What advice would you give someone considering divorce over income?

[zil]

1 minute ago, Dillon said:

This is good stuff.  If I would have posted about how women, Mormon women especially, are brought up being taught that you marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich, (RM not always a prerequisite, but money definitely is) I would have been bashed, scolded, called a woman hater, told I dont know what I am talking about because women dont do that.

You should go take a class in set theory.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Dillon said:

This is good stuff.  If I would have posted about how women, Mormon women especially, are brought up being taught that you marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich, (RM not always a prerequisite, but money definitely is) I would have been bashed, scolded, called a woman hater, told I dont know what I am talking about because women dont do that.

Perhaps you have made yourself a reputation that colors the perception others have of you. If this is so, you may want to consider remaking that reputation.

[NeuroTypical]

17 minutes ago, Dillon said:

If I would have posted about how women, Mormon women especially, are brought up being taught that you marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich, (RM not always a prerequisite, but money definitely is) I would have been bashed, scolded, called a woman hater, told I dont know what I am talking about because women dont do that.

Well, ok, but we would have been right to do it.  Consider for a moment, the roughly 8,000,000 Mormon women out there.  Consider that this post is about one of them.   Now, stay with me here: Consider that one of these numbers is a tad bigger than the other. 

If that didn't do it to you, let's use your logic on dudes named Dillon.    Go here: https://www.doc.state.co.us/oss/  Search for male inmates named Dillon.  There are several.  By your logic, that means guys named Dillon are repeat offenders serving time in the prison system.  

Stop being a misogynistic logical-fallicy-believing child, Dillon.  Mature.  

Edited September 12, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[mordorbund]

48 minutes ago, Dillon said:

This is good stuff.  If I would have posted about how women, Mormon women especially, are brought up being taught that you marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich, (RM not always a prerequisite, but money definitely is) I would have been bashed, scolded, called a woman hater, told I dont know what I am talking about because women dont do that.

When a woman is introduced on this board as brought up being taught that you marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich, that woman is bashed, scolded, called immature and told she needs to rethink her life (as were the parents) - by women, Mormon women especially.

I wonder what that means about Mormon women.

[Jane_Doe]

53 minutes ago, Dillon said:

This is good stuff.  If I would have posted about how women, Mormon women especially, are brought up being taught that you marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich, (RM not always a prerequisite, but money definitely is) I would have been bashed, scolded, called a woman hater, told I dont know what I am talking about because women dont do that.

"Women" as a whole don't do that.

This singular woman did that.

You're over generalization tendency is at work again,. 

[NeuroTypical]

29 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

You're over generalization tendency is at work again,. 

Overgeneralization is one thing, but Dillon takes it a step further and only does it selectively.  One negative instance gets peanut buttered across all women.  All the positive instances don't seem to make it into Dillon's grey matter.

Quote

 

mi·sog·y·nis·tic

məˌsäjəˈnistik/adjective

1. strongly prejudiced against women.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[zil]

38 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

When a woman is introduced on this board as brought up being taught that you marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich, that woman is bashed, scolded, called immature and told she needs to rethink her life (as were the parents) - by women, Mormon women especially.

I wonder what that means about Mormon women.

Clearly we're two-faced, lying, money-grubbing cheats¹.  Here's our theme song:

¹ Ooops! The first rule of our secret club is not to admit that to men, so pretend you didn't read that, OK?  Pretty please?

[Bad Karma]

Real LDS women *LOVE* their husbands, regardless of income. Real LDS men *LOVE* their wives, truly, madly, deeply, regardless of anything. 

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

Christ has spoken... Worship riches at your own eternal peril. 

[Dillon]

I am sorry and not at all trying to be mean but dont tell me that even married women in here did not look for a husband that could take care of them and be a good provider. Its not a bad thing, its not shameful to do it, its not shameful to admit it.  Its a man's job, it is what he is supposed to do.  So stop acting like women dont prefer a man that can take care of them.

[NeuroTypical]

Dillon quote 1: "...women, Mormon women especially, are brought up being taught that you marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich, (RM not always a prerequisite, but money definitely is)..."

Dillon quote 2: "dont tell me that even married women in here did not look for a husband that could take care of them and be a good provider"

 

They call that moving the goal posts.  So Dillon, please pause for a moment and consider the difference between a) seeking out a good provider, and b) "marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich"

Consider the difference between providing, and having lots and lots of money.  If you don't see the difference, then perhaps consider filling in this hole in your understanding about reality.

[Dillon]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Dillon quote 1: "...women, Mormon women especially, are brought up being taught that you marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich, (RM not always a prerequisite, but money definitely is)..."

Dillon quote 2: "dont tell me that even married women in here did not look for a husband that could take care of them and be a good provider"

 

They call that moving the goal posts.  So Dillon, please pause for a moment and consider the difference between a) seeking out a good provider, and b) "marry a RM with very very high earnings potential if not already filthy rich"

Consider the difference between providing, and having lots and lots of money.  If you don't see the difference, then perhaps consider filling in this hole in your understanding about reality.

Ok you got me,  bad choice of words saying filthy rich, I should of said "good provider".

[NeuroTypical]

That's fair. 

Proclamation on the Family:  "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

That used to often mean the man got educated/trained and worked, and the women stayed home and often did not get educated or get careers in which they could advance.  These days, that's often still the way it happens, but more and more women seek education/training/jobs/careers.  As long as the children get well nurtured/raised, that's a wonderful thing.

Edited September 13, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

45 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's fair. 

Proclamation on the Family:  "By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

That used to often mean the man got educated/trained and worked, and the women stayed home and often did not get educated or get careers in which they could advance.  These days, that's often still the way it happens, but more and more women seek education/training/jobs/careers.  As long as the children get well nurtured/raised, that's a wonderful thing.

By contrast, nothing in the POTF says that women have a responsibility to be, or remain, physically attractive to their spouses.  

But you can bet your bottom dollar that men still use that as a criteria in selecting their mates.  And I don't think I've seen Dillon condemn that practice.  

Because we can all agree that it's much more evil for a woman to judge a man based on an attribute that he *can* control; than it is for a man to judge a woman based on an attribute that she *can't* control.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Because we can all agree that it's much more evil for a woman to judge a man based on an attribute that he *can* control; than it is for a man to judge a woman based on an attribute that she *can't* control.

I don't know that a man can control his income more closely than a woman can control how nice she looks.

I deplore our society's penchant for judging a woman based on how pretty it thinks she is. But I equally deplore our society's penchant for judging a man by how much money he earns. I do not see one as being more virtuous than the other.

[Guest]

I actually think men judging women on looks is somewhat worse than women judging men on earning power.

Having an impovershed spouse may get in the way of a woman being able to have children, have a stable home, raise a family righteously, etc.  It is hard to raise righteous children when you are living in the ghetto and can't afford to keep the lights on.

Having a plain spouse, on the other hand, has basically nothing to do with eternal goals.

Perhaps I simply get more annoyed about judging a spouse by looks, since I hear men saying hurtful garbage like "LDS single women should prioritize weight control over getting an education" and other ridiculousness like that far more than LDS women saying things like "I am only going to marry an MD".  Maybe I have just been around very shallow men for most of my adult life and have been spared being around shallow women.  I dare say, we have a minor chauvenist pig problem, particularly in our singles' wards.  Funny, the chauvenist pigs who will settle for nothing less than the prettiest women tend to be the ugliest men, who remain single perpetually because the pretty women won't give them a second look . . . kind of sad, in its own way, and funny at the same time . . . 

That said, I understand extremes.  Men, you don't have to marry a woman who has the "faces of meth" look (I actually showed a faces of meth poster to my primary class when discussing the word of wisdom!  I think it was pretty effective).  Women, you don't have to marry a man who can't hold down a job.  But please, people, don't fall under the delusion you are entitled to a spouse who earns more than a middle class lifestyle, or is unusually beautiful.  You should just be thankful to find a reasonably functional, righteous LDS spouse with whom you can build a righteous future.

Edited September 13, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Funny, the chauvenist pigs who will settle for nothing less than the prettiest women tend to be the ugliest men, who remain single perpetually because the pretty women won't give them a second look . . .

More true words have never been spoken.
You are so correct @DoctorLemon.  

No one person will ever be able to satisfy all of your needs. Having one or two demands that aren't going anywhere is fine and a good thing, but having a list of 200 of them will ensure that you are single forever.  

Edited September 13, 2017 by MormonGator

[person0]

Edited September 13, 2017 by person0

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

More true words have never been spoken.
You are so correct @DoctorLemon.  

No one person will ever be able to satisfy all of your needs. Having one or two demands that aren't moving is fine and a good thing, but having a list of 200 of them will ensure that you are single forever.  

And also, if these guys have a list of requirements for a potential spouse, would it kill them to keep the list to themselves?

I remember one guy in my old singles ward (who was not particularly attractive) would repeatedly and loudly talk about his requirements for a future spouse, that she had to be this tall, weigh this amount, have this hair color, etc. before he would even begin thinking about dating her.  Imagine how the single women who heard this guy felt.  I imagine they would find such talk pretty hurtful.  I imagine such talk could serve to undermine confidence, alienate women who don't fit certain definitions of beauty, and overall just close a lot of doors.

This guy was in the singles ward with me in the early 2000s.  It is now 2017, and he is still single (and complains about it loudly on facebook).

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, DoctorLemon said:

And also, if these guys have a list of requirements for a potential spouse, would it kill them to keep the list to themselves?

I remember one guy in my old singles ward (who was not particularly attractive) would repeatedly and loudly talk about his requirements for a future spouse, that she had to be this tall, weigh this amount, have this hair color, etc. before he would even begin thinking about dating her.  Imagine how the single women who heard this guy felt.  I imagine they would find such talk pretty hurtful.  I imagine such talk could serve to undermine confidence, alienate women who don't fit certain definitions of beauty, and overall just close a lot of doors.

This guy was in the singles ward with me in the early 2000s.  It is now 2017, and he is still single (and complains about it loudly on facebook).

Oh I understand totally what you mean. I know of several people who complain all the time that they are single. They mope around, are bitter, sad, and think everyone (except for them of course) is untrustworthy or defective in some way.  Every relationship they've ever been in has failed because someone else is a narcissist, didn't appreciate them, etc.  

New rule-if you complain all the time and blame everyone else but yourself,  you have no right to wonder why you are not popular. None. 

[person0]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

New rule-if you complain all the time and blame everyone else but yourself,  you have no right to wonder why you are not popular didn't win the election. None. 

It appears with minor modifications, your phrase has multiple uses.  

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

It appears with minor modifications, your phrase has multiple uses.  

Just what we need. Another whacked out, idealistic and naive liberal on the board. Welcome @person0. Your Bernie Sanders pin will be sent to you shortly. @Godless you just found a new idealogical soul mate. 

:: sigh :: 

Edited September 13, 2017 by MormonGator

[person0]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Just what we need. Another whacked out, idealistic and naive liberal on the board. Welcome @person0. Your Bernie Sanders pin will be sent to you shortly. @Godless you just found a new idealogical soul mate. 

:: sigh :: 

Takes one to know one!  

BTW:  Hillary even wrote a book about it called, "What Happened".

Edited September 13, 2017 by person0

[zil]

8 minutes ago, person0 said:

she even paid someone to write wrote a book about it called, "What Happened".

There, fixed that for you.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Having a plain spouse, on the other hand, has basically nothing to do with eternal goals.

Funny, the chauvenist pigs who will settle for nothing less than the prettiest women tend to be the ugliest men, who remain single perpetually because the pretty women won't give them a second look . . . kind of sad, in its own way, and funny at the same time . . . 

But please, people, don't fall under the delusion you are entitled to a spouse who earns more than a middle class lifestyle, or is unusually beautiful.  You should just be thankful to find a reasonably functional, righteous LDS spouse with whom you can build a righteous future.

So, I understand your overall point, and it's a good one.  I've known no small number of dudes like you're mentioning.  That said:  A guy has no business marrying a woman unless he can genuinely say she is the most beautiful thing on earth to him.  

In other words: THIS JUST IN!  DoctorLemon says he married a plain spouse!  Extols the virtues of settling for less than the prettiest woman! He announced to the world that she is NOT unusually beautiful!

See, that's just not right.  Your implicit "oh, I'm not talking about you honey" sort of, well...   Am I totally off base here, or is there something to this?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, I understand your overall point, and it's a good one.  I've known no small number of dudes like you're mentioning.  That said:  A guy has no business marrying a woman unless he can genuinely say she is the most beautiful thing on earth to him.  

In other words: THIS JUST IN!  DoctorLemon says he married a plain spouse!  Extols the virtues of settling for less than the prettiest woman! He announced to the world that she is NOT unusually beautiful!

See, that's just not right.  Your implicit "oh, I'm not talking about you honey" sort of, well...   Am I totally off base here, or is there something to this?

You should absolutely marry someone you are sexually attracted to.

You also wield more control over who you are sexually attracted to than you may realize.

If you are closed minded based on looks, you will never develop sexual attraction for many very wonderful women.

Meanwhile, if you are open minded and find someone of the opposite sex who you get along with really well, the feelings of sexual attraction will usually follow.

This explains why, before I met my wife, I could fall in love with just about any woman in the singles ward, given other prerequisites (e.g., we get along well, the woman is righteous, the woman adheres to basic hygiene principles such as bathing and brushing teeth, etc.)  

When  I met my wife,  I was attracted to her.  Through our courtship, our deepening friendship and relationship is how she became the most beautiful person in the world to me.

Since marrying my wife ten years ago, I have yet to develop infatuation with another woman.  Why?  Because my mind is closed to entertaining thoughts of entering relationships with other women.  

I have control over whom I am attracted to.

So I guess my advice is our men in the singles ward would do well not to be closed minded and date only women who look a certain way.  They would do better to be more open and let relationships develop.  They may soon find even the most plain woman is the most beautiful woman in the world to them!  

As a side note, is anyone doomed to be a plain woman?  I think all women who adhere to basic hygiene, keep the commandments, etc. are attractive.  That is not to say I am checking out other women - when I got married, my mind became closed to other relationships and I am not personally attracted to other women because I control who I am attracted to and I choose to focus on my wife.  But the fact remains - most of the stuff that makes people, both men and women, unattractive (e.g., not bathing, using drugs, etc.) is self-inflicted and can be remedied.  I would question whether there is such a thing as a truly plain woman.