Divorce: It's not whether you fight, but how you fight
 

I found this interesting

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/2...how-you-fight/

I wonder what their hypothesis was for this study. It seems to me that the figures posit normal and predictable male to female and female to male behaviour, and the outcomes of those behaviours seem to be fairly predictable too.

I've never been married (Thank God), so, I've never been divorced (Thank God). BUT: If I were to experience divorce, I think I would go with the 'scorched earth' policy.

not a good idea if there are kids involved

With kids, its a really BAD idea. No matter what happens in the marriage, you are BOTH still their parents. It is extremely important to be aware of how both of you interact and deal with the mess you created.

One of the most selfish things one can do is go through a divorce badly, when there are kids involved. (With no kids involved it's just crybaby behavior: no better character involved it's just there is less outside damage.)

But you see it all the time: nanny nanny boo boo, my ex-wife this, my ex-husband this. Playing games and bitching and moaning, don't fool yourself if you think your kids can't see it.

Suck it up and be an adult. This, however, is the exception and not the rule. Most went into this with the pie-in-the-sky hopes and can't believe it that there's a possiblity that the 25 grand wedding and the picket fence aren't enough to sustain those youthful, if unrealistic, delusions of grand love.

My grandma and grandpa got divorced when hardly anyone did. My mom says that after that, they never fought. They got along and never once hurt her to hurt the one they divorced.

A lot of people are way more selfish than that.

Perhaps thre wouldn't be so much animosity if the law, and process, were more fair.

I've seen messy divorces and really civilized divorces.

My brother got divorced. Both he and his ex are still friends, both got remarried, and the two married couples and all the kids and step kids have vacationed together multiple times. I've seen my brother's ex-wife's new husband at a couple of my family gatherings. Nice guy.

On the other end of the spectrum, a female friend married an idiot. They ended up divorcing, and he moved away. Had no intention of spending time with the kids. Bought a new car instead of paying child support. She had him thrown in jail for not paying. I don't like the guy, and think he's a tool, but I thought the US didn't have debtors prisons. Apparently it does, when it comes to child support.

More fair to men? Sure! It's those women who give the rest of us a bad name: "What can I TAKE from him to show him how much I hurt?" It's pretty sick, imho, and I have no respect for that shit either. There are a lot of gold-diggin' bitches out there: don't be so swayed by a pretty face or a good lay or nice tits. I see that all the time, too.

It certainly does, glatt. If you don't pay support, you get locked up until you do. But if you're locked up, how do you get the money to pay?
Contempt of court, and failure to pay support, even if you don't have it to pay, are the only two indefinite prison terms I know of.

Very true, xoB. Thats a vicious cycle. It starts with the batting eyelashes and "poor me" in court which leads to some unrealistic support amount.
That is many times followed by the inability to pay, leading to more court time and atty fees... then a sentence, loss of income due to incarceration, loss of job, loss loss loss... no one wins - most importantly the kids.

Glass houses and stones. They don't mix.

In this guy's case, he borrowed money from his parents (the kids' grandparents) to pay what he owed, and he ended up only spending a weekend in jail. But he's a regular guy. Not a thug. He didn't belong in a cell at all. If he has money, the court should have the authority to seize bank accounts but jail seems like overkill to me.

Anyway, it's a textbook example of how not to do it. The woman had to spend money to pay a lawyer to get the dad thrown in to jail so he could borrow money to give to the woman to feed their kids. It shouldn't be that way.

Divorce is expensive. If this couple had His $ + Her $ to pay for one household when they were married, and then after the divorce they are spending His $ + Her $ to pay for two households and legal fees, there is clearly not going to be enough money to go around for anyone. Even if it's divided evenly, everyone loses out.

So true. Talk about a system that needs overhauled. NO ONE, male or female, should get to throw their whiny cards to get revenge.

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Or how about: each person has to show they are more than capable of making a living and supporting their children on their own, should the time present itself. Also, each person must write an essay about one unselfish act they've committed in their lifetime.

I worked with a guy, years ago, that the court said pay the ex $95 a week. His take home pay was $94.50. They came and dragged him out of work, a lot.