Conservative or Otherwise Puritanical Hot Takes

[mister d]

Do places really care "what you want" in a divorce? The only one I have strong knowledge of its all math based; assets/wages pooled then divided based on custody percentage. His has varied back and forth between owing and getting.

[Shirley]

But in the offhand chance there's a person who both wants a fair wage AND a lot in the divorce, I don't feel bad for that person.

You can want a fair wage for your job and still make way less than your spouse. I don't get why these two things are connected for you.

[DaveInSeattle]

Do places really care "what you want" in a divorce? The only one I have strong knowledge of its all math based; assets/wages pooled then divided based on custody percentage. His has varied back and forth between owing and getting.

When I went through it, it boiled down to hard math. Assets, salary, and then looking up the tables to set the amount of Child Support paid.

And yes, the occasion of the last Child Support payment was a hap-hap-happy day. Now, instead of money going to my Ex, it's going to Gonzaga instead.

[Ryan]

Either way, it's gonna hurt in April

[Johnnie]

Do places really care "what you want" in a divorce? The only one I have strong knowledge of its all math based; assets/wages pooled then divided based on custody percentage. His has varied back and forth between owing and getting.

I think it's when kids are added to the equation that makes it bad. Several of my friends have been married and then divorced with no kids involved and it seems like a clean break.

You can want a fair wage for your job and still make way less than your spouse. I don't get why these two things are connected for you.

Ok, I get that, but in a circumstance like that is the 'I deserve more after this split because I make less' reasoning being used?

This type of take is based on what I saw as a kid. Watching my step dad go in and out of court with his ex wife just getting everything taken from him that scared me on the prospects of marriage. He couldn't even get a job without the state immediately garnishing wages for backpay. And his ex wife was loaded from old money. It really fucked me up because he wasn't allowed to see his kids (my step siblings) at all during this. Simultaneously, I don't know who my real dad is and I never got child support at all during my upbringing. I did watch my mom collect (and still collect) state benefits though.

Also, several military friends getting divorced along the way scared me too. Seeing dudes go through an entire military career, retire, and having their pensions go away is scary. It's why I put off marriage for so long and why I married someone that never wanted kids.

[Johnnie]

I don't get why these two things are connected for you.

Don't think I answered this.

In my big dumb brain I see a checklist of things that are good for you or privileged to you based on whatever.

In the column for women, "getting everything in a divorce" seemed to be a legit way that society OK'd as a way to make up the difference for "not being paid a fair wage." I took it as "she's getting free money based on someone's else's work."

Of course this excludes a mountain of nuance, but that's been my feeling for a very long time.

[Nonlinear FC]

I'm aware of 2 couples that didn't divorce solely because dividing everything up was going to cost them both too much. They are either separated or live in the same house but in different zones.

Oh, and the parents of one of my better friends who just lived together and suffered up until the dad just passed last year. She is a miserable person. He was the president of a bank and had a gazillion friends and just kept himself busy golfing and trying to avoid her.

[mister d]

I think it's when kids are added to the equation that makes it bad. Several of my friends have been married and then divorced with no kids involved and it seems like a clean break.

The one I'm talking about has a kid, but both work and have joint custody. If its just the guy working and he's only having custody every other weekend or something, I would think (obviously) he would pay support to either cover the ex not working or child care fees + his share of the overall cost of raising a kid. The flipside would be a lot worse, no?

I'm aware of 2 couples that didn't divorce solely because dividing everything up was going to cost them both too much. They are either separated or live in the same house but in different zones.

Not sure if I ever mentioned it here, but I've wondered why, atleast early in a cordial divorce, there isn't a setup where the kids stay in the house and the parents rotate between there and a small apartment. Seems both more cost effective and easier on the kids not having to shuttle back and forth.

[The Sybian]

I think it's when kids are added to the equation that makes it bad. Several of my friends have been married and then divorced with no kids involved and it seems like a clean break.

The one I'm talking about has a kid, but both work and have joint custody. If its just the guy working and he's only having custody every other weekend or something, I would think (obviously) he would pay support to either cover the ex not working or child care fees + his share of the overall cost of raising a kid. The flipside would be a lot worse, no?

I'm aware of 2 couples that didn't divorce solely because dividing everything up was going to cost them both too much. They are either separated or live in the same house but in different zones.

Not sure if I ever mentioned it here, but I've wondered why, atleast early in a cordial divorce, there isn't a setup where the kids stay in the house and the parents rotate between there and a small apartment. Seems both more cost effective and easier on the kids not having to shuttle back and forth.

I've thought about this too, but I imagine in most situations, having the other person living in your space and coming back to whatever they left out of place, didnt clean, etc... would guarantee to cause problems. Not to mention, how many times would you leave something you needed in the wrong place? I'm sure it could work in some situations...

[DaveInSeattle]

Not sure if I ever mentioned it here, but I've wondered why, atleast early in a cordial divorce, there isn't a setup where the kids stay in the house and the parents rotate between there and a small apartment. Seems both more cost effective and easier on the kids not having to shuttle back and forth.

Considering that my ex got to a point where she didn't even want me parking in her driveway when I was picking up/dropping off my kids, I don't see that as being feasible.

[mister d]

Yeah, yours never seemed within striking distance of "cordial". It would only work in very specific cases.

[Shirley]

A good rule of thumb is that there are NO legal systems in this country where men are systematically screwed in favor of women. If you think you see one, look closer.

(And of course you can replace those with white/non-white, Christian/non-Christian, citizen/immigrant, rich/poor, etc.)

[HaulCitgo]

Not to just argue but women are the birthers of the children so certain laws are based on who had the kid so it is necessarily in favor of women. Now please don't lump me with Johnny. He's just more honest than most. But custody is assumed for the woman but must be proven for gents if unmarried in this state. Now every state is different and if I made the laws id like to see individualized marriage compacts and mutual renewal terms like a lease but I'm a bit out there on that one. I assume most states child support is primarily calculation like Dave says and they don't split weeks on the house cause they need the cash from the house to get a more expensive apartment and pay a new girlfriend.

[Nonlinear FC]

I think it's when kids are added to the equation that makes it bad. Several of my friends have been married and then divorced with no kids involved and it seems like a clean break.

The one I'm talking about has a kid, but both work and have joint custody. If its just the guy working and he's only having custody every other weekend or something, I would think (obviously) he would pay support to either cover the ex not working or child care fees + his share of the overall cost of raising a kid. The flipside would be a lot worse, no?

I'm aware of 2 couples that didn't divorce solely because dividing everything up was going to cost them both too much. They are either separated or live in the same house but in different zones.

Not sure if I ever mentioned it here, but I've wondered why, atleast early in a cordial divorce, there isn't a setup where the kids stay in the house and the parents rotate between there and a small apartment. Seems both more cost effective and easier on the kids not having to shuttle back and forth.

I've thought about this too, but I imagine in most situations, having the other person living in your space and coming back to whatever they left out of place, didnt clean, etc... would guarantee to cause problems. Not to mention, how many times would you leave something you needed in the wrong place? I'm sure it could work in some situations...

Oh, I have 2 separate friends/acquaintances were the dude moved into an apartment kind of close by their respective houses. In one instance, one of the two kids lives with dad, the other is still home. In the other instance, the kids are no longer kids so it's just about visiting.

There's something about being kind of close that made it logistically better for the kids. I wouldn't say either of those is "cordial," but they are functional enough that it seems to have worked out.

[DaveInSeattle]

There's something about being kind of close that made it logistically better for the kids. I wouldn't say either of those is "cordial," but they are functional enough that it seems to have worked out.

My lawyer told me that I a) absolutely had to have my own 2 bedroom place (I crashed in a friends spare room for a few months), and b) to get it as close to the kid's school as possible. That would indicate to the Judge that I was a committed/involved parent when it came time for making up the parental schedule.

[Jerloma]

My ex-wife made way more money than me. I still ended up paying a fuckton. A lot was for buying her out of the house but I theoretically make that back on the sale. The big one was that because she'd been secretly raping her 401k for years, despite of the massive income gap, I managed to accumulate 350k more than her. That was the time I wrote a check for 175k. That's fun.

[P.D.X.]

Don't really have a dog in this but it should be pointed out that "marriage as a financial security strategy" is overwhelmingly practiced by one gender over the other.

[HaulCitgo]

My ex-wife made way more money than me. I still ended up paying a fuckton. A lot was for buying her out of the house but I theoretically make that back on the sale. The big one was that because she'd been secretly raping her 401k for years, despite of the massive income gap, I managed to accumulate 350k more than her. That was the time I wrote a check for 175k. That's fun.

Well most get to pay a lot for a QDRO for the pleasure of doing that. My fav is when the lawyer sends you to a different more expensive guy for the right to give away that kind of cash.

[Nonlinear FC]

I have one teed up about women's versus men's sports, but when I type it out it feels shitty to say.

(They're not the same and they don't deserve the same compensation.)

[The Sybian]

I have one teed up about women's versus men's sports, but when I type it out it feels shitty to say.

(They're not the same and they don't deserve the same compensation.)

I got in some heated arguments about the USWNT fighting for equal pay. While I agree they are severely underpaid, you can't compare the FIFA payouts for World Cup winners in Men's and Women's WC. First, it's FIFA paying, not the USSF. People comparing US TV viewership for the Women's WC and the 2018 Men's WC or the success of the US Women vs US Men are completely misguided. FIFA gives a share of profits to the teams based on global profits, not just US. And American's didn't watch the 2018 WC because the US wasn't in it, while we watch the Women's game because we expect to win. Viewership for the rest of the world is almost non-existent for the Women's game.

I don't have a problem paying the Women more, as the men make their money from their clubs, their fees for playing international games is a pittance compared to their salaries, and they play very few games. The Women seem to constantly be in camps and playing friendlies and very few make a decent wage at their clubs.

[mister d]

But isn't the point that investment has to come first, not that underpaid players have to build the infrastructure to justify increased pay?

[Nonlinear FC]

The point that feels shitty to type is that the women's game is an inferior product. Period. It's never going to be on the same level, just like with WNBA v. NBA.

So viewership and crowds and all of that isn't some global misogynistic conspiracy. It'd be one thing if folks like myself and Syb didn't watch a bunch of women's soccer and were just out of hand dismissing it. That's not the case for me, I can tell you. I watch a fair amount of NWSL and catch at least part of every WNT game. They are entertaining and enjoyable.

But it's insulting to folks like me to say the men and the women should get paid the same. It's silliness.

[mister d]

Not to get too deep into this one, but do you think women's tennis is inherently better or worse than men's?

[Nonlinear FC]

I actually think that's a great example of a sport where the difference is minimal and the action is roughly equivalent or negligible.

I ascribe the same entertainment value for women and men when it comes to gymnastics, track and field and the equivalent winter (olympic) sports (figure skating, skiing, bobsled, biathlon, etc.)

The skill level and speed of play for soccer, basketball and lacrosse is noticeable.

But, to be clear, I do watch (and enjoy) high level women's team sports. My point isn't that they suck, rather that folks trying to sell them as "the same" are full of nonsense.

[Brontoburglar]

But it's insulting to folks like me to say the men and the women should get paid the same. It's silliness.

who is making this universal argument?

[Nonlinear FC]

But it's insulting to folks like me to say the men and the women should get paid the same. It's silliness.

who is making this universal argument?

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-stat ... n-athletes

[mister d]

I ascribe the same entertainment value for women and men when it comes to gymnastics, track and field and the equivalent winter (olympic) sports (figure skating, skiing, bobsled, biathlon, etc.)

This was the point I was going towards ... tennis and the sports you listed are usually considered the ones where the sports are on par, but the same gaps still exist. Men serve harder, run/skate/ski faster, jump higher in all of those too but its not seen as creating the same obvious gap. Its just different and each are appreciated for what they are. The goal of the WNBA isn't to be the NBA, but to have a sibling league that reflects and speaks better to 50% of the could-be viewing public. Like my oldest plays softball and watches the Yankees, but if there were a true women's pro softball league with equal investment, I have no doubt she'd prefer that.

[mister d]

To be fair, I'll also point out that my viewing is probably no different than yours. I'll follow the USWNT and like a basketball game if there's some buzz, but I don't actively follow any pro or college women's sports. I also assume our generation is too old to make material changes and we won't be the target demo either way; the best we're going to do is encourage or not discourage.

[Brontoburglar]

But it's insulting to folks like me to say the men and the women should get paid the same. It's silliness.

who is making this universal argument?

https://www.espn.com/soccer/united-stat ... n-athletes

why did you bring up the WNBA and NBA? that's a completely separate discussion

[Brontoburglar]

it feels common sense that all national team members of a specific country should make the same per-sport wage from the country they're representing. I don't understand how that's controversial at all.

[Nonlinear FC]

I really don't feel like writing out an 800 word response. The arguments on both sides of this issue are out there if you are curious. I'm fine with equity, but they are (seemingly) operating in a vacuum in terms of the economics of the sport on a global scale. If the men advance to the knockout stages at a WC, the pay out from Fifa dwarves that of what happens on the women's side.

That's not a US Soccer being shitty thing, that is global football economics. I'm also fine that they renegotiated their deal, but at the onset, they wanted equal pay AND they wanted the security of having a salaried, guaranteed position within USSF. Starting from that standpoint was pretty annoying, so I'm glad it worked out in the end.

[HaulCitgo]

Softball a great example. Modified the rules considerably to create a better game for women. In theory that's why wnba sucks. But then tennis. Exact same game just better

[Nonlinear FC]

I ascribe the same entertainment value for women and men when it comes to gymnastics, track and field and the equivalent winter (olympic) sports (figure skating, skiing, bobsled, biathlon, etc.)

This was the point I was going towards ... tennis and the sports you listed are usually considered the ones where the sports are on par, but the same gaps still exist. Men serve harder, run/skate/ski faster, jump higher in all of those too but its not seen as creating the same obvious gap. Its just different and each are appreciated for what they are. The goal of the WNBA isn't to be the NBA, but to have a sibling league that reflects and speaks better to 50% of the could-be viewing public. Like my oldest plays softball and watches the Yankees, but if there were a true women's pro softball league with equal investment, I have no doubt she'd prefer that.

It is all, of course, subjective. As is all entertainment. And I'm fine with the entertainment value prop: A sport/book/movie/tv show that collects a mass audience and brings in a tipping point amount of investment (tv revenue, corporate sponsors, stadium proceeds, etc) means the entertainers get paid commensurate to those factors. And the reverse is also true.

I would also posit that in many of the sports we are talking about Olympics, X and Winter X Games, the skill level required to do ANY of that stuff is off the charts and so, yeah, a woman doing a double backflip after pounding through a series of moguls might not be as impressive as the speed and difficulty of jump a man could do... But it's fucking impressive either way.

[The Sybian]

it feels common sense that all national team members of a specific country should make the same per-sport wage from the country they're representing. I don't understand how that's controversial at all.

Even in the rest of the world where the Men's teams sell out huge stadiums and sell tons of merch and the Women's teams get 500 fans to show up if they are lucky? Outside of the US and in very recent years a handful of European countries, there was zero interest in Women's international soccer. To some extent, there should be a correlation to revenue generation. And I hope you wouldn't argue that FIFA should pay the winning teams the same amount for the Women's WC winner as the Men's.

[A_B]

I think that would be fine.

[Brontoburglar]

it feels common sense that all national team members of a specific country should make the same per-sport wage from the country they're representing. I don't understand how that's controversial at all.

Even in the rest of the world where the Men's teams sell out huge stadiums and sell tons of merch and the Women's teams get 500 fans to show up if they are lucky? Outside of the US and in very recent years a handful of European countries, there was zero interest in Women's international soccer. To some extent, there should be a correlation to revenue generation. And I hope you wouldn't argue that FIFA should pay the winning teams the same amount for the Women's WC winner as the Men's.

the easiest answer to all of this is to tie competition revenue into bonus structures while keeping the base pay -- the wage -- the same. seems pretty straightforward. there's no justifiable reason to tell a woman (or man) that their work to make an international team is worth less at a base rate than it is for the other gender.

[Johnnie]

These last few posts reminded me of this Bill Burr bit:

[EnochRoot]

Not to get too deep into this one, but do you think women's tennis is inherently better or worse than men's?

I’ll bite.

When tennis isn’t about brute force it’s one of the best sports on the planet to watch, regardless of gender.

[The Sybian]

Not to get too deep into this one, but do you think women's tennis is inherently better or worse than men's?

I’ll bite.

When tennis isn’t about brute force it’s one of the best sports on the planet to watch, regardless of gender.

I prefer women’s tennis, and only partly because i have a thing for tennis skirts.

[EnochRoot]

Not to get too deep into this one, but do you think women's tennis is inherently better or worse than men's?

I’ll bite.

When tennis isn’t about brute force it’s one of the best sports on the planet to watch, regardless of gender.

I prefer women’s tennis, and only partly because i have a thing for tennis skirts.

Turn up the sound, and pour yourself a drink.