the universe. In order to defend its ideological view, the Church was unwilling to accept Copernicus' heliocentric theory. Indeed, as Galileo would find out, the ideologues of the day considered it heresy to challenge the Church's viewpoint.

A similar thing has happened in marriage. The old marriage entitlement theory was based on women being less competent than men and incapable of negotiating for themselves. Despite overwhelming evidence that women are every bit as competent and capable as men, today's ideologues support these entitlements as if they were sacred. Any attempt to modify or even question these entitlements is treated almost as heresy by today's legal ideologues. I have commented before on how some  ideologues disparage even the questioning of these entitlements:

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/08/defending-gold-diggers.html
https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/08/secondary-comments-on-defending-gold.html
https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/10/comments-on-ten-things-i-hate-about_29.html

First Epicycle

With men and women as equal and responsible adults, any marriage contract could be negotiated between them. The first modification of "equality" was to start with marriage contracts that still provided default (non-negotiated) entitlements to women.

Second Epicycle

But, men could still refuse to get married without a prenuptial agreement. So, the second modification tried to defeat prenuptial agreements if the woman signed a contract that she claimed she did not understand. As an adult, it is presumably her responsibility to understand the contract and seek legal advice?  Nope, this became the man's responsibility to make sure that she had legal advice. Her signature, though nominally an adult signature, was basically worthless to him. She could sign other binding contracts as an adult (e.g. real estate, business, and employment contracts) without legal advice and she would be bound by those contracts. Prenuptial contracts were special, her signature was as meaningless as a child's signature if she did not have legal advice.

Third Epicycle

If a man ensures that an adult woman has her own legal counsel so that she understands the prenuptial contract, the next legal shenanigan is to claim that the contract should not be enforced because it is "unfair." Often, this simply means that the distribution of assets is "lopsided" under the prenuptial contract. Never mind that the distribution of assets was "lopsided" when the couple married and she agreed to the contract's terms which let the man preserve his assets. Whether it was "fair" or not is subjective and it apparently was fair enough that (with legal counsel) she signed the contract. In some jurisdictions the court can decide not to enforce the contract because it is "unfair" at the time the divorce occurs because of "changed circumstances." The court seems to be requiring that the man predict the future? To justify breaking the prenup, lawyers give lists of "what if" scenarios for "changed circumstances." The scenarios seem to fall under just a few broad categories. The woman and/or her lawyer could have negotiated these scenarios, but there would have to be agreement on what was "fair." The trouble is that a man can reject anything that he thinks is unfair to him and simply refuse to get married under those circumstances. For large numbers of women and/or their lawyers, negotiation seems to be anathema and they would rather not negotiate what should happen in "changed circumstances" and hope that the court is sympathetic even when the "changed circumstances" are common occurrences that easily can be specified and negotiated.

Fourth Epicycle

Although negotiation would seem like the fairest way to arrive at contractual obligations in marriage (as negotiation is for contracts outside of marriage), some lawyers insist that negotiation is somehow "unfair" to women. Negotiation is apparently unfair because of "power" inequalities? (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308752412_Prenuptial_Agreements_and_the_Presumption_of_Free_Choice_Issues_of_Power_in_Theory_and_Practice) Note that prenuptial contracts are not signed under anything that would be considered "under duress" in non-prenuptial contracts. Nobody is going to suffer dire consequences (e.g. signing a contract at gunpoint) if the contract is not signed. The most "dire" consequence of not signing an "unfair" prenuptial agreement is not getting married to someone that has a very different value system and concept of fairness. (This would seem a win-win situation in which both parties avoid a future with someone that has a very different concept of fairness.)  Indeed, the only real consequence (of not signing) is that the parties involved are in the exact same legal circumstances as when the negotiation started.  It defies logic and common sense that unchanged circumstances could possibly be an unfair result of negotiation. Furthermore, if the unchanged circumstances are somehow unfair, the unfairness cannot be because of the negotiation, because the circumstances existed prior to the negotiation.

It must take specialized legal theories that defy the logic that ordinary educated folks learned in their high school and college courses to justify why negotiations are unfair. The presumption of free choice? Either party can refuse to sign a prenup that she/he considers unfair. There must be some wonderful legal legerdemain logic to assert that the parties do not have "free choice."

So some lawyers want agreed to and duly signed prenuptial contracts voided due to concerns about power and free choice?  The alternative to implementing terms of a negotiated contract is imposing non-negotiated contract terms using  the power of the government. Imposed contracts would seem to be the epitome of using power to prevent people from exercising free choice in the contracts that they enter into. Doesn't this seem a little "ass backwards" considering the power and free choice comments leveled against negotiated contracts?

Some of the attacks on prenuptial contracts actually resort to asserting that women are irrational when it comes to marriage and their judgment cannot be trusted. Instead, it is apparently up to the government to protect women from women's irrationality. According to "Feminist Relational Contract Theory," marriage contracts are questionable when there are issues of "bounded rationality."
( Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice: Issues of Power in Theory and Practice, by Sharon Thompson page 167) 

"Bounded rationality affects the parties' ability to think clearly about protecting themselves financially on divorce in the early stages of a relationship, which stages are often marked by altruism and commitment."

Fifth Epicycle

When prenuptial contracts are not enforced, the only reasonable option for men that consider the default marriage entitlements that they must provide outrageous, is not to get married. But even this option is under attack in many places and has been effectively eliminated in British Columbia.

Lest one believe that "free choice" is meaningful when it does not suit the marriage entitlement ideology, consider that some women want to force providing  marriage entitlement responsibilities upon men even if the men do not marry and publicly eschew marriage.



(See “A Feminist Proposal to Bring Back Common Law Marriage” by Cynthia Grant Bowman. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=facpub )

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

Far from "free choice," recent entitlement ideologues use the ultimate in power, government power, to force their entitlement ideology upon men. For more comments on this see:

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

Repeating a previous comment that is relevant here:
The old marriage entitlement theory was based on women being less competent than men and incapable of negotiating for themselves. Despite overwhelming evidence that women are every bit as competent and capable as men, today's ideologues support these entitlements as if they were sacred. Any attempt to modify or even question these entitlements is treated almost as heresy by today's legal ideologues.
The entitlement ideologues are back to asserting that women are not rational and competent enough to make decisions for themselves because of "bounded rationality."

Summary 

The real "principle" of the marriage entitlement ideology is :
Whenever men figure out how to protect themselves under the current set of rules, the rules need to be changed to block if possible, or at a  minimum impede, that protection.

Secondary Comments on "Defending Gold Diggers"

Secondary Comments on "Defending Gold Diggers"

With reference to:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312323873_In_Defence_of_the_%27Gold-Digger%27

https://orca.cf.ac.uk/89315/1/Sharon%20Thompson%20In%20Defence%20of%20the%20Gold%20Digger%20final%20July%202016.pdf

https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/08/defending-gold-diggers.html


Gold diggers are a consequence of non-negotiated default marital entitlements that reward some women for no reason other than that they "married well."  Provided they "married well," what are they actually required to do for their "entitlement?"  Men don't generally label women as gold diggers unless the women appear to have unfairly profited from the marriage while giving little in return. I have never heard a woman referred to as a "gold digger" when there has been a negotiated prenuptial agreement. If every marriage had an agreed upon written contract, the term "gold digger" would largely disappear. There would be no need to "defend gold diggers," as there would be no gold diggers.

Although negotiated contracts are standard outside of marriage and widely recognized as the only fair way to produce a contract, many family lawyers object to negotiated marriage contracts. It is clear that the reason they object is that their clients don't do as well in a negotiated contract as in a government imposed contract.

 In negotiated contracts the parties have some contractual  benefits and some contractual obligations.  But, provided a woman "marries well" under default law, she gets many marital entitlements, with essentially no enforceable obligations.  This is a level playing field? Apparently according to "Feminist Relational Contract Theory," marriage contracts are questionable when there are issues of "bounded rationality."
( Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice: Issues of Power in Theory and Practice, by Sharon Thompson page 167) 

"Bounded rationality affects the parties' ability to think clearly about protecting themselves financially on divorce in the early stages of a relationship, which stages are often marked by altruism and commitment."

Reading this quote one might assume that there should be issues of "bounded rationality" for a moneyed man signing a default marriage contract? He indeed is very likely not to be thinking clearly enough about protecting himself financially in a divorce if he agrees to such an incredibly one-sided contract. She is surely getting financial entitlements from him, but what is he getting? Can he later invoke "Feminist Relational Contract Theory" to get himself out of a one-sided contract that, in practice, foists enforceable contractual obligations on him and no enforceable contractual obligations on her?

All of this could be easily solved with say a dozen standard marriage contracts to choose from ranging from contracts that women love and men hate, to contracts that men love and women hate, and everything in between. There are many conceptions of "fair" and a couple should sign a contract that both consider suitable enough. It is quite likely that the resulting marriage contract will be a compromise, giving neither party exactly what they desire. If the parties cannot agree on a suitable contract, then this is a very clear indication that their value systems are incompatible and they should not get married.

Perhaps things are better in England than America, but in America there is a subset of women who just cannot tolerate it when a man is able freely to negotiate for himself. There is almost always some highly questionable excuse to justify limiting men's freedom to negotiate. If a man is able to negotiate a better marriage contract than the default marriage contract then there is a "power imbalance" or the "playing field is not level." Or "bounded rationality," etc.

Binding Prenuptial Contracts in Scotland versus Catch-22 Prenuptial Contracts in England

I had a civil and pleasant exchange of ideas with Dr Russell Sandberg about prenuptial contracts in England and Scotland.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Russell_Sandberg


Dr Russell Sandberg  had concerns about binding prenups (which Scotland allows) and changing circumstances:

" I think my point would be that the level playing field may well exist at the time when the pre-nup is signed but that things may change as the relationship develops."

I replied:

Things change in all kinds of nonmarital contract situations, but one still has to abide by the contract in almost all other situations. Nonmarital contracts often have provisions for changing circumstances, but these have to be specified at the time the contract is signed and not simply made up later. Given that most of the "possible changes" are well-known, the terms under these possible changes can be specified in the prenuptial contract. Specifying the terms for the ten (one hundred?) most common relationship changes would provide clarity for almost all common changes.

They may be rare, but there may be changes not specified in the prenuptial contract. Or, perhaps one party simply changes her/his mind about the prenuptial contract? Scottish Law apparently has this situation covered as well because post-nuptial contracts are allowed. So, if one spouse does not want to be bound in the future by a prenuptial contract, that spouse can ask to renegotiate a new contract. If no agreement on a new contract can be reached, then the parties divorce under the existing conditions of the currently signed agreement. This sounds fair and reasonable. The moneyed spouse is protected by the prenuptial agreement. The non-moneyed spouse is protected by the ability to terminate the prenuptial contract any time she/he wishes , either by renegotiation or divorce. Thus, there is no reason for either spouse to be bound by a prenuptial contract for longer than it takes to file appropriate papers to renegotiate or divorce.

Scotland has it right.



According to Dr Russell Sandberg, English law does not permit a binding prenuptial contract. English courts uphold the prenup

" ... unless in the circumstances prevailing it would not be fair to hold the parties to their agreement."

I replied as below.

I wish the English luck with keeping the judgement of what "would not be fair" from legal creep. I suspect such a provision in the hands of American lawyers would quickly result in a catch-22 situation where the prenup would be voided whenever it would be truly useful. As long as the prenup did not have much effect, it would be in effect. But, because the government's preconceived prejudice is that the default contract is "fair," then any major deviation is, you guessed it, "unfair." For an American lawyer this would be like shooting fish in a barrel. (No offense intended to English lawyers.) When the prenup would cause a major difference from the default situation without the prenup, then the prenup would not be allowed to be in effect. Perhaps this would work better in England than in America though?

At a minimum, the spouse A who no longer wants to be bound by the agreement should be required to communicate that in a verifiable manner as soon as possible. The other spouse B should not learn about the "unfairness" or "non-level playing field" ten years afterward when spouse A is trying to have the prenup thrown out or modified, and B can do nothing about it. B doesn't have the choice of making things more to A's liking or divorcing if no agreement can be reached. This is outrageously unfair to spouse B as spouse A is then attempting to impose a different contract that has never even been discussed. Spouse A has legal representation before agreeing to the prenup contract, but spouse B can have a contract foisted upon spouse B with no knowledge, no consent, nor warning.

The English Law might make some sense if any claimed unfairness were restricted to a month, perhaps at most a year, before the divorce. One reasonable solution would be for any prenup to be reaffirmed or renegotiated on a yearly basis.

Comments on "Common Defects of the Divorce Bill and Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill 2016-17"

I read the article:


Common Defects of the Divorce Bill and Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality)
Bill 2016-17



http://orca.cf.ac.uk/99619/1/Sharon%20Thompson%20and%20Russell%20Sandberg_Common%20Defects%20of%20the%20Divorce%20Bill%20and%20the%20Arbitration%20and%20Mediation%20Services%20Equality%20Bill%20%5B2017%5D%20Family%20Law%20447.pdf

This article (and others) appear on researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sharon_Thompson16



"One of Baroness Deech’s most persuasive assertions is that her Bill follows a legal system
with proven success – Scotland. She argues England and Wales should seek to emulate
success of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 by dividing matrimonial property equally and
by making prenuptial agreements binding. The 1985 Act’s effectiveness is supported by
Mair, Mordaunt and Wasoff’s insightful research, which indicates broad satisfaction among
Scottish practitioners with the legislation"

But, despite the "broad satisfaction," the authors attack the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 because it seems inappropriate to the authors in some circumstances. A few things are noteworthy:

1. Despite disparaging prenuptial contracts:

https://orca.cf.ac.uk/89315/1/Sharon%20Thompson%20In%20Defence%20of%20the%20Gold%20Digger%20final%20July%202016.pdf

the currrent article is an admission that default family law is not appropriate in all circumstances.

2. The Scottish Law allows binding prenuptial agreements, so that the law provides a way to modify the law in consideration of the circumstances.

3. The authors object to the Scottish Law even though they can freely negotiate modifications to address the circumstances that concern them.

4. What the authors apparently prefer is family law that, by default, addresses the circumstances that concern the authors while simultaneously forbidding prenuptial modifications to address circumstances that others deem unfair in the default.

5. "Indeed, limiting financial provision in a way that affects caregiving spouses reinforces structural inequalities between men and women in the family."  Scottish law would allow a prenuptial modification to alleviate this concern. But, the authors are against prenuptial contracts?

6. Note that prenuptial contracts can be worthwhile because of the very jurisdictional issues the authors raise. For example, although a woman might find the default family law in England suitable and appropriate to her circumstances, if she divorces in Scotland she would (apparently) be subject to a default family law that is far less generous to her.



So although the authors' own arguments indicate that default family law is not appropriate (see 5 and 6 above) in some circumstances, allowing people to negotiate modifications seems to be anathema to the authors. The preferred solution seems to be to have the government impose family law results that are so generous to women that it would be impossible to achieve those results by negotiation.  Indeed attorneys representing (non-moneyed) women are vehemently against prenuptail contracts (For example https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/10/comments-on-ten-things-i-hate-about_29.html ). This is excellent evidence that the attorneys believe that the default law is so generous to women that the attorneys could never hope to negotiate more, nor even as much.

Note that one common trick when disparaging prenuptial contracts is to state some "what if" circumstance that one perceives as a problem. Instead of viewing the circumstance as a point for negotiation, the trick is to label the entire prenuptial contract as "unfair" and refuse to negotiate on the "what if" items. With the entire prenuptial contract labelled as "unfair," the attempt is then made to revert to the default contract without bothering to discuss the "unfair" aspects of the default contract.

It boggles the imagination to assert that some family law contract is "fair" when what could not be achieved by negotiation must be imposed via the heavy hand of the government. It is probably no coincidence that women are generally more interested in marriage than men. Many men see marriage as the government imposing onerous financial obligations on them. In contrast, provided a woman marries a more moneyed man ("marries well"), she would seemingly have essentially no enforceable legal obligations toward him? Is it a big surprise that men are more "commitment phobic" than women?

With respect to men and marriage, the society often imposes almost tyrannical laws against men. Apparently too few people were getting married in British Columbia because of the negative consequences of marriage. Rather than change the laws so that marriage was not so awful a choice, so that more men might actually want to get married, British Columbia effectively forced unwilling men to be spouses. Once the heavy hand of the government forced men to be spouses, then the government could impose the onerous consequences of marriage that caused the men to eschew marriage in the first place. In British Columbia "no means no," except when a man says no to marriage. This seems very tyrannical?


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

Defending Gold Diggers?

I read the article:

https://orca.cf.ac.uk/89315/1/Sharon%20Thompson%20In%20Defence%20of%20the%20Gold%20Digger%20final%20July%202016.pdf

and left a comment on the following site:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sharon_Thompson16

Specifically on the article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312323873_In_Defence_of_the_%27Gold-Digger%27?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=WrQ1k8im0OWVxbfo6sYa8UpyAfDKEARpW6kW&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfhpi&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BstandardItemCount%5D=3&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BuserSelectedItemCount%5D=0&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BtopHighlightCount%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BtopHighlightIndex%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BfeaturedItem1of1%5D=1&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A312323873&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle



The article makes a number of reasonable comments about the "gold-digger" stereotype, but the article's discussion of prenuptial contracts is simplistic and illogical. Perhaps the author will address the issues I raise in a subsequent article.

In my comments, I will assume, as the article does, that the woman is the less-moneyed spouse.


I agree with the article that gold-digging accusations are problematical.  The woman may have good reasons for negotiating terms that are beneficial to her.  The fact that a woman seeks beneficial terms in a negotiation for herself, by itself, is not wrong nor evidence of gold-digging. Neither is it wrong that a man seeks beneficial terms in a negotiation  for himself. The entire tone of this article is that somehow it is fair for a woman to negotiate beneficial terms but unfair for the man to do the same?  The author should explain why it is justifiable to impugn a man's character.


The article says

" ... a woman's reason for marriage, should not be questioned any more than a man's
and these reasons should not justify scepticism towards wives in receipt of the
financial share to which they are entitled on divorce."

The "financial share to which they are entitled on divorce" depends on the marriage contract that is signed. If both sign a standard marriage contract instead of a prenuptial contract, then they have both agreed to let the court decide the entitlement. If both sign a prenuptial contract, then they have both agreed to the terms in that contract. A man's reason for wanting a prenuptial agreement to ensure the financial share to which each of them is entitled on divorce should likewise" not justify scepticism" towards the man.

The article attempts to justify why it is alright for a woman, but not for a man, to seek beneficial terms by talking about "power" and "inequalities." This makes about as much sense as a home buyer in a seller's market complaining that the seller had more "power" because demand exceeded supply and thus produced an "inequality" whereby the seller was asking an "unfair" price for his house. Just as nobody is forcing the buyer to buy the house at a price the buyer considers "unfair," nobody is forcing a woman to sign a prenuptail contract that she considers "unfair."

Perhaps this UK article's mention of "power" is akin to some complaints I hear in the US about a woman being "forced" to sign a prenuptial contract.  When a man refuses to marry without a prenuptial contract, and the woman signs the contract, some people say that "he forced her to sign a prenuptial contract."  On the other hand, if a woman refuses to marry unless the man signs a standard contract, the same people don't say that "she forced him to sign a standard marriage contract."  Nobody has the power to force either person to sign a voluntary contract.


One more thing that I agree with is that it is usually a ridiculous notion to talk about both parties wanting the prenuptial agreement. Usually the man wants the prenuptial agreement while the woman would prefer the standard contract. On the other hand, it is probably true that both parties do not want the standard marriage contract. The language needs to be cleaned up and made consistent with the facts. For example, simply say that both parties have agreed to the prenuptial contract or both parties have agreed to the standard contract.

Much of the article's attack on prenuptial contracts in the UK is the same as the type of attacks as in the USA. For my thoughts on prenuptial contract attacks in the USA, see:
https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/10/comments-on-ten-things-i-hate-about_29.html

To see the advice I give to young men about marriage and prenuptial agreements see:
https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2015/11/what-people-especially-wealthy-people.html

For the record, I note that my technical expertise is in Monte Carlo methods and especially in fair game theory. See:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Booth4

Scientist / Male Stripper

In 1984 I took a trip to Australia and went scuba diving on the Great Barrier Reef. (Among other tourist activities in Australia.)  I took a sea plane to the dive boat (110 feet I think) that was anchored by the Great Barrier Reef.  It turned out that the scuba diving was interrupted by the skipper's desire to attend the "Airlie Beach Fun Race." The boat sailed into Airlie Beach for the race.

Some details are given here:
http://www.thecoastalpassage.com/papers/TCP39.pdf

As noted in the articles, many (most?) of the boats in 1984 had topless "figureheads" on the bowsprit. Even the anchored boats had topless figureheads. I visited some of the boats and asked the figureheads to pose for photographs, which they all did.

When I returned to Los Alamos, I brought my photos to the nearby honky-tonk so that my honky-tonk friends could see my Australian trip photos. Before the band started at "The Line Camp,"  I started showing my photos. Some of the guys were marveling appreciatively  (The place was so loved that even 30 years later, it was celebrated. There is a 126 page  downloadable "scrap book" here
http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/ref/collection/Manuscripts/id/10571 )
The gals did not seem as appreciative.

Several of the regular honky-tonk gals in the group asked me why there were no naked photos of myself.  I looked at them in astonished amusement and said that "I don't think anybody was interested." Now, in 1984 suggesting that women and men were not interested in the same things often brought up an immediate negative reaction. Well, these women swore that they were interested in seeing me naked.  They pointed out that women went to strip shows to watch men just like men went to strip shows to watch women.  I could see that it was pointless to verbally challenge their beliefs.  Instead, I said that "Okay, you arrange a party with a group of women and I will strip for them."  One woman went so far as to bring a Frederick's of Hollywood catalog and help me select some appropriate attire for my performance. She told me that the appropriate attire was part of the deal. So, I bought the attire and waited for the women to inform as to the time and place of the performance.

I had a membership in a book club and the club offered a free "rubber stamp" for the sender's postal mail. So, embarking on my new career as a male stripper, I ordered a rubber stamp that said

Thomas E. Booth
Scientist / Male Stripper
Monte Carlo / Female Parties
address and phone number

I then used this rubber stamp to print this information on the back of junk business cards from other people. I didn't want to order my own business cards as I did not believe there would be much need, despite the honky-tonk gals' emphatic assertions.

It is a good thing that I did not quit my day job because even with a free performance that these women emphatically said they wanted, the women never actually scheduled a time and a place. So much for the assertions that men and women were the same about these things.

I kept one of the business cards in my wallet for 5 or 6 years so that whenever I heard some woman claim nonsense about men and women being the same about this type of thing, I could hand out the card as a way of saying BS (bovine scatology). Over those years I must have handed out perhaps 30-50 cards and never had a single taker.

After the first couple of times, I would say to a woman that brought up women and male strippers that "sure, women go to strip shows with 22 year old muscular hunks, but women would not be interested in ordinary guys, like myself, stripping." (I was 32 at the start of my "stripping career".) Of course, those were almost fighting words in those days and the women would immediately say that they were interested in watching ordinary guys, like myself, strip at a party. At that point I would pull out my business card and hand it to them for a free show at a party they organized. The women typically eyed the card with astonishment and were speechless.  No takers.

In my view, this "put up or shut up" approach was very clear evidence that the reality was quite different from the assertions. Fortunately, I did not quit my day job.

The Liberal Democrats' Demographic Smugness

Before the 2016 national elections, many liberal Democrats displayed a smugness that the demographics were on their side. What is truly amazing is that some liberal friends still have this demographic smugness about future elections.

Two points are worth considering:

1. Although the country is becoming less "white," it is not becoming less male. Even immigrants and non-whites are roughly half male. Unless the Democratic Party starts focusing on "men's issues" as well as "women's issues," some men of all ethnicities will drift away from the Democratic Party.
2. Liberal Democrats seem to assume that the Republican Party will not make adjustments because of the demographics. With Trump, Hispanic voters shifted Democratic. But, imagine if the Republicans stop trash talking immigrants and run Latino candidates? A lot of immigrants run small businesses and certain parts of the Republican platform might look appealing.

Atheist Community of San Jose Concerning Women Against Male Empowerment

In my quibble with the Atheist Community of San Jose (ACSJ) over whether ACSJ should tie itself so closely to the women's movement, I was wrong on one key point. Some background is needed. Here is the ACSJ posting:


https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply

Note the comment below about "empower everyone."

"The Women's March is a national movement to unify and empower everyone who stands for human rights, civil liberties, and social justice for all. We gather in community to find healing and strength through tolerance, civility, and compassion. We welcome all people to join us as we unite locally and nationally. Join us on January 21st."

Me:
This is out of place. What does this have to do with atheism?
As far as "empower everyone," I cannot think of any way that the women's movement has empowered me.

ACSJ member:
"I think you're looking for a MRA forum." (There were more moderate clarifying comments, but this was his very first sentence directed at me. One can find his full comments on the link. Google MRA for greater clarity about possible intentions for his comment.)


Me: (In a comment to a different ACSJ member from the one immediately above.)
I don't think that the one male empowerment group that I am associated with would bother anybody.

For the record, I give money to the "Male Contraception Initiative" that allows men to control their fertility. I suppose that this "empowers" men, but apparently some women are bothered by this and see this not as "empowering men" but rather as "disempowering women." So, my comment to the Atheist Community of San Jose apparently is not true. I was wrong on this key point.

For example, consider this article ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11693171/Five-reasons-why-the-male-pill-isnt-coming-any-time-soon.html )

When launched at the 1974 World Health Conference in Budapest, religious groups voiced concern and feminists staged a boycott, storming Coutinho’s presentation and demanding that only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood.

Think attitudes have changed? Don't be so sure. Not long ago feminist site Jezebel dubbed the idea "whore pills for men", while Angela Phillips wrote in The Guardian that "the bigger issue behind the development of a contraceptive pill for men is that women risk losing control of conception".

 (See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepillwomensloss )
"Sometimes it is not so much convincing him as presenting him with a fait accompli - just letting nature take its course." I do not know what percentage of women have this view, but I have heard comments from women (about other women) that "she got pregnant  'accidentally on purpose.' " Apparently this is not just my limited experience. Google "pregnant accidentally on purpose. "

So, not only am I unaware of anything the women's movement has done to "empower men," it seems that a vocal fraction (presumably a small minority?) specifically want to prevent men from being empowered to make choices about parenthood.  How else should one interpret the demand  that "only women – not men – should be making choices about parenthood"?

Yes, yes, I know that these women do not speak for all women, but this is the reason that people should support "women's movements" only on specific issues and not as a blanket endorsement. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1251868/Of-course-women-dont-want-male-pill--end-happy-little-accidents.html

http://jezebel.com/5059686/getting-knocked-up-accidentally-on-purpose-is-all-the-rage-in-london

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1162248/Kate-Spicer-getting-pregnant-night-stand-happy-mistake.html

Reasons for Quitting the Atheist Community of San Jose

(This probably will not make sense except to members of the Atheist Community of San Jose as there probably will not be enough context. https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply)

The following is in response to comments from two ACSJ members (public postings on the ACSJ meetup.com website) concerning not "splintering" the atheist community because of disagreements over whether or not ACSJ was endorsing the women's movement.

Technically, there was no official endorsement. However, I think almost anybody from the women's movement would interpret the postings and commentary (see: https://www.meetup.com/Atheist-Community-of-San-Jose/events/236999896/?comment_table_id=250353695&comment_table_name=reply ) as an endorsement from ACSJ. Similarly, I think almost anybody who opposed any part of the women's movement would see it as an endorsement of those parts they opposed as well as those parts they agreed with. Perhaps I am wrong in my assessment. I tried to explain my assessment in a private email to the two aforementioned members. Except for replacing some names with letters, here is my email:


=======================================================

Thank you both for being considerate and respectful. 

 My sense is that, despite its mission statement, ACSJ already has been operating as a de facto "progressive" atheist society. 

 First, X comments: [note Head of the group. ]

 "However, as individuals, we know that atheists often care about progressive movements, so members will often post them (or ask that we post them) for other members to potentially join." Note that he could have simply said "other movements" rather than "progressive movements." 

 Second, Y comments that the reason for not carrying the ACSJ banner is that it is awkward in the wind, not a concern about a blanket ACSJ endorsement of the women's movement. 

 Third, there were no comments sympathetic to the idea that ACSJ should be acting consistent with its mission statement and not giving blanket endorsements. 

 To be fair, people were quite clear that not attending was OK. But, for me it has much of the same character and feel as opening city council meetings by asking people to stand and pray because most people at the meeting are religious. Nobody is going to force an atheist to stand, but having the prayer at all shows government endorsement of religion, which would seem to be at odds with the government's own stated principles in the Constitution. 

 Tom

===========================================================

I received a private email response from one of the two aforementioned members. The first paragraph of the person's (Z) response was a restatement that there was no "blanket endorsement." We disagree, no problem to me. Maybe Z is even right in a very technical sense. That was part of the reason I tried to explain my publicly posted comments.

The second paragraph conveys two things. First, it is more or less an attack on me. (Indeed in the third paragraph Z indicates that it may "sound offensive.") Second, Z seems to have appointed Z to speak for the membership of ACSJ and Z indicates that there is "us" and "you." Inasmuch as I wasn't part of "us," Z seems to take umbrage that I had the temerity to express a different opinion than "us."

Z's email certainly added additional evidence to me that ACSJ was a de facto "progressive" atheist organization and, at least Z, had little tolerance for atheists who were not "progressive."

I suggest that Z give me permission to make Z's email public and Z make it public as well. Presumably, as a speaker for the correct thinking "us,"  Z should have no objection. 

Perhaps the thing that most disturbs me is not Z's intolerance of my assessment, not Z's self-appointment as a speaker for "us", but rather the fact that Z may, in fact, speak for the ACSJ membership. 

Inasmuch as "you" is not part of "us," it makes little sense to belong to ACSJ for much longer.

Muslim discrimination: Trump versus George Washington

President Washington:

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

The Democratic Party, Men, and Winning Future Elections

First, for the record note that I have no special political expertise,  so my assessments are likely incomplete and at least partly wrong. Second, to the extent that I am wrong, I have lots of company from high-level political experts. These experts miscalculated the electorate so badly that Trump won, despite being so flawed that even the Republican Party had trouble supporting him. They neither liked him, nor trusted him, nor agreed with his bigotry, nor believed he could win the election. Trump's assessment of the electorate, despite essentially no political expertise or experience, beat the highfalutin expertise of both Republican and Democratic political experts. So, if I am wrong, I have plenty of company.


Some of the post-election assessments of some of my more liberal friends seem almost designed to lose future elections. It may be that the country will endure scandal after scandal in the Trump era and fare so poorly economically and internationally that the Democrats can win elections even with their 2016 election strategies, but this is not guaranteed. When I pointed out that the Democratic Party might be having trouble getting men to vote Democratic because the Party's policies and rhetoric had basically ignored roughly half the electorate, I was told that the real reason that Democrats lost was because of male sexism.  ("Joe the plumber is afraid of women taking jobs that he thinks only men should have.")

Few deny that sexism exists nor that racism exists in America, but two points are worth noting:

1.  It is unlikely that these "isms"  are going away any time soon. The Democratic Party is going to have to win in spite of these "isms."  I do not believe that most American men think of themselves as "sexists." The lunatic (20% ?) fringe of the women's movement has had some success in squelching free expression when it offends the movement. (Trigger warnings, safe spaces, opposition to men's groups on college campuses, for example.) But despite the efforts of the women's lunatic fringe, men are still free to express themselves in some important ways.  One of these ways is voting. It is difficult to understand how many liberals' penchant for pejoratively describing men as "sexists" or harping on "male privilege" is going to help win men's votes. To many men this is an unjustified and slanderous attack. Whether or not you ascribe to the "male privilege" ideology, an undeniable fact is that men still have an equal right to vote. 
2. Unless one believes that sexism is a much more serious problem than racism in America (I do not), then the two elections that Obama won indicate that the Democrats can win elections in spite of the "isms." Perhaps it is not the most important difference between Obama's campaign and Clinton's campaign, but one significant difference is that Obama made few (zero?) comments about policies specifically to help black people. Clinton seemed to emphasize policies she  championed that were specifically designed to address women's issues and hardly ever (zero?) even mentioned policies to address men's issues. 

The Democratic Party seems to be ceding the men's vote to the Republican Party. I suspect many men now view the Democratic Party as the women's party whereas in the past the Democratic Party was often viewed as the common people's party. What evidence would the Party supply to convince men that the Party actually cared about men to even one tenth the degree that the Party cares about women? Maybe it goes against decades of tradition at this point, but maybe liberals could stop dissing men if only enough to get Democrats elected so that they can pursue policies to help women?

The following would help Democrats win male votes:

1. Stop dissing men. Encourage all Party members to drop the pejorative attacks on men borrowed from the lunatic fringe of the women's movement.
2. To win back a few male votes, it is probably enough for Democratic politicians to pretend to care about men's issues. If your website has a link (or email list) for comments on "women's issues," add a link (or email list) for comments on "men's issues." ( https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-democratic-party-and-men-one-good.html ) The software can be programmed to delete automatically any resulting comments about "men's issues,"  so a Democratic politician can still keep 100% focus on "women's issues." Still, it will look good and win at least a few extra votes.
3. If, even after making the efforts in steps 1 and 2, a Democratic politician still has concerns (say the polls look bad) about the male vote, a low level staff member could read the comments about "men's issues" and respond by saying that the politician thanks the constituent for the comments and would keep them in mind. This will, unfortunately, take some staff time away from "women's issues," but it need not take any of the politician's time. This will look even better than item 2 and win even more extra votes than item 2.
4. If even item 3 does not work well enough the politician may want to actually read the comments on "men's issues" and pretend to care by introducing a bill. Fortunately, unless the politician really spends significant time promoting the bill, the bill will never even make it out of committee. Inasmuch as the bill has no chance of becoming law, very little time, consideration, or effort need be expended to write a good bill. Even a very bad bill is good enough to give the appearance of caring. The attempt can at least be advertised on a website and pointed to if questions arise about what the politician has done to help men. This will look even better than item 3 and win even more extra votes than item 3.
5. It is somewhat drastic, and it breaks with decades of Democratic tradition,  but as a last resort, the politician might consider actually spending enough time, effort, and political capital to get at least one law passed addressing one "men's issue." With luck, the politician will still be able to partition effort between "women's issues" and "men's issues" at a 99% to 1% rate. This will gain many male votes out of all proportion to the effort involved because it will be a symbolic sign that "men's issues" will, at least sometimes, get more than  trickle down considerations via "women's issues." ( https://smolyhokes.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-democratic-partys-trickle-down.html )

In summary, if the Democratic Party wants to win more male votes it will help if it actually does something for men. The Party seems to understand winning female votes by doing things for women, but it seems to be a novel idea to win male votes by doing something for men.

The Democratic Party's "Trickle Down Consideration" of Men

As indicated in previous posts,

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

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

the Democratic Party seems to believe that, unlike women's issues, there are no men's issues that need attention or are even worth considering.

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.

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.

To borrow from a Democratic Party slam on "trickle down economics" in which lower income folks will do well when upper income folks do well, the Democratic Party's policy is that no focus on men's issues is necessary because a focus on women's issues alleviates any men's issues via "trickle down" effects. If there is a better explanation, I have not heard one yet.