Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Marriage is for white people"

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#71

Post by nopassrecover »

jacquesm wrote: post #27
nopassrecover wrote: post #10

What is the American obsession with race? I'm sure there's a more useful explanation behind these rates (perhaps family tradition of marriage, income, place of living etc. etc.).

That's definitely not uniquely American, racism is unfortunately alive and well all over the world. Skin colour is the single item you can tell about a person at 100 meters distance, even before you can tell their gender. That makes it a prime candidate for differentiation and differentiation is a first step towards racism. If everybody would be born exactly the same shade of medium brown as of tomorrow I'm sure we'd…

Racism certainly isn't, but I think the making a big point about race is. In Australia and the U.K. for instance, I don't think you would (at least in the media) focus on the different marriage rates between races.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#72

Post by DaniFong »

defen wrote: post #43
DaniFong wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty warped depiction of 'the feminist narrative,' and in any case exceptions don't make the rule. In California, in the 1850's, for example, it was determined that any property of a married woman's was legally the property of her husband. Therefore the hundreds of entrepreneurial and successful women land or business owners were suddenly rendered legally and financially dependent on their husbands. Only s…

The copy of "The Age of Gold" by H.W. Brands sitting in front of me says you are wrong about married women's property in 1850's California. From the soft cover, pg. 283, regarding the constitutional convention held in Monterey in 1849: `A proposal to permit women to keep control of their property upon marrying led to discussion of the relative merits of the common-law and civil-law traditions. "I am not wedded either…

I'm not an expert in the area: my reference is an old copy of the SF Argonaut I found in the doctor's office. There it said that the majority of independently wealthy women in the early days of San Francisco were single or widowed, and the 1850's were the timeline they gave. However, I may have confused it as the point at which married women could enter into business under their own name. I did a little more digging.

The Legislative Act entitled "Act To Authorize Married Women To Transact Business In Their Own Name, As Sole Traders," was passed into law by the California State Legislature on April 12, 1852. California State Printing Office Index to the Laws of California, i850-1920 (Sacramento, 1921).

Subject to some restrictions - only married California women-not single, widowed, or divorced women-were required to publicly declare their commercial intentions and to limit their investment to $5,000 or less. Some argue that such restrictions limited women's personal, financial, and commercial freedom and, as such, underscored their dependent legal status.

In any case, the laws of California were rather advanced compared to the common law, and advanced compared to other states.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#73

Post by billswift »

fatdog789 wrote: post #39
skwaddar wrote: post #5

Blacks and their slavery shoulder chip, GET OVER IT Newsflash : "more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas" http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT http://www.scoilgaeilge.org/academics/slaves.htm From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ire…

Actually, the Irish were sold not as slaves but as life-term indentured servants. It's a crucial difference, legally (if not practically) -- indentured servants were treated as people, not property.

I remember reading something (it was decades ago and I can't remember the source) that said indentured servants, especially short-term indentured, were treated worse than slaves. The slaves were an investment, as were their offspring, where indentured servants' children were free and short-term indentured (the more common kind) had to be freed at the end of their term, so their masters tended to use them up since they would shortly become valueless to the masters. That was also why Irish immigrants (free men) were used to build the railroads, the work was too dangerous for slaves, since they were a substantial investment of their owners. (The last part about the railroads is common in many libertarian books and I think, but am not sure, that it was in Fogel and Engerman's "Time on the Cross", an economic history of slavery.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#74

Post by fatdog789 »

billswift wrote: post #73
fatdog789 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the Irish were sold not as slaves but as life-term indentured servants. It's a crucial difference, legally (if not practically) -- indentured servants were treated as people, not property.

I remember reading something (it was decades ago and I can't remember the source) that said indentured servants, especially short-term indentured, were treated worse than slaves. The slaves were an investment, as were their offspring, where indentured servants' children were free and short-term indentured (the more common kind) had to be freed at the end of their term, so their masters tended to use them up since the…

People generally are treated worse than property....that's still true today.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#75

Post by fatdog789 »

garnet7 wrote: post #57
fatdog789 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. 1) Contrary to popular belief, most prenups are not thrown out -- the only requirements for a valid prenup to survive legal challenge is that both the (future) husband and wife were separately represented by counsel, AND that both spouses disclosed ALL properties (real and personal) they possessed. The validity of a prenuptial agreement is me…

You totally miss the biggest problem lionhearted pointed out: through no fault of the father, if the mother decides she wants a divorce the legal system will pretty much by default strip the father of his children and hand them over to the mother. Regardless of any other circumstances. That's the main reason why men should not get married and have kids in the USA.

Except that the default presumption is, by law in every state, joint custody, and every state has court rulings to back that up.

The proponent of exclusive custodial control must prove the other parent's unfitness for custody. This is easy, if say, the other parent is a convict or a drug dealer. It's not so easy for suburbanites or rich folk. While the bar is lower than criminal guilt, it's not much lower -- proof must be by "clear and convincing evidence", which is significantly higher than the usual civil burden of "more likely than not".

Indeed, in over 90% of the cases I worked on, the exclusive custody proponent lost. The myth about mothers always getting the children isn't just a myth, it's blatantly untrue. Where exclusive custody is awarded, the father is just as likely to get custody of the children (usually b/c the mother does not have a job and is unable or unwilling to find one).

Kid, I worked in Cleveland. If there's any city where mothers should be "stealing" the kids from their fathers, its going to be a city where more than a 1/3rd of the male population doesn't have a job.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#76

Post by garnet7 »

fatdog789 wrote: post #75
garnet7 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You totally miss the biggest problem lionhearted pointed out: through no fault of the father, if the mother decides she wants a divorce the legal system will pretty much by default strip the father of his children and hand them over to the mother. Regardless of any other circumstances. That's the main reason why men should not get married and have kids in the USA.

Except that the default presumption is, by law in every state , joint custody, and every state has court rulings to back that up. The proponent of exclusive custodial control must prove the other parent's unfitness for custody. This is easy, if say, the other parent is a convict or a drug dealer. It's not so easy for suburbanites or rich folk. While the bar is lower than criminal guilt, it's not much lower -- proof m…

A quick googling shows a large number of websites devoted to dad's rights, helping fathers get joint custody and/or visitation, defense against false accusations of abuse by vindictive exes, "throwaway dads", etc.

There are no such sites for women. That should tell you something.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#77

Post by rdouble »

lionhearted wrote: post #42
fatdog789 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. 1) Contrary to popular belief, most prenups are not thrown out -- the only requirements for a valid prenup to survive legal challenge is that both the (future) husband and wife were separately represented by counsel, AND that both spouses disclosed ALL properties (real and personal) they possessed. The validity of a prenuptial agreement is me…

> There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. You could begin by sourcing your claims :) I wrote my reply casually, based on my knowledge of the law, statistics, studies, and a number of personal anecdotes. This time, I'll source myself and provide links to official statistics and the actual law this time, as you're mistaken on a few counts. > 1) ...The validity of a prenuptial agreeme…

He had her to host parties for him, cook for him, keep the home, help him keep his finances. All of that is gone. ... He's used to having a supportive wife behind him, that keeps the home, that helps, that he can bounce ideas off of. That's gone.

LOL. Uhh... Nas wasn't married to June Cleaver, he was married to Kelis. Her "milkshake brings all the boys to the yard" Kelis. I'm guessing she wasn't cooking and cleaning for him. Whatever the general status of men and divorce, he's a chump for not having her sign the most egregious pre-nup ever penned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ-FAV9fBII

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARTS2lQ9bZo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54B4NzExeKA

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#78

Post by fatdog789 »

garnet7 wrote: post #76
fatdog789 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the default presumption is, by law in every state , joint custody, and every state has court rulings to back that up. The proponent of exclusive custodial control must prove the other parent's unfitness for custody. This is easy, if say, the other parent is a convict or a drug dealer. It's not so easy for suburbanites or rich folk. While the bar is lower than criminal guilt, it's not much lower -- proof m…

A quick googling shows a large number of websites devoted to dad's rights, helping fathers get joint custody and/or visitation, defense against false accusations of abuse by vindictive exes, "throwaway dads", etc. There are no such sites for women. That should tell you something.

"Results 1 - 10 of about 22,000,000 for mother's rights. (0.23 seconds)." Hmm... it seems that you're wrong about that. And the number of websites listed in Google is a poor measure of something's worth. After all, there are 2,810,000 results for "obama citizenship" even though that issue has already been settled.

Also look up alien abduction, underpants gnomes, and other urban legends.

I don't claim that courts in the past favored mothers, but in the present, there is no gender bias under the law.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#79

Post by garnet7 »

fatdog789 wrote: post #78
garnet7 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick googling shows a large number of websites devoted to dad's rights, helping fathers get joint custody and/or visitation, defense against false accusations of abuse by vindictive exes, "throwaway dads", etc. There are no such sites for women. That should tell you something.

"Results 1 - 10 of about 22,000,000 for mother's rights. (0.23 seconds)." Hmm... it seems that you're wrong about that. And the number of websites listed in Google is a poor measure of something's worth. After all, there are 2,810,000 results for "obama citizenship" even though that issue has already been settled. Also look up alien abduction, underpants gnomes, and other urban legends. I don't claim that courts in t…

When searching around, the sites you find that exist for helping out dads are substantial. Real hardship, current stories, and dealing with the grief of having your kids taken away by a woman who has gotten tired of being married.

When divorce happens, that's when you see what people are really made of. Some women will take custody just to hurt dad.

Anyway, I hope you're right about the lessening of gender bias. I'd love to see data. No idea where I'd find such data though.

Re: "Marriage is for white people"

#80

Post by lionhearted »

fatdog789 wrote: post #52
lionhearted wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. You could begin by sourcing your claims :) I wrote my reply casually, based on my knowledge of the law, statistics, studies, and a number of personal anecdotes. This time, I'll source myself and provide links to official statistics and the actual law this time, as you're mistaken on a few counts. > 1) ...The validity of a prenuptial agreeme…

1) Unconscionable -- IS NOT SUBJECTIVELY DEFINED. At law, it must be objectively apparent that the prenup is "substantially unfair". It's not simply a matter of the judge's conscience -- b/c the determination is a legal one (not a factual one), it must be apparent to the appeals court. BTW, only first-year law students use legal dictionaries, which do not have the force of law in any state, and at best, offer only th…

I've quite enjoyed the discussion and learned some things here. You pointed out some points and minor disagreements and errors in the last couple comments - like that,

> BTW, only first-year law students use legal dictionaries, which do not have the force of law in any state, and at best, offer only the shared elements of the meaning of a term as it is individually used in all 50 states.

And y'know, I linked to one because it had cross-links and some backgrounds and an opinion of a U.S. Supreme Court Judgment, which I thought made it of some value.

A detail, like whether unconscionability is subjectively determined at time of divorce would be an interesting debate. You could say it's not subjectively determined under the law, that each state has reasonably clear law on that score. Or you could note that is as an ambiguous word in the CA code that calls for a judgment call that's not particularly objective, and will be made differently by different justices with different values about what's fair or not.

But in the end, it doesn't matter much. I reckon most people got a thorough going-over of it and are more educated now.

For the hell of it, because I'm curious - I had two central thesis-type statements and I'm not sure you agree or disagree.

1. The American [family court] legal system right now is absolutely draconian and broken to men.

2. If the laws were made less brutal to men, I think you'd see more people marrying, marrying at an earlier age, having more children, and paradoxically - I think the divorce rate would go down.

Yes? No? Lots of interesting details, points of debate, ways of interpreting law and statistics - but I'm a bit curious if you're basically a Yay or Nay on those thoughts if you happen to still be reading.

Post reply on HN