Ladies Night Derail From ERA Thread

[RVonse]

If that were the case, I wonder why so many women choose the absolutely worst specimens of manhood to be with.

View attachment 19667

You aren't kidding Derec. Im thinking it is just mostly physical attraction more than anything else. But it confuses me as well.

Ive been an electrician/landlord my whole life and in my earlier years owned a big apartment complex and saw that kind of stuff happening in real time.

One of my apartments was rented by a woman who would always invite a man over for sleepovers and he would beat the crap out of her. She would come out with bruises, the apartment would be completely trashed, and the neighbors were fearing for her safety. She begged me not to put her out and would fix everything in the apartment new again at her cost. It was the same cycle 3 times in a row, she just could not live without this guy for some reason. She was a very nice looking women who could have had a relationship with anyone else.

I have seen it all. That picture looks just like my old apartment complex with some of the tenants I might have had in it. Brings back a lot of memories for me actually.

 

[Toni]

If that were the case, I wonder why so many women choose the absolutely worst specimens of manhood to be with.

View attachment 19667

You aren't kidding Derec. Im thinking it is just mostly physical attraction more than anything else. But it confuses me as well.

Ive been an electrician/landlord my whole life and in my earlier years owned a big apartment complex and saw that kind of stuff happening in real time.

One of my apartments was rented by a woman who would always invite a man over for sleepovers and he would beat the crap out of her. She would come out with bruises, the apartment would be completely trashed, and the neighbors were fearing for her safety. She begged me not to put her out and would fix everything in the apartment new again at her cost. It was the same cycle 3 times in a row, she just could not live without this guy for some reason. She was a very nice looking women who could have had a relationship with anyone else.

I have seen it all. That picture looks just like my old apartment complex with some of the tenants I might have had in it. Brings back a lot of memories for me actually.

It's the same reason that some people always date drunks or drug addicts or people who will always cheat on them:

Really poor self esteem, generally as a result of having grown up with abusers, drunks, addicts and cheaters. It seems 'normal.' Or at least, no better than they deserve. And they see the good side--everybody has one, even if it is mostly invisible and perhaps imaginary but some people see the lost, damaged little boy (or girl) and want to fix them. Unconsciously, they are trying to 'fix' the family dynamic they grew up with, as some kind of do-over which will have a different happily ever after outcome if the person on the receiving end of the abuse is only good enough, patient enough, forgiving enough.

Sometimes--not always, but sometimes, the bad partner used to be a good partner until something terrible happened. Job lost; war is a big one. Something pretty major. And the victim partner remembers the good part and keeps trying to get back to the good part. That may or may not still exist. That may or may not have ever existed.

In any case, it almost never starts out that way. Usually it takes a while for it to get 'bad.' There's a lot of socialization that goes on: the boy who pulls your hair in grade school is just showing you that he likes you. The high school boyfriend that gets jealous and has a fit if some other guy says hi just looooves you sooooooo much. He didn't mean to hit you: he just gets so mad and sad and maybe he just blacks out a little bit and it will never happen again. You just have to be really, really careful to not do anything to set him off. Or her. Sometimes, it's her.

And sometimes, it's money. Sometimes the bad partner throws enough money the way of the good partner that it keeps the good partner afloat. Or they only beat the good partner and not the kids. Or only one of the kids. Or maybe just the dog.

 

[repoman]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Don't worry Derec, they'll get what's coming to them. Once they're done riding the cock carousel with Chad they'll hit the wall and lose their SMV.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Snivel, snivel, snivel, Whine whine whine! Butthurt, butthurt! Whine whine snivel whine!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Like what?

It's been explained to you before.

Ladies night is about attracting more women because the men are going there looking for women. Men prefer the higher price of a bar with more women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that the ridiculous amount of Jeff Bezos has earned (let's skip questions about cooperation with the CIA etc...) put his marriage and divorce far outside of the realm of most people.

Take a more normal situation of a wife and husband who earn say $50k/yr and $100k/yr each with some time spent off work to raise a couple of kids. Sometime the reverse happens, which is cool.

Anyway, a divorce settlement that "favors" the woman (or stay at home parent) in this case is probably fair.

But when differentials are orders of magnitude in earning power this breaks down and becomes nonsensical.

What they really should do is give the stay-at-home enough to put them economically where they were had they not taken the time out of the labor market.

 

[laughing dog]

I think that the ridiculous amount of Jeff Bezos has earned (let's skip questions about cooperation with the CIA etc...) put his marriage and divorce far outside of the realm of most people.

Take a more normal situation of a wife and husband who earn say $50k/yr and $100k/yr each with some time spent off work to raise a couple of kids. Sometime the reverse happens, which is cool.

Anyway, a divorce settlement that "favors" the woman (or stay at home parent) in this case is probably fair.

But when differentials are orders of magnitude in earning power this breaks down and becomes nonsensical.

What they really should do is give the stay-at-home enough to put them economically where they were had they not taken the time out of the labor market.

Riiight, because the stay-at-home spouse had nothing whatsoever to do with providing an environment that made it easier for the working spouse to earn.

 

[Rhea]

You’d think Derec would be more grateful to the peoplle who are identifying all the shallow gold digger women and collecting them all in one place on Thursday nights so that Derc can go out to the full price places to find the good ones who are willing to pay the same price as him.

Some peoplle have no gratitude.

 

[Ford]

Like what?

It's been explained to you before.

Ladies night is about attracting more women because the men are going there looking for women. Men prefer the higher price of a bar with more women.

This bears repeating. I was a DJ at a club that had ladies night every Thursday. No cover and dollar drinks for the ladies. They were not the target demo. I thought this was common knowledge.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Like what?

It's been explained to you before.

Ladies night is about attracting more women because the men are going there looking for women. Men prefer the higher price of a bar with more women.

This bears repeating. I was a DJ at a club that had ladies night every Thursday. No cover and dollar drinks for the ladies. They were not the target demo. I thought this was common knowledge.

Interesting. Did your bar ever run a mens night? No cover and dollar drinks for the men?

Do you think the reason they didn't was to make Derec mad?

 

[Toni]

I think that the ridiculous amount of Jeff Bezos has earned (let's skip questions about cooperation with the CIA etc...) put his marriage and divorce far outside of the realm of most people.

Take a more normal situation of a wife and husband who earn say $50k/yr and $100k/yr each with some time spent off work to raise a couple of kids. Sometime the reverse happens, which is cool.

Anyway, a divorce settlement that "favors" the woman (or stay at home parent) in this case is probably fair.

But when differentials are orders of magnitude in earning power this breaks down and becomes nonsensical.

What they really should do is give the stay-at-home enough to put them economically where they were had they not taken the time out of the labor market.

Why? The two formed an economic partnership, presumably with a mutually equitable and mutually agreeable division of labor. It seems that assets accumulated during the marriage should be divided equally, representative of the mutually beneficial relationship.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that the ridiculous amount of Jeff Bezos has earned (let's skip questions about cooperation with the CIA etc...) put his marriage and divorce far outside of the realm of most people.

Take a more normal situation of a wife and husband who earn say $50k/yr and $100k/yr each with some time spent off work to raise a couple of kids. Sometime the reverse happens, which is cool.

Anyway, a divorce settlement that "favors" the woman (or stay at home parent) in this case is probably fair.

But when differentials are orders of magnitude in earning power this breaks down and becomes nonsensical.

What they really should do is give the stay-at-home enough to put them economically where they were had they not taken the time out of the labor market.

Why? The two formed an economic partnership, presumably with a mutually equitable and mutually agreeable division of labor. It seems that assets accumulated during the marriage should be divided equally, representative of the mutually beneficial relationship.

In the middle class this is fine. It doesn't make much sense when one person's earning potential is far above the other's.

 

[Toni]

Why? The two formed an economic partnership, presumably with a mutually equitable and mutually agreeable division of labor. It seems that assets accumulated during the marriage should be divided equally, representative of the mutually beneficial relationship.

In the middle class this is fine. It doesn't make much sense when one person's earning potential is far above the other's.

Why?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why? The two formed an economic partnership, presumably with a mutually equitable and mutually agreeable division of labor. It seems that assets accumulated during the marriage should be divided equally, representative of the mutually beneficial relationship.

In the middle class this is fine. It doesn't make much sense when one person's earning potential is far above the other's.

Why?

Because their contributions the partnership were very uneven.

 

[Toni]

Why?

Because their contributions the partnership were very uneven.

How do you know that?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why?

Because their contributions the partnership were very uneven.

How do you know that?

Because they're only women. Exactly how much would they have been able to contribute?

 

[Jarhyn]

This bears repeating. I was a DJ at a club that had ladies night every Thursday. No cover and dollar drinks for the ladies. They were not the target demo. I thought this was common knowledge.

Interesting. Did your bar ever run a mens night? No cover and dollar drinks for the men?

Do you think the reason they didn't was to make Derec mad?

I know a few bars that do run a night like this. But I don't really foresee Derec being interested in the crowd that generally attracts.

 

[laughing dog]

Why? The two formed an economic partnership, presumably with a mutually equitable and mutually agreeable division of labor. It seems that assets accumulated during the marriage should be divided equally, representative of the mutually beneficial relationship.

In the middle class this is fine. It doesn't make much sense when one person's earning potential is far above the other's.

Why would anyone assume that earning potential is independent of the household arrangement?

 

[Derec]

Why? The two formed an economic partnership, presumably with a mutually equitable and mutually agreeable division of labor. It seems that assets accumulated during the marriage should be divided equally, representative of the mutually beneficial relationship.

If the man is no longer benefiting from whatever the ex-wife was contributing to the marriage, why should the ex-wife continue to benefit from her ex-husband's money?

Current divorce laws incentivize women to marry rich husbands and then leave them, taking half of their hard earned money and usually getting an alimony as well (94% of those receiving alimony are women).

- - - Updated - - -

Like what?

It's been explained to you before.

Ladies night is about attracting more women because the men are going there looking for women. Men prefer the higher price of a bar with more women.

And as I explained to you, if women need financial inducement to interact with men, how is that (in principle) different from prostitution? At least sex workers are honest about the transactional nature of the whole thing.

Also, there being an economic reason for discrimination is not a good reason to make such overt discrimination legal. if Woolworth's could make the case that they make more revenue by segregating their lunch counter, does that suddenly make segregation ok?