We need divorce reform.

[–]npech001 26 points27 points28 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]niklaskronwalled 78 points79 points80 points 14 years ago (92 children) | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising- 62 points63 points64 points 14 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaiguy 33 points34 points35 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

the logic says that the woman sacrificed her college and career opportunities in order to stay at home and raise the children or work at a job like waitressing while supporting the husband through college. It really dosen't even matter if none of that is true. If the husband is earning more $ than the wife, he's going to be paying for her the rest of his life, or until she re-marries. It's a completely antiquated viewpoint on life and relationships but welcome to American divorce court.

They even award half of your retirement to your ex-wife. Yes, even if she cheated on you.

I have a friend that was divorced 20 years ago, he was the main breadwinner and his wife got the house. Her boyfriend moved in the following weekend and they've been happily living together ever since, with my friend paying the mortgage and a nice fat check in her mailbox every month. His ex-wife and the boyfriend will NEVER marry because then the checks will stop.

In all fairness, it sometimes works the other way, when the wife has tons of money/success and the guy comes into the relationship with nothing, judges will award the husband similar deals, like in the case of Brittney Spears and Kevin Federline, but I'm sure these are like 3% or less of the cases every year.

[–]Popular-Uprising- 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaiguy 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You're right about the retirement stipulation, I should have been more specific.

And I don't disagree that the spouse that stays home with the children should be entitled to monies necessary to continue to raise those children while he/she stay home and continues to do that job. They should also be entitled to monies for job training and education once the children are raised.

What I disagree with is the 50% forumla that gets applied to everyone regardless of circumstances. Spouse cheats? he/she gets half. Spouse was an alcoholic/drug addict that you paid to go to countless rehabs? he/she gets half. Spouse neglected to go to college or cultivate a career path in favor of being an "artist" or "musician"- HALF! Spouse neglects his/her parental responsibilities in favor of gym/facebook/etc. he/she gets half.

You can be married for 10 years and collect a check for the rest of your life as a result? That's crazy! I'm sorry but 10 years is a relatively short time in the grand scheme of things and I fail to see how anyone couldn't find a way to get back on their feet after an additional 10 years of being subsidized by a former spouse.

And I'm not trying to be sexist here, it works both ways. I have a female friend that was taken to the cleaners by her former husband when she lost her job and couldn't afford to pay rent on her apartment (she was the custodial parent) The husband got custody and as a result, she had to pay him child support, which she was unequipped to do without a job, so now, when she goes back to work, she will have her wages garnished to the point where she will fail to support herself again (without money to pay for things like car repairs, insurance, etc). It's a system that fails to apply any sort of logic or critical thinking. How is this helping anyone??

[–]Popular-Uprising- 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaiguy 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree with you, but as someone else has stated, pre-nups are not iron-clad and a judge can choose to throw them out.

since at present the mother can decide to be a SAHM without the father being able to do anything about it

I see it everyday. Wife gets pregnant, "I'm going back to work as soon as the baby is born, I love my job!" Then when the maternity leave is over, it's like "Oh, no, I'm going to be a SAHM" - and look, I'm not criticizing that decision, but I always like to see the look on the husbands face when he realizes what just happened. I mean seriously, it's happened to my friends and co-workers dozens of times, to the point when someone gets pregnant I start taking bets on when and if she will return to work. I always bet on NOT going back to work and I almost always win. If someone in my department takes maternity leave, I start interviewing a month before their "return" just to make sure I have someone lined up to take their spot when they announce (ALWAYS at the last minute) that they're opting to be a SAHM.

[–]BlackDogRamble 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaiguy 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're absolutely correct on all counts. However, my point is that, most (virtually all) of the women that I've known in the last say, 10 years, have this notion that they're going to go back to work. THEY. NEVER. DO.

I know this is somewhat of a pipe dream for them, they think they can have a baby and a career because that's what Hollywood has told them. I guess if your speciality is in demand and you make 6 figures and can pay for extensive, qualified child care and/or you have a husband that does not have a career and can't stay home, then yes, it's possible.

At any rate, the point is that I think a lot of men are being sold on the idea of having a family by their spouse with the explanation that the wife is going to go back to work, and then are finding out that their wife just opted out of the work force for 5-10 years because they "wanted to stay home" and there's really nothing they can do about that.

Then if the wife decides she wants a divorce, the husband is then put in a situation where he has to pay for 2 homes, and essentially pay his wife to watch his children. He may not even want the divorce, she may have cheated on him, but he's still left supporting not just his children, but his wife. When the kids turn 18 the child support stops, but the "wife support" is forever or until she remarries, isn't that a bit antiquated?

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nduece 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaiguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nduece2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chaiguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dathadorne -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cyber_rigger 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising- 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising- 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Popular-Uprising- 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If someone made 50k/year as a golddigger then they should not receive any alimony and should be subject to paying child support based on 50k/year.

How does a golddigger earn money if they don't get any alimony? Are you referring to alimony or child support payment made from another previous divorce? In WA, they are considered income.

There is a double standard here. The "entitled" spouse demands half of the income claiming that they "earned it".

A woman who stays at home and takes care of the household and children does "earn" some of the money that their spouse makes. The intent of alimony was to make up for the fact that they have no marketable skills with which to earn money. In WA, alimony is limited to a certain period using a formula based upon how long the marriage was and how much the person makes.

O.K. then they are capable of a job and making money. Their child support payments should be based on their earning ability.

Agreed. In WA, a person (either party) can be considered "under-employed" and the court will re-calculate child support based upon what the court estimates the underemployed person should be making. Of course, that most often bites the guy...

[–]Craysh 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]justaverage 30 points31 points32 points 14 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

I'm a male who had a wife that cheated. We subsequently divorced. Here's how it went for me...Granted, we were relatively young and not well off when we were married, so there wasn't a whole lot to divide up, but let's tally it up anyhow...

Estimated values in parenthesis

SHE GOT

Washer and Dryer ($800)

$1000 cash rainy day fund we kept in a safe ($1000)

Carpet shampooer ($300)

Leather Sofa ($800)

Queen sized bed ($500)

Crib ($300)

50+ DVDs of children's movies ($500)

Toys/Stuffed animals ($300)

Vacuum ($200)

Microwave ($50)

Monthly ~~child~~ mommy support payments ($500 per month)

TOTAL - $4700 lump + ~$100,000 in child support to be paid out over 16 years (divorced when our daughter was 2)

I GOT

Desktop computer + Peripherals + Software ($1000)

Penalty for breaking lease with 5 months remaining (-$800)

Credit card debt ($-2800)

Repair bill for hole torn in carpet by her dog at rental property (-$600)

Dishes/Pots/Pans/Cookware/Etc. ($300)

Various bedroom furnishings/Picture frames/knicknacks ($300)

Living room set (Coffee table and 2 end tables) ($300)

Barbecue Grill ($200)

Restraining Order so I couldn't see my daughter for 10 weeks based on a made up story (Priceless)

Child support payments (-$100,000 over 16 years)

TOTAL- -$101,500

I've only counted things that were acquired after we were married. Before someone says "You guys didn't have cars or a TV?" we each had purchased vehicles before we were married and kept those vehicles and their debts, so I figured it was a wash. We also each owned identical televisions when we were married (27" CRTs for the curious) and we each took one post divorce. Same with DVD players, and my Playstation and PS2 I owned before we were married. As for the kids stuff, I'm including it since the child was under 2 when we separated and I needed toys/movies/a crib at my place, so I needed to replace those things.

And that's why I'm an MRA today.

[–]WhipIash 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Craysh 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]omega21xx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]werak 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kronox 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kronox 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jrkotrla0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lillykin 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]justaverage 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And I would say that stating what is fair and what is not without knowing all of the facts is also ridiculous.

I wouldn't deny your argument that the child got the crib dvds etc. Yet, those items still needed to be replaced at my residence. If the parenting time is 50-50....where does the child's 'stuff' stay?

My ex-wife does not provide any additional time raising our daughter than I do. It has been 5 years since the separation, and for the last 5 years (discounting the 10 week period that there was restraining order) we have 50-50 physical custody.

I WAS paying more than $500 per month while my daughter was in daycare, she is no longer in daycare.

I was ALSO paying more when my ex elected to send our daughter to private school. Is private school a necessity? Should I be forced to pay an extra $400 per month (the cost of tuition) so my ex can send our daughter to private school and "she can't afford it" (her words). Fortunately for me, the court decided that private school is not a necessity. Unfortunately for me, as a male, any time I would like to seek a reduction in child support, or would like to dispute an increase she has petitioned for, it takes 3 months for the hearing.

Therefore, it breaks down like this...

Ex petitions the court for $400 child support increase

Start paying ex an extra $400 per month, because believe me, if the court rules in her favor in 3 months, you do not want to be behind on payments

Dispute

Wait 3 months

Court rules in my favor hooray!

Do I get $1200 back? LOL. NOPE!! Welcome to that wonderful male privilege.

Furthermore, why do I insist on calling in mommy support? Because that is exactly what it is.

Upon our separation my wife made substantially more that I did. In fact, I was a stay stay at home dad who worked part time.

Well, that's not so bad. Should be a slam dunk to get primary custody for me then right? Not if the ex falsely accuses me of abuse and 'anger management issues'. Phase 2 is for her to quit her job and go back to school. Now I make twice as much as her, so even though we have shared parenting time, I end up paying out $500 per month (and no, that does not include extraordinary expenses such as medical bills, extra-curicular, etc., in those instances I am liable for 66%)

[–]ss_camaro 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]JohnPaulJones1779 -10 points-9 points-8 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

You're a MRA because you have to pay child support?

I mean, I hear ya - she cheated and still got some of the "stuff", but you had a child with this woman and she's going to raise that child. You picked her as the one to have the kid - you gotta pay for that kid. Yeah, she's probably not the best woman in the world to raise your child but the interview process is over, she got the job. And I say this with all respect of how heart wrenching it must be to have to deal with this issue and parent a child with someone who you've been disrespected by and lost love with.

Either way I think our system for finding a mate and becoming legally bound to them is obviously a mess. It seems like all we can hope is to avoid having the child until you know for sure if she's crazy (or, for that matter, if you're crazy)

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]inthemud 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

you gotta pay for that kid

While that sounds all nice and fluffy it does not make sense. You are assuming that if the courts did not force him to pay monthly then he would abandon his child. We do not know that. There has NEVER been a time in history when men abandoned their children in droves which caused the state to have to force men to pay. What we have here is a system of extortion where the state can say "think of the children!" and strip citizens of their rights in the process.

Why should we allow the state to forcibly remove one parent from their children's life and then force that parent, with the threat of incarceration (as well as every other power the state has such as license removal, passport denial, levies, credit reports, etc.), to pay the state monthly?

The American constitution was not created to protect us from each other but to protect the citizens from the government. When the government starts treating one class of people with less rights than another class that is a bad thing which should be stopped. With the "think of the children!" mentality, the state can get away with anything. We should not allow it.

[–]deadlast 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Holy shit. That is fucking horrifying. It's one of those shadow subcultural histories that people didn't officially record, so it takes careful research to uncover.

I had to spend a while reading, to get what "Baby Farming" was. My summary:

This was a whole industry that arose in Victorian England where poor, (presumably urban, industrial working class) mothers had illegitimate children they couldn't afford. The fathers would pay them a bit of hush money, and then a Baby Farmer would take the money as a fee to dispose of the child. They euphemistically called it "boarding" the child- which actually meant starving it to death. If the child was small, it would be done extra fast, because disposal was easiest and they could move more piggies through the slaughterhouse. If it was larger, it would be prolonged child starvation to bring in extra weekly rent.

This is a hell of a thing that happened, when the law tried to reform the industry:

The Bill contained a clause which required the registration and supervision of nurses in the manufacturing districts who cared for children on a daily basis, and, much to the ILPS' amazement, it enraged members of the suffrage movement. Lydia Becker, editor of the Women's Suffrage Journal and leader of the Manchester branch of the National Society of Women's Suffrage, blasted the clause. Her journal reeked of the laissez-faire attitudes of the day, "officialism, police interference, and espionage," would oppress the ratepayers and infringe on the rights of the individual. She also objected to the entire registration and supervision process being handled entirely by men. <49>

Adversaries in the House of Commons saw it as an infringement on the rights of parents, stating, "The responsibility for the child in infancy as in later life, lies with them [parents], and we emphatically deny that the State has any right to dictate to them the way it shall be fulfilled." <50> In lieu of reform, the ILPS were forced to settle for yet another commission to investigate baby farming.

So, men abandoned (more like, couldn't afford) kids, but they also tried to protect them... and some political women didn't like that.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

OK, now we don't have "baby farming" any more. We have birth control (good), legal abortion (not a happy thing, but good compared to this,) and... father farming.

Fathers won't starve to death so easily. They'll just pay and pay.

Thanks for the link.

tl;dr: "Baby Farmers" got paid to kill children, the government tried to stop it, and 19th-century feminists protested that it infringed on mommy rights.

[–]deadlast -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So, men abandoned (more like, couldn't afford) kids, but they also tried to protect them...

Did you read the same article I did?

Bastard laws were changed such that men were basically off the hook for financially supporitng their bastards, and men abandon them in droves accordingly.

Twelve pounds was a great deal of money for a young girl on her own, but baby farmers were interested in only one thing, "How much money have you got; or, how much can you get from the father of the child." <29> Oftentimes the man who had seduced her was forced to supply her with the fee. Usually, but certainly not exclusively, <30> the seducers were sons of working class families, or perhaps the son of a butcher, a baker or some other tradesman. Some of them may well have been husbands or sons in the homes where the young women were employed as domestic servants. Paying the twelve pounds was certainly preferable to the exposure of the affair and an unwanted bastard child. When the desperate young mother asked for help from her seducer, she may well have received the twelve pounds and a copy of an ad [offering "adoption" or "nursing" that amounted to slow infanticide].

I don't see that as men trying to protect anyone - much less their children. Inspections of baby farms proved utterly ineffective. Baby farming ended when child support was put back into place:

Reform of the Bastardy Laws paralleled the fight for the protection of infant life, and in 1872 they were amended to make the putative father equally liable for the support of the illegitimate child until the age of 16, and it enabled the poor law boards to aid mothers in obtaining support for their children. This law served as the basis of dealing with the financial management of illegitimate children until 1957. <54>

TLDR reflecting greater proportion of article content: Fathers abandon bastard kids in droves when they're no longer forced to pay child support, mass infanticide in "baby farms" results because "fallen" women were unemployable with infants, mass infanticide ends when fathers forced to pay child support again & social safety networks opened up to women who had premarital sex.

[–]CrawdaddyJoe 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't write the piece and I wouldn't have chosen to write it that way. I strongly suspect the author was adopting or strongly influenced by the language of the source material; "seducer" is a very Victorian thing to call someone.

Still, I would guess that men more often seduced than vice-versa, just performing a cost-benefit analysis. Sex in Victorian times was much more costly to women, though men and women were presumably equally impulsive and stupid. Presumably that would deter women. I hope it would, anyway.

(In fiction I can never get behind a female character in pre-modern times who has premarital sex. It's just so self-evidently, wretchedly, incredibly stupid. Rose, you were an IDIOT. I just realized I didn't apply this to irritation to male characters, because it's just not as stupid for a man to engage in reckless sex before the advent of reliable birth control. It's a misfortune for an unmarried man to have a bastard in in the Victorian period, not a unmitigated life-ruining disaster.)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

You don't have to play dumb here.

Re-read and acknowledge that men attempted to enact reforms, and feminists protested them.

Don't even try to ignore that the for-profit murderers were all women themselves.

The Bill contained a clause which required the registration and supervision of nurses in the manufacturing districts who cared for children on a daily basis, and, much to the ILPS' amazement, it enraged members of the suffrage movement. Lydia Becker, editor of the Women's Suffrage Journal and leader of the Manchester branch of the National Society of Women's Suffrage, blasted the clause. Her journal reeked of the laissez-faire attitudes of the day, "officialism, police interference, and espionage," would oppress the ratepayers and infringe on the rights of the individual. She also objected to the entire registration and supervision process being handled entirely by men. <49>

Adversaries in the House of Commons saw it as an infringement on the rights of parents, stating, "The responsibility for the child in infancy as in later life, lies with them [parents], and we emphatically deny that the State has any right to dictate to them the way it shall be fulfilled." <50> In lieu of reform, the ILPS were forced to settle for yet another commission to investigate baby farming.

It's telling how you call it "seducers" when men do it, but "premarital sex" when women do it. How ideological.

TLDR: men abandoned children because they were poor, poor women paid other women to kill them, political men tried to protect children, and political women tried to block them.

Deadlast seems to have a problem admitting this because it's not ideologically convenient.

[–]deadlast -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's telling how you call it "seducers" when men do it, but "premarital sex" when women do it. How ideological.

I was adopting the language.

Deadlast seems to have a problem admitting this because it's not ideologically convenient.

Not at all. I am not, for example, conveniently overlooking the paragraph on the "poor" men financing the infanticide.

political men tried to protect children, and political women protested it.

Similarly, political men -- who actually had, you know, political power and the ability to vote and such -- similarly objected because "The responsibility for the child in infancy as in later life, lies with them [parents], and we emphatically deny that the State has any right to dictate to them the way it shall be fulfilled." These political men also first (1) created the situation, then (2) spent decades not doing anything about it. The "political woman" quoted in the article was unfortunately, like them, a Victorian-style libertarian (ie, evil) and objected to government regulation.

A group of doctors, not "political men", were some of the initial activists on the matter. (Their organizations were not, of course, open to women-- one was open only to doctors, the other "gentlemen")[FN1]

The Suffragists argued that the caregiver registration bill (which would prove completely ineffective) was hostile to women and ignored the real causes of child-murder: prejudice against employing unwide mothers and inequitable bastardry laws.

Footnotes all to Child Welfare: England, 1872-1989 By Harry Hendrick, page 39ish on.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I was adopting the language.

That's called "dogma". Now that you know, you can fix your ignorance.

Plus, you're full of shit. The words "premarital sex" apppear nowhere in the linked article. They came from you.

The rest of this reads like you're sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "man bad, woman good, lalalala!"

I am not, for example, conveniently overlooking the paragraph on the "poor" men financing the infanticide

Yeah, you're busy singing while conveniently overlooking the parts about the women taking the money for the infanticide.

A group of doctors, not "political men", were some of the initial activists

Activists: political men

The Suffragists argued that

...women should be allowed to kill children.

Quoting your own link:

The bill met with strenuous opposition from the champions of 'individual liberty' and most effectively by the National Society for Women's Suffrage, which formed a committee to fight it. In a propagandistic pamphlet the Society argued that the bill was hostile to women

LOL. Your link just said the same shit I said about you. Keep giving me ammunition.

Industries grow when government sets standards of performance, registers and licenses practitioners, and takes business out of black markets. (Trust me, I'm a business owner... famous last words haha.) This licensing effort was in the original Bill we're discussing.

Yet, this very thing was blocked by the Bill's opponents, who claimed in your link:

Feminists saw the proposed bill as a threat to employment opportunities for self-supporting women.

As they admitted elsewhere in these links, their real concern was that men were the ones with oversight. They didn't care if women had employment opportunities, as long as men were cut off from having anything to do with parenting decision, even if that decision was murder.

As a result, the political men who wanted to protect children were opposed. The Bill was canceled and replaced with an ineffective one, and employment opportunities were not created.

What it did do, was create more welfare payments while child murder persisted.

Great job, feminists!

[–]deadlast1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, you're busy singing while conveniently overlooking the parts about the women taking the money for the infanticide.

Not at all. Unlike you, I'm not invested in some kind absurd gender war. You read that article and your takeaway is OMG FEMINISTS KILL BABIES. But MEN ARE GOOD GUYS!!! Really? Just....really?

The Suffragists argued that ...women should be allowed to kill children.

Cite please.

In a propagandistic pamphlet the Society argued that the bill was hostile to women and ignored the real causes of child-murder: prejudice against employing unwide mothers and inequitable bastardry laws

Restored the bit of the sentence you cut off.

You seriously think that the adjective "propagandistic" means something helpful to you? Propaganda: "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position."

Oh no, they put out an advocacy piece! The adjective was being used descriptively, not pejoratively, as you'd realize if you had any ability to parse as sentence.

As a result the Bill was canceled and replaced with an ineffective one.

As a result? Were there suffragists in Parliament in the 19th century I never heard about?

At any rate, substantively the same unenforced bill -- registration of caregivers, births, deaths, -- was later put into force and did nothing.

What seems to have worked was the solution proposed by the suffragists: reform bastardy laws, lessen stigma against 'fallen' women working, let them work in workhouses.

You know, industries are created when government sets standards of performance, registers and licenses practitioners, and takes business out of black markets. (Trust me, I'm a business owner... famous last words haha.)

??? Er, no. Industries are created when a new product is developed to fill a need, business enter the market to exploit this wonderful new commercial opportunity, etc. etc. Licensing regimes for many busineses (taxis, hair dressers, etc.) are just rent-seeking from established operators. Regulators eventually follow after and paste up rules. What kind of business are you in that you seriously think government regulation creates the industry?

Activists: political men

Uh huh. And what are members of Parliament again, exactly?

[–][deleted]0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not invested in some kind absurd gender war.

Suuuuuure you aren't. That's why you tried to cop-out with that "adopting the language" bullshit that failed.

After I made you look like an idiot, now you can't come up with anything to defend yourself. Don't think I haven't noticed.

your takeaway is OMG FEMINISTS KILL BABIES. But MEN ARE GOOD GUYS

Just noticing that feminists are more concerned with securing their own power and making propaganda than with equality or solving problems.

And that your "men abandoning children in droves" gender-war ideological schtick is countered by the fact of women murdering children in droves, for profit, while jealously battling men who would rather protect children.

You seriously think that the adjective "propagandistic" means something helpful to you?

Sure do. So, you have embraced this as a neutral word (actually, it isn't), and now we can both agree that your opinions are propagandistic and ideological. Just like I said.

In a propagandistic pamphlet the Society argued that the bill was hostile to women and ignored the real causes of child-murder: prejudice against employing unwide mothers and inequitable bastardry laws

Restored the bit of the sentence you cut off

Nope. That's not going to work. I already definitively answered this, in the bit about how feminist concerns about employment were a cover for feminist concerns about men's involvement in parenting. "Ain't nobody gonna tell me how to raise my baby!"

Lydia Becker, editor of the Women's Suffrage Journal and leader of the Manchester branch of the National Society of Women's Suffrage, blasted the clause. Her journal reeked of the laissez-faire attitudes of the day, "officialism, police interference, and espionage," would oppress the ratepayers and infringe on the rights of the individual. She also objected to the entire registration and supervision process being handled entirely by men. <49>

Er, no. Industries are created

Cool, tell me all about your business. My new second business is not too large yet but very entrepeneurial and doing a half million this year in a new untested market. And I'm all cool with the government's place in it. That libertarian thing you said sounds like the words of a dumb kid.

[–]inthemud 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While those stories are horrific it does now show men abandoning their children in droves. Before the Bastard Laws were enacted, the Poor Law of 1733 forced men to either support the child, go to jail, or marry the mother of the illegitimate child. From the article: "Young men, accused solely on the word of the mothers and unable to pay the surety, were, innocent or guilty, forced into early and unsuitable marriages which the commission felt were detrimental to the country." Basically, before the Bastard Laws, a woman could get pregnant and then pick any man as the father making him either marry her and support her and the child or pay her for the child.

This brought in the Bastard Laws which removed the men's responsibilities for illegitimate children. In other words, a women could not just say that a man was the father of her illegitimate child and force him to pay her or marry her. Remember, back then there was no way to prove who was the father. That is one reason why virginity before marriage was so important. A man could rightfully assume that an unmarried woman who had a child had slept with at least one man and possibly more. The true father could not be known.

The Bastard Laws relieved the supposed father of the responsibilities of a child born out of wedlock and placed all responsibilities on the mother. Because the mother was the only one that the state could be sure was the parent, they made her the sole caretaker and custodian. There is no mention of numbers or statistics on how many illegitimate children there were or how many fathers actually did take care of these children without the state forcing them. The stories detailed in the article actually show the mothers in a horrible light (especially the ones who paid and stood by to watch their children murdered) and how idiotic it is for the government to try and force morals on it's people. It does not, however, show men abandoning their children in droves.

[–]Il128 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Random_Tangent -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 35 points36 points37 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

My husband's ex (in Ohio) had boyfriends online, in person, and in their home. She left him for another guy.

She got nearly all of his meager possessions, including things she had no use for, because he didn't have the money to hire a lawyer and fight for them. Even if he did, other male friends' experience has been that if the wife asks for something in court, she gets it.

One of our friends lost his traditional, family-heirloom ethnic/religious possessions to an ex-wife who was not of his ethnicity and not of his religion, on the basis that they were worth money and should therefore be divided evenly. She was supposed to sell them and give him half of the money. She kept them and gave him half of the appraised value, something the court told him he wasn't allowed to do, even though he had brought those items into the marriage, even though they were handed down from his family, even though they were personal and she had no prior interest in them, and even though she had initiated the divorce so she could be with another man. When the discrepancy was brought to the court's attention, the judge threatened him with harassment charges instead of charging her with contempt for violating the terms of the divorce.

[–]TerriChris[S] 25 points26 points27 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToraZalinto 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TerriChris[S] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamsIphone 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TruBlue 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AHrubik 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tango646 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AHrubik 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a1icey -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AHrubik 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfallibleBiship 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InfallibleBiship 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tango646 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcopley 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tango646 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pwag 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Quattroporte1127 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ummmdude 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tango646 132 points133 points134 points 14 years ago (252 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 14 years ago* [recovered] (244 children) | Copy Link

I'm in the process of divorcing my wife of 20 + years.

She sincerely doesn't understand why I can't be left with nothing? Why shouldn't I work full time to pay her every dime I make? Why shouldn't I take care of her financially for the rest of her life? She was a stay at home mom and because of that deserves my every last resource for the rest of my life.

I ask her, how can I continue on and be successful at a six figure job while I'm living on $10,800 a year in take home pay? How do I take care of business lunches that routinely run $250 out of pocket? How do I dress in a tie everyday on $900 a month?

She literally doesn't give a shit. She just wants it all. I mean all of it forever. Bonus, while I continue to pay all of her expenses and give her $600 a month spending money, her family keeps direct funding her divorce lawyer who then spends that money and asks the court to force me to repay the monies... I'm not even divorced yet and I already owe tens of thousands of dollars to her lawyer. I've spent a whole grand on my lawyer. /sigh

[–]mackk 30 points31 points32 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]Il128 14 years ago* [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

Do not get married. Just don't do it. The court see's women as helpless victims. I eat Ramon Noodles for dinner, if that. I spend $2 a day for lunch and that's my big meal of the day.

Not only does the court have no issue with my living circumstance, they wonder if I'm to well off.

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BlackSands 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]diggro -11 points-10 points-9 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DitkasMoustache 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BinaryShadow 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cold08 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ss_camaro 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (124 children) | Copy Link

[+]Il128 14 years ago* [recovered] (92 children) | Copy Link

She's a woman
She was a stay at home mom
The court believes that women are helpless and need taken care of.

[–]Grammer_NotZ 98 points99 points100 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kronox 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]speedy_86 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]graffiti81 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yojimara 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]brianbrianbrian 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ChemicalRascal 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grammer_NotZ 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]toejam119 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women who get married are basically whores. They trade sex and companionship for being taken care of.

No, stay-at-home-moms who 1. do not have kids 2. do not take care of their kids (home assistant does) 3. married a rich guy so she can stay at home, are these.

I don't think I know a single one of these types of women (then again I'm from Finland and we have higher taxes and mostly because of this both man and wife have to have a job). My parents for example have been married ~37 years and both have been working all their lives. Actually my dad is retired but my mom keeps working. Only time my mom was at home was on maternity leave when she had me and my brothers. After that we were sent to kindergarten and my mom wen't back to work.

Also home chores are split 50/50 too. Sometimes dad cleanes the whole house, sometimes mom, sometimes 50/50.

So, no. My mom didn't become a whore when she married my dad and she didn't "trade sex and companionship for being taken care of."

[–]graffiti81 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whisper -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]trunky 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]woofoo 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]woofoo 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]woofoo4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SarahC4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brianbrianbrian3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not common knowledge. Fifty percent of all women end up worse off (financially) after a divorce. Statistically, they've always done worse than men after divorce, although I was reading recent articles from 2012 that say divorce is about even now. Up until this past year, men (statistically) always did better than women after divorce.

In my sister's case, her ex-husband got the house. You see it as "he got the debt." But, had she gotten the house, you'd see it as "she got the house." Your perception is skewed. You see, they both wanted the house. They loved the home. He got it because she couldn't afford it on her own. If they sold it, they'd probably lose money after paying a realtor, so they couldn't afford to sell it. He had a girlfriend because he's a cheating bastard, so he could afford to live in it with his girlfriend. It doesn't have a value right now, but as the market goes back up, it most definitely will. The floors were rotted out from old termite damage. My sister paid to have them all replaced. She updated all the windows and window treatments and painted the walls with design ideas from my brother, who's a graphic artist. They made the house into something special, which is why it didn't lose value during this housing market crash. But, in spite of her work in the house and the money she put in to fix it up, she couldn't afford to keep it. It's gone, and he has it. That's the way the cookie crumbles, I'm afraid. But, no, don't see it as he had to take on the debt. He wanted that house.

[–]b0w3n1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Their debt would have been just the cost of selling (paying the realtors, closing costs, etc.). It was appraised at about the same value they'd purchased it three years prior (slightly less, but they had equity). As their finances were separate, her ex-husband had enough savings so he could have paid half of those costs outright. My parents would have been willing to pay my sister's half of the costs if that's what was needed to get out of the mess and for her to continue on with her life. Her ex wanted the house, though (just as she would have wanted it). He chose to keep it, and she signed it over to him. He could have sold it, and he could sell it today if he wanted. So, yes, maybe you can see it as he has the "debt" (aka, mortgage), but he has the house. She loved that house and put real work into it. She paid half of its mortgage payments for years, but she had to sign it over to her cheating husband because she couldn't afford the mortgage herself. And, as I said, the only reason he could is because he had a girlfriend on the side who could move in and pay him rent.

So, truly, you're telling me that when the woman gets the house in a divorce settlement, you truly see that only as she gets the debt and not that she gets the house? Somehow, I don't think that's entirely true. I have a feeling that most of the fellas on r/mensrights would see it as the woman got the house, and the man was put out on the street. That's not how these same fellas are seeing the situation as it comes to my sister, though.

[–]b0w3n1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They actually kept hteir finances separate. They both had jobs that paid about teh same ($35k). They paid for everything separately, and they went 50/50 on the mortgage.

When they divorced, I don't think they fought anything. My sister would have fought for the house if she could have been able to afford it,b ut she couldn't. They just signed the paperwork and went their separate ways. Thankfully, they didn't have to worry about joint accounts or other finances--just the house. Maybe she could have made a stink about the money she put into it or the equity it could have one day as the economy gets better, but that wasn't worth having to deal with the cheating bastard for any longer than she had to.

I think that's why I got so frustrated with what people were insinuating on this thread. Yes, I'm sure there are people who screw their ex-spouses out of money or wahtever. But, statistically speaking, women do not end up better than men. Until a few new studies in 2012, all the past studies showed that women end up worse than men financially after divorce. Men ended up in a better financial position after divorce. Some new studies in 2012 now show things are about even--50% of men and 50% of women end up in a worse financial situation after divorce. Anyway, to me, that means for every case you hear about the man getting screwed, there's another case about a woman getting screwed.

On the front page of Reddit righ tnow is a story about a girl (age 17) whose mom just left her. She has no one. The only income she has is the child support from her dad that she said is $25 every two weeks. If that's true, come on, you can't say her mother wasn't screwed financially. It costs a lot more than that to care for a child, especially a teen.

I don't want to belittle the hardships that others have faced. I'm sure there are truly men who have gotten a terrible deal in divorces, but there are just as many women who have, too. I think it's silly to label all women as money-grubbing.

[–]b0w3n1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tango6461 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Judges uses "the standard of living she grew accustomed" to ensure a woman's standard of living remains the same or doesn't drop too low or return to what is was before marriage but a mans standard of living is never considered. Men sometimes have to pay for their lawyer and their ex's lawyer and any debt acquired during the marriage this is all at a Judges whim.

As for him getting the house I would suspect they didn't have kids or he would have been screwed. I have a question, does your sister still have to pay the mortgage for a certain period of time? If not she should consider herself lucky many of us had to pay on a house we no longer own, some of us for years. I feel her pain I've lost a house I know how sucky it is.

As for women ending up worse financially this is to be expected as men's primary income are on average higher, due to marrying up (hyper-gamy and all) women financial status increases when they get married (on average). So without the husbands income her financial status will lower. I hope my jibber jabber made sense.

[+]Il128 14 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

In family court there is just one judge and he's done this so many times... There are no arguments. Just yes or no questions.

[–]WhipIash 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]graffiti81 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]inthemud 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But how could a lawyer argue that in court?

Family law courts in America are not like civil or criminal courts. Each state is different, of course, but generally there is not much arguing to be done. For example, with child support it is all a matter of figuring up how much you make and how much of that they are going to take from you. There is no arguing of whether you will pay or not. You will pay. The only arguing is how much you are going to pay and usually there is not a whole lot of arguing to be done on that end either. With alimony, it is generally the same thing. Especially if the women did not work. It is not arguing whether you will pay her or not but how much you will pay her. The laws are very strict in that you will pay for a child and you will pay for an ex. The only arguing is going to be over how much you pay.

[–]WhipIash 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarahC 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

You need to be fair. I'm a stay at home mom. My husband and I chose that together. He is advancing his career, getting annual raises, getting experience, and will be able to move up in the corporate world. for the good of our family, I stay home with the kids. He pays the mortgage, but I care for the home. I work at pinching our pennies to make them go further. I pick up small jobs from friends and family an dput ALL that money into our kids' college accounts. My husband brings ome the checks for us, and he saves money for our retirement. Ours. Hypothetically speaking, if we divorced, do you think I should be left with nothing? No place to live, no work experience, no retirement money, none of our savings? Why, because we chose for me to stay home?

Think of how that would scare a stay-at-home spouse. The working spouse could then walk away at any time with everything, leaving the stay at home parent with no resources, no job experience, no anything.

[+]Il128 14 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

In my case, my wife is having an affair and she was also physically abusive.

I have no desire to screw her over. I live in a house trailer, eat $2 lunches and eat Ramon Noodle for dinner every other night. She's in our home and getting $4,600 a month and I get $900 a month.

What do you think would be fair?

[–]SpawnQuixote 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DBi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TruBlue 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't know. I think there should be a certain percentage of the house and savings and retirement that hsould go to the spouse that didn't work, or the spouse that maybe worked part time while raising kids instead of working an actual career. Maybe it should be 50/50. But then you need to take into account the kids. Whoever gets the kids might still not be able to work to advance their career. If the kids aren't school aged, that parent might not be able to work at all, or might need to pay for day care. That has to be factored in somehow. Finally, if one of the parents stayed home and didn't have a career, you need to take into account that that parent might have no work experience at all. Or, even if that parent did have work experience, it might have been 5-10 years ago. That parent might have to start out at an entry level position. If that parent can only find a job making, say, $30,000 a year, that can't very well take care of, say, four kids and a house for them. Shouldn't the other parent help pay for housing for those four kids?

I'm not talking about male/female. I have a male cousin who is a stay at home parent. The wife works because she's a lawyer. She works for the government, so she gets a pension, she pays the mortgage, etc. My cousin hasn't worked in over four years now, and their youngest is a year old. He won't go back to work for another four years. In four years, if she leaves him, what should happen to him? He won't have a job or work experience. Maybe he can get an entry level position somewhere. Should he take hte kids and move into a studio apartment? Or should she still be obligated to provide housing for those kids, since she has the means?

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I am capable of still working. My last job, I made $12 an hour. We only have two kids, but what if I we had, say, 6 kids? Should I raise them on that $12 an hour myself? Or should my husband have some obligation to provide a home large enough for the six kids?

I don't think either spouse should be left penniless. I'm just trying to point out that a stay-at-home spouse should get half of things like savings, equity, and retirement. If that spouse gets the majority of custody of the kids, then that spouse should also get some monthly money to help provide a home and food for the kids. Health insurance is also expensive, so that needs to be figured out, too.

I think you're focusing on the fact that the working parent has to "lose" half of their savings and has to pay monthly support. But put yourself in the stay-at-home-parent's shoes. Imagine being a parent with no work experience who has to find a job to pay for a home and food for the kids. Imagine if you worked for $12 an hour and had to figure out how to pay for day care so you can work as well as a house and food on that $12 an hour--meanwhile, your spouse might be making close to six figures because your spouse has been working and moving up while you were staying home with the kids. Doesn't it seem reasonable that the working spouse should pay child support?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]deadlast -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Il1283 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BeatPhr34k 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pahncrd 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

She brings up a valid point. There is a place for child support and alimony.

The problem is that our family court system is extremely unfair about it. Alimony should never ever be more than half of what a person makes in a month (for any reason, no matter the situation), and it should always be adjusted according to what he/she actually makes and not what he/she is capable of making. In addition, new income streams (such as from getting re-married) need to be considered. Being married to a person shouldn't necessarily mean you are on the hook for the welfare their entire life regardless of their other relationships.

I am all for mens' rights, and I am one, but I must say there is some serious undervaluing of what homemaking with children is worth. I've worked a wide range of jobs and homemaking with two children is pretty far from the easiest.

[–]BeatPhr34k 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KRATOSBRAH 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]gnimsh 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tango646 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlackDogRamble -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Il128 14 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

The attitude that everything belongs to the working parent, and that the SAHP is merely an employee that can be let go and gets nothing is the wrong attitude--not the idea that the married couple is a partnership.

You just described every job I've ever had... Women, demanding to be special. Because, can't you see the logic in all this?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You need to think of it another way, though. If I was working like I was before kids, I'd be bringing home about $25,000 before taxes, so maybe about $18,000 after taxes, or $1,500 a month. That's less than what day care would be for our two children. So, if I worked, we'd actually lose money. Also, right now, we do qualify for some state health insurance for the kids. If I worked, we would no longer qualify, and my husband's family plan for health insurance is nearly $1,000 a month. If I worked, we'd actually lose about $1,200 a month for child care and health insurance.

However, you're telling me, if I worked, I'd be entitled to half of our house and savings and retirement. But because my work is the kids and house, you're telling me I'm entitled to none of our savings, money, or home. Is that right? Doesn't that seem wrong to you? If I worked, we'd be in debt, but, hey, I'd have some things that would be mine.

[–]Il1281 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I definitely think a 50/50 split of assets from the marriage is fair. I think, if one parent ends up with more custody of the kids than the other, there needs to be some child support. If the kids aren't school aged, there also needs to be some help with day care costs (probably 50/50).

I don't have a magic dollar amount, and I don't think anyone really can. If a family was living off of $25,000 a year, child support is going to be a lot different than a family that was living off of $250,000 a year. Also, if both parents have good jobs, sometimes they're able to agree on just doing simple things, like have one parent cover health insurance and college, and the other parent covers all the daily expenses. That might work if one parent is pretty well off, as college is expensive. I think the important thing is that the kids are cared for, and I think fighting over every dollar does the opposite of that.

You know, I was thinking about something else earlier today. I was thinking, if a family like mine split up, what would be fair? I thought, if the mom was the stay at home parent, and the dad worked and made about $2,500 a month, what if he paid $500 a month in child support? The mom would have to start working, of course, so who would care for the kids? If there were two kids, then day care would be about $1,800 a month. If they split that and each paid $900, that would seem fair.

Then I got to thinking. Both the mom and the dad would both think they were screwed on the deal. The mom would be getting a total of $1,400, which wouldn't even cover the child care while she works. If she has no work experience, she'll be lucky to bring in $2,000 a month. $400 of that would have to cover the rest of day care, so she'd be raising three people on maybe $1,600 a month. An apartment, food, health care, clothes... all on $1,600. On the other hand, the dad would feel screwed out of the deal, too, because he'd feel like he was giving more than half his income away. He'd be living on $1,100, but it would be just him. In those cases, BOTH parents would be struggling, and BOTH parents would be resenting the other. The mom would be resenting the dad because it would be very hard to make ends meet for kids on so little money. The dad would resent the mom because more than half of his income is going away, and $1,100 a month will barely cover rent. They're both screwed, but they're only thinking about themselves.

I thought about that, and I thought that's probably how a lot of divorces go. I'm sure, in many cases, both spouses end up in a much worse financial situation than they were before.

[–]Il1281 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlackDogRamble -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cold08 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Alright. Since nobody is giving a good reason I will. When you enter a marriage contract you agree to split the earning power of the family unit 50/50. When you dissolve that family unit, you still have the contractual agreement that you have committed to sharing the earning power of that family and half of what the family has earned during the marriage.

Basically, if you were to marry a girl, work to pay for her schooling, then raise the kids and do the housework so she could focus on her career, you should be entitled to her future income because you invested in her future.

Alright, now I will use an example from a friend of mine. He was a dentist who married his girlfriend while going to school. After getting out of school they had kids, she stayed at home and he built his dental practice. By the time they got divorced, his dental practice was worth several million dollars and she had spent 13 years of her life exclusively raising their kids and doing the majority of the housework. So now she has decreased earning potential because she spent over a decade raising their kids under the assumption that the contract would last forever, and her support is partly responsible for his success. Logically they should have equal income until the lesser enters into a new contract.

Now where it gets complicated is they own a dental practice that is worth a few million dollars. The wife had no use for a dental practice, because she is not a dentist but the lion's share of the family's wealth is tied up in that business, so if she were to take everything (house, cars, jewelry, etc.) and her husband got the business, he would still have to pay her back roughly a million dollars so that she saw a return on her investment. Also when you enter child support into the equation it gets really messy. Basically you have to pay your wife to raise your kids as well as give her a return on her investment in you.

My friend, who is a dentist and owned his practice, ended up in a one bedroom apartment living on 24k a year. I don't think that's right, and something needs to change. I'm just not sure what.

[–]WhipIash 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]cold08 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]cold08 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cold08 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can beat the system even after years of marriage. If you want the upper hand in a nasty divorce get a good lawyer and don't let her blindside you. Start by stopping any behavior that they could use against you in court. Stop drinking, sleeping around or anything that could be seen as bad for the kids, next document everything she does that could paint her in a bad light. If she has a beer in her hand, take a picture and post it to Facebook. If you have an argument, don't fight back, leave the house, take the kids if you can and write down all of the details. When you have a history deeper and more specific than your spouse could ever make up and get people to vouch for file for divorce. The courts are set up to fuck you, but if you can paint your ex as an abusive alcoholic, you should get everything you ask for.

...also I'm pretty sure working for lawyers has ruined my soul.

[–]WhipIash 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cold08 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cold081 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BlackDogRamble 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But that's not how it works.

Maybe it will help to see it with switched gender roles.

I have a male cousin who is married to a female lawyer. They decided he should stay home with the kids because she made more money. Currently, she works for the government, so she's earning a pension. She's paying for their house, their insurance, their expenses. He stays home and cares for the kids. He hasn't worked for four years now. Their youngest is a year old, so he's not going to work for another four years.

Fast forward four years. Let's say, hypothetically, that she decides to leave him. You think she should get the house, the pension, the future Social Security money, their savings--all to herself? He should be left with nothing if she decides to leave him? Now, let's say he has custody of the kids but can't find a job that pays well because he won't have work experience for the last eight years. She'll be making six figures, and he might be stuck making minimum wage. Are you saying she shouldn't still help pay for health insurance and food and clothing for the kids? It should be all on him?

Now, ask yourself, would he have stayed home with the kids if she asked him to sign a pre-nup saying he'd get no support and no money in the event she left him once she didn't need him to stay home with the kids anymore? She could just get up and leave him and take everything? There's no way he'd make that sacrifice to stay at home and be so vulnerable, so utterly dependent on her.

[–]kronox 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cold08 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cold08 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlackDogRamble 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BlackDogRamble 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]4dd4m 14 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Basically, if you were to marry a girl, work to pay for her schooling, then raise the kids and do the housework so she could focus on her career, you should be entitled to her future income because you invested in her future.>

I think a lot of men in this situation wouldn't want her money and would get out there and start over for themselves and get a job.

[–]cold08 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]androk 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cold08 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-RobotDeathSquad- 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]-RobotDeathSquad- 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-RobotDeathSquad- 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]-RobotDeathSquad- 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]-RobotDeathSquad- 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]karmapuhlease 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Il128 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ern19 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SeaweedWater 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]th1nker 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]deadlast 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tango646 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SarahC -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]4dd4m 14 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

If you are in a successful six figure job... seriously consider finding work outside of the US (confidentially of course). Assuming you're in the US and have no children.

Edit: you're divorcing her... missed that part (yes, the opening line) - she deserves something. Likely more than you're willing to give and less than she's willing to take.

[–]Il128 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Il128 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unscathed 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Craysh 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]b0w3n 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unscathed 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kirkenjerk 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kirkenjerk 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rdesktop7 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Gareth321[M] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]joedude 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SeaweedWater 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]danbfree 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]danbfree 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TicTokCroc -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]TicTokCroc -10 points-9 points-8 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

If he's paying the mortgage on the house that he's going to get 50% of, then his spouse isn't really getting all that money, is she? Regardless, you're underlining the point which undermines OP's whining, which is that things aren't anywhere near as one-sided as he wants everyone to believe. Temporary support orders are based on maintaining the status quo until the divorce papers are signed. They're designed to keep the spouse who is making less money from getting screwed until the divorce is completed. How this screws the spouse who was paying the same expenses before, I have no idea. He/she doesn't have to leave the house at all if they don't want to until the divorce is granted, sometimes until the house is sold. That's the choice of the departing spouse and, yeah, they should come up with the money to finance that if they want out now. But legally they can't be thrown out of their own home without cause.

[–]Il128 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]TicTokCroc -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If that is true then Mississippi is an even more backwards state than I thought. It's insane that a company wouldn't have to cover legally separated spouses. In the forward-thinking states, until the divorce is final (and in some states even after the divorce if you get divorced under "bed and board") the health insurance has to stay in effect.

You say your wife is scared of you. Do you mean she is saying she's scared of you or that she actually is? If you're saying she is legitimately scared of you, then maybe you should take some responsibility for helping to create a situation that compelled you to move out and spend money that you otherwise wouldn't have.

And if you're making three figures and are only taxed on 63k, then I think you should be celebrating that as you're not paying taxes on at least $37,000. Happy days, sir!

Also, Google "trite". I think the word you were looking for is tenuous.

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, that's unfortunate but it probably has more to do with the Mississippi state system being underfunded, which is the result of any corrupt system where the rich don't pay their fair share (And the last time I checked MS was as red as it comes). In order to run a proper family court system everyone needs the right to go in and get protection in the form of a temporary restraining order, but the accused needs their day in court so it can be properly determined whether a permanent restraining order is appropriate. It also is important that the Courts attribute an appropriate level of income to the non-working spouse whether or not they're employed or not. If someone doesn't want to work, that's fine, but if they can work then an amount needs to be attributed to them. This really has nothing to do with men vs. women and when you frame things in those terms you're allowing the state government to continue their policy of underfunding their system.

[–]inthemud 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I love how guys like you have to make shit up just so you have something to whine about.

Wow. I express this to everyone who has your attitude about these situations: don't for a second think that this is not going to affect you. No matter if you are a male or female, you will most likely be butchered by the family courts one day. And in retrospect you will see that this "whining" is something that you should have been doing all along.

You see, the family courts are extremely intrusive. They are not there to help and make the world a better place. It is a system of money and power like most government agencies. Except this one has virtually unlimited power and no oversight. And they are in charge of your life as well as your kids. And that is the thing that most people who see this crap as silly boys whining do not understand: you will most likely have children one day. Those children will most likely have children. Somewhere along those lines, the odds are really damn good that the family law courts are going to step in and take over. Then you will be part of the whining group because there is nothing that will make you "whine" like having your children taken from you and you being forced to pay for the privilege under the threat of incarceration. Or having an ex cheat on you and the courts force you to pay them monthly on threat of incarceration. Or any of the other bullshit things that you hear us "whining" about. Trust me, it will happen to you or yours one day.

[+]TicTokCroc -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]inthemud 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am talking through years of experience and involvement in these issues, unlike yourself who appears to be talking based on what they are told.

In 6 years of dealing with my own case and being involved in over a dozen cases of friends and acquaintances, not a single case has been resolved through arbitration or mediation. They always go to court in front of a judge. Always. Maybe in fantasy land where everything is amicable and people are sane this might happen but usually these types of things are very volatile. The women usually have every incentive to NOT mediate because they will always get a better deal in court in front of a judge.

You seem to be of the opinion that the state and the courts are doing their best to be fair and practical while it is the men who are crying foul play because they are not getting everything they want. I would suggest that you go and sit in on a family court hearing some time but, unfortunately, most likely you will not be allowed. You know why? Because they are closed sessions. Want to check out the court documents? Can't do that either because they are probably sealed. But, instead of standing on the outside looking in and passing judgment, jump in and get involved. Seriously. You might as well do it now because you are going to be forced to at some point.

I fight this bullshit not because I have any hope of reclaiming the damage done by the state to my relationship with my child but so the future generation does not have to deal with it. To think that my son will possibly have his children taken from him by a vindictive spouse with the full support and help of the state brings chills. You will understand this one day whether you want to or not.

[–]Il128 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kronox 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]kronox 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]kronox 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kronox2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kronox2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bkeane 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TicTokCroc -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Il1281 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyber_rigger 31 points32 points33 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]androk 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Grammer_NotZ 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DBi 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points43 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sikazhel 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindctrlpankak 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ToastyMallows 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindctrlpankak 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mindctrlpankak 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mynameisflorian 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seacrest_Hulk -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mzungu321 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CVTHIZZKID -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheSacredParsnip -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]teamhex 40 points41 points42 points 14 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]chaiguy 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cyber_rigger 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]zdenekn 14 points15 points16 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While prenuptial agreements are a step in the right direction, they're numerous ways a court can invalidate some of the clauses or the entire agreement:

1) The agreement does not meet all elements for it to have been made in good faith - In order to be valid, a prenuptial agreement must be in writing, notarized, and executed by both parties with independent and competent legal representation separately and voluntarily. In addition, both parties are requierd to fully disclose their assets. Thus the following can invalidate it: -A spouse lacks legal representation, or has significantly inferior representation. -Insufficent documentation or time between execution and the marriage that cannot rule out coercion in the agreement. -A spouse includes a financial account or asset, but doesn't include disclosure regarding its potential change in value over time.

2) Alimony clauses - A court can find an alimony clause "Unconscionable" and invalidate those clauses if the amount permitted is either too low or doesn't account for the income disparity between the two parties. Some states don't even allow a party to waive alimony rights.

3) Penalties or clauses that change the agreement based on the nature of the divorce proceeding - A court can invalidate a prenuptial agreement if it's deemed to 'promote divorce'. This can include things like transfering a larger share of community property to one spouse if the divorce was initiated because the other spouse cheated on them, or the other spouse committed a felony, etc.

4) Parental Responsibility Rights - This is the biggest one: Any provisions dealing with custodial rights, visitation rights, or clauses concerning child support payments are never recognized, and can invalidate an agreement.

In addition, prenuptial agreements are extremely expensive. Both spouses are looking at paying at least a few hundred dollars to just have the damn thing reviewed, much less several thousand dollars to have a document written that addresses alimony, division of debts, division of property, financial responsibilities during marriage, inheritence and estate planning, arbitration and choice of courts, as well as cover the audits and notarization necessary for all of that. Sometimes it's enough to double the cost of the marriage ceremony itself!

[–]kragshot 19 points20 points21 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Il12810 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tango646 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points44 points 14 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brownt0wn_ 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Basically a contract which both parties sign prior to marriage that states that, in the case of divorce, assets will be split in a way that is written in the contract.

From wikipedia:

In the United States, prenuptial agreements are recognized in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Likewise, in most jurisdictions, five elements are required for a valid prenuptial agreement:

agreement must be in writing (oral prenups are generally unenforceable);

must be executed voluntarily;

full and/or fair disclosure at the time of execution;

the agreement cannot be unconscionable;

it must be executed by both parties (not their attorneys) "in the manner required for a deed to be recorded", known as an acknowledgment, before a notary public.

Prenuptial agreements in all U.S. states are not allowed to regulate issues relating to the children of the marriage, in particular, custody and access issues.

[–]RC_5213 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soccernamlak 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pre-nups are recognized by all states and are basically a form of a contract. In that regards, it arguably falls under contract law governed by legal law.

One of the things, for instance, it cannot do is dictate custody of children. That can only be decided by a judge on what is best for the children, essentially by a third party outside of the marriage.

Regarding the reasons why it can be thrown out, you're looking at duress in signing it, not reading it, not having council, incomplete information about your finances, and even if it is deemed "unfair." Although that last one is judge discretion and varies from state to state. Arguably from what I've seen California seems to be the best state to have this done.

Anyway, the best method is to be proactive when writing it. Have you and your future wife both hire independent attorneys. Provide more than enough time for independent review with said attorneys of the documents in full. When it comes time to signing the papers, at the minimum it must be done in view of a notary. For maximum assurance, it should be done with a notary and a judge present; videotaped as well if you want to go all out. Again, there's no guarantees that it won't be overturn in a divorce, however by ensuring that it's completed properly, it makes it less likely to be thrown out from some technicality.

[–]Il12812 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuteman 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You want to discourage a 19 year old guy from learning this stuff?

1) Always use your own condom and dispose of it yourself. Better yet, only fuck women you want to have children with.

2) Never get a job that pays above minimum wage. If you do get a good job, make sure it's part time.

3) If you have been studious about 2) you should end up with a woman who makes as much or more then you. You are covered financially in the advent of a divorce.

4) If you want children and she makes more then become the stay-at-home parent. If she makes the same, then utilize your part-time status to switch off parenting duties with her. Do not let her have more parenting time then you.

5) If you get a divorce you will lose nothing and you have a much better chance at shared parenting.

6) ???

7) You win by not losing.

[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]teamhex 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Il128 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cyber_rigger 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Antares42 -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]teamhex 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dathadorne -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]teamhex 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dathadorne -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tango646 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elmariachi304 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ShitDickMcCuntFace 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

This article was first posted to the MGTOW board @ www.mgtow.proboards.com (which no longer exists) where a growing number of good men are in various stages of self rediscovery. There is a lot of other very helpful information there.

Top Ten Tricks of Scumbags Known as “Family Law Attorneys”

First, a disclaimer. I am not an attorney. I am not rich. I think screwing my fellow human beings for money is wrong. I actually care about decisions that tear apart families and traumatize children forever. For that reason, and because I am a decent human being, this list is not a substitute for “competent legal advice” {whatever the hell that is}. Use this to benefit yourself, your male children, your brothers and friends at your own risk. Most state family law statutes are very similar and these tricks are common in every jurisdiction. Give this to your attorney or use it Pro Se. This way when he goes golfing with the ex’s lawyer to discuss the case, they’ll talk about how it’s probably not best to screw with you. My apologies to the 1% of lawyers who are not lower than child molesters.
Hasmat

The Bankruptcy Trick.
Here is how it works……. In the property division portion of the trial, the “wife” and her life sucking leach will let you keep most of your stuff. You know, your classic cars and motorcycles, toys, property in your family for years, etc. {don’t worry, she’ll throw out all the smaller mementos of your life, in violation of the temporary order, to make the math easier} In exchange, you have to pay the princess a cash settlement based on splitting all the bills due minus the assets each person takes. Sounds fair, right? Fuck NO! What happens is that, shortly after the divorce, pumpkin declares bankruptcy. Now guess who is responsible for ALL the bills. Yes, you. The nice part is that if you declare bankruptcy to get rid of those marital bills, your ex sweetheart’s cash payout is not subject to the bankruptcy proceedings. Your credit is now fucked and you will have to pay her the cash the judge promised her. They will seize property (including bank accounts), garnish wages, etc. in order to help out the former Mrs. X.

Solution: What you need to do is make sure that you put on the record, say to the judge during the trial, “Your Honor, I stipulate to the property division as put forth by Ms. _______ ,and her counsel, with the following caveat: In the event that a party declares bankruptcy within ten years of the divorce, that party shall not be entitled to any cash settlement from the other and any payments made as part of a cash equalization payment shall be returned by order of the court.” Then smile and shut up. If they pull this on you, you need to have this on the record. The judge can agree with this or not, her attorney will flip out that you are on to this trick and certainly protest. Let him make an ass of himself or herself. When they finish, simply state that “to do otherwise is to open the door for a future civil case of unjust enrichment and I realize the court is busy and may not wish to reopen this matter, under relief from judgment statutes, at a later time.”

The “Magical Order” trick.
You’ll like this one. You go to court and get basically what you want, justice. Then a week or so later you get a copy of the proposed order. Well, holy shit, the order has things that were never discussed or ordered or has it just plain wrong. This is definitely NOT what the judge ordered. How did this mistake happen? It isn’t a mistake. The other attorney knows that these things are usually rubber stamped by a judge’s secretary and they aren’t going through the transcripts to see if the lawyer accurately wrote down what the judge ordered. The judge has lots of cases to handle. In most cases, he will not remember, and will take the “scumbag attorney” at his word.

Solution: A week before the hearing, or trial, submit a “request for audio recording” of the action. If it is denied, and it is a one party consent state, tape the thing yourself secretly. Once they know you are on to this trick, by your request for a recorded hearing, they will be more “careful” when they word the order. When you get the proposed order, review it immediately. You generally have five days to object before it is made final. If it is wrong, make sure you object. If your objections are overruled, let them know that “the audiotape I possess clearly shows the order is wrong.” Threaten to contact your States attorney ethics board if you are being ignored. Be nice at first. Never lose your temper.

The Disappearing Mail Trick
You can trust the one who agreed to “better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and health”, right. No. You can’t. You get something in the mail that says basically “hey, you failed to show up for _______ (mediation, court hearing, required appointment, etc.). Since you didn’t care enough to show, we bent you over the bench in effigy and ass raped you. Have a nice day and fuck off.” You think “well, I never got a notice of that”. How could I get the ass rape letter and not the initial notice???? It just can’t be. Sure it can. Little miss innocent simply knew when the original notice was mailed and had someone (bad boy, player, thug) intercept your mail. What? That’s not fair. Doesn’t matter. What does matter is that she got a default judgment, or something else to her benefit, because you didn’t show. And now the judge thinks you don’t care. He will not likely believe someone tampered with your mail and you probably cannot prove it anyhow. And now he is pissed off at you.

Solution: Get a post office box. Send registered letters, return receipt requested, to the court, child support agency, ex’s attorney if she is represented (or her if she isn’t yet) and EVERYBODY ELSE INVOLVED that formally notifies them of this change. Do not say why as it makes you look like a whiner. Just do it. Do it as soon as the action is filed. Check this PO Box every day.

[–]ShitDickMcCuntFace 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Keeping Your Stuff
After the divorce is filed, (OK, let’s be serious…after she files) you will be served with a temporary order that bars removing personal property, hiding assets, harassing the other party, etc. If she violates this order and cleans out the house, which her attorney will advise her to do, you will probably never get your stuff back. If you do this to her, after you get served with the order, you will possibly be in trouble if they can prove it. It sucks to lose all the stuff you paid for and spent years getting, especially if the wife never helped and bitched about you having all that stuff. Never mind the bitch has four big boxes of new shoes in the garage that you paid for.

Solution: First, let me be clear, I do not advocate breaking the law. IF YOU ARE CAUGHT, you will get into more trouble (sometimes it’s worth it). However, it really sucks that life isn’t always fair. Sucks for you AND sucks for her. Also, bear in mind, if she can prove that an asset was there and now is gone, it can be included in the property settlement if it disappeared in the YEAR before the divorce. So…..Seriously guys….. Most of us knew, or should have known, the divorce was coming. If you are married, and clean out the house, BEFORE you get served, it’s yours. She will have to prove that you have all that “stuff”. Hard to value it for the property division if it isn’t there. Use a friend you can trust and get a storage shed in his name and store “YOUR” stuff there. Get one a few miles away from where you live. Secure your documents (birth certificate(s), vehicle titles, insurance documents, etc) in a fire proof safe at a safe location. Her attorney will tell her to steal, oops I mean “secure”, them before the divorce. Do not give them the chance. Keep your mouth shut about this. If you are married, and less than 100% happy, realize you are on a slippery slope. Put your documents in a safe place NOW. The time, money and stress these missing documents will cause is staggering. That’s why they take them. In court, the phrase “your honor, I do not have any of the items that they are referring to” will be your friend.

Property Values for the Division
What will happen is that her attorney will assist her in placing a value on all of the property that will be divided. You lucky dog! Just think how much time this will save you. NOT! What they will do is assign a value to your stuff that is far in excess of what it is worth. Her stuff will, of course, be used junk (with a value of next to nothing). That heirloom diamond ring from her grandma is now cubic zirconium. The gold jewelry just gold “plated”. She may take crap jewelry to an appraiser to show “proof” to the judge. She’s likely had all your stuff appraised already. The result is that she gets money from value that they “adjusted”.

Solution: Save thousands. Make detailed lists of everything you both own. Return the favor. Everything you have is worthless crap and all her stuff is “really, really nice”. Use Ebay auction wins (only when it’s incredibly low) to show value of your stuff. Anything over $50, print it off for proof. Value all her stuff using “new” values, low miles, added accessories, etc. What will happen…..99% of the time, the judge will simply pick a number halfway between yours and hers. After all, once he gets done screwing you, he has a golf game. Probably with her attorney.

Justice. Equality. Fairness
Ha Ha. No. You won’t likely see any of this. This is a myth to get you to participate. You are a slave to the government. They aren’t on your side, but hers. They are also on the side of the attorneys. It’s all about the $$$$$. You get the justice you can afford. Judges do not have to follow the law. If they screw up, and they do often, you cannot sue them. The best you can do is appeal the decision. It’s expensive, time consuming and, if your case is found to be flawed on appeal,….. All they do is to send it back to the original biased, corrupt and incompetent judge that ruled on it in the beginning. It’s doubtful he has had a change of heart, suddenly “saw the light”, increased his intelligence or is thrilled that you got his “higher ups” to review him and find him wrong. He won’t be happy to see you again. Remember, every dollar they collect in child support from you, they get a dollar from the bankrupt federal government. This money goes into the “general fund”. This is the same fund that pays judges salaries. Conflict of Interest? Sure it is. Anything you can do about it. Maybe, but doubtful.

What do they call the guy who got the lowest passing score on the bar exam? Your honor. Honor my ass.

Solution: The best one. Do not get married. Do not have kids. Ok. You really screwed up and got married or had kids. Now what? Relax. You are screwed, but getting an ulcer or heart attack only helps her. Keep your cool. The following is a way to minimize the damage. Whatever you do, unless you know the judge personally AND HE LIKES YOU, file a substitution of judge motion. Her attorney picked the one that he thinks will get his client the best deal. You have the right to one judge substitution for any reason. Any judge, other than their hand picked one, will be better, or maybe less worse. After money, the biggest factor in play is getting the judge to like you. Don’t try to kiss his ass. He will not be fooled and your tits aren’t big enough to interest him. Get a scumbag, er I mean lawyer, but explain to them what you expect. Explain to them that, if they plain suck, you will fire them. Can’t afford an attorney? That’s part of their plan. Now you have to do it Pro Se. This is called “screwing yourself”, but may be all you have. I fired my attorney and did better than he did by far. No alimony, no child support (now), joint custody (50/50 placement) and I owe ten grand in the property settlement. It took years and cost her parents thousands. I was Pro Se well over 90% and that cost me lots of time and less than $100. Get good info from your state statutes. Write down your argument in legal briefs. Have this filed with the court and submit everything to the Judge, her attorney and all other parties in advance. Do your homework. Never lose your cool in court. Stand up for yourself. Do not allow yourself to be bullied or intimidated. That overpaid buffoon in the batman costume is a man just like you. Always answer the judge directly in short {well thought out}, precise, one sentence answers. Hold up your hand, not over your head (this isn’t kindergarten) and wait for the judge to let you speak. Avoid slang terminology. Do not read the judge the law when he is wrong. Instead refer him to the law on page ___ of your brief. Sit in on a bunch (as many as you can) of divorce cases in your county, preferably not with this judge, and see how things work. If the judge ignores the law, he loses jurisdiction, and his order is void. If he does this, point it out POLITELY. You will need to appeal. Do the best you can. Smile. It will make the judge wonder what you are up to.

One important tip if you have to go on your own. Dress nicely and shave. Fill the courtroom with “your” people. Friends, relatives, homeless guys at $5 per head or whatever are great, but admonish them to say nothing. Judges hate to screw people in public. It gives them a bad image. Give some of these people writing materials and have them take notes. It may give the judge the impression that the press or other dignitaries are there. There are books on divorce for men. Get to the library and read them. Practice speaking in public.

[–]ShitDickMcCuntFace 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The “Temporary Orders” Trick
What happens is that “cupcake” and her lawyer try and convince you to take less than you should in one of the hearings for a temporary order. The problem is there really is no temporary order. Most temporary orders are extended and amount to the final order. Sometimes they will attempt to convince you that this will be in the best interests of the kid(s) or that, by “playing nice”, it will look better for you at the next hearing.

Solution: Do not fall for this Trojan Horse. You need to be fully aware of what will happen. This is the time that “mom” and her friends and relatives will use to brainwash and alienate the children. Her parents will lavish them with gifts and help them remember every “incident” of abuse, stress, fights, etc. that probably never happened. Best advice….. never budge an inch when it comes to your children and your own best interests. It will make you look weak. Sharks can smell blood very well.

The Lie of Imputed Income
Imputed income is a legal term for “fuck you, we guessed”. What happens is that, in order to help spread your wealth to the ex, the court and her attorney will evaluate how much you make from tax documents and other sources. There are certain formulas the court “must use” in determining child support and alimony in each state. Legally, they must use these formulas. Realistically, they do whatever they want. One easy way to get around these formulas is to “impute” income to you. This means they give the judge a number and tell him this is how much you “could” or “should” make given your job, work history, location, experience, etc. Now, instead of paying 25% of $50,000 for support, you pay 25% of $100,000. In this example, this nets her an extra $12,500 each year. On the bright side{sarcasm}, you still get to pay taxes on this money you never made. If you do get an extra job to increase your earnings, you will likely get called back to court so that the initial scam can be increased. Refuse to pay? It’s called contempt of court. No due process rights and no sympathy. There is a federal law that, even if there is a mistake, they cannot go back to correct the amount of arrears. They will put you in jail. While you are there, you will be charged the regular amount of support due at 1 ½ % interest per month. They will suspend your driver’s license, any professional licenses and report this to all the credit agencies.

Solution: You really need to be ready for this one. Expect it. Come prepared for court with all your tax documents as far back as you can. It is very helpful if these are joint returns that she has signed. If they try to claim you are hiding income, explain that she has signed these returns, under penalty of perjury, and this IS how much you make and have made. They will likely mention an “innocent spouse exception” for the IRS and say she knew you made more than what you both said, but went along out of fear. Smile and laugh quietly. The IRS is worse than the court and will want a pound of flesh from her, too. Her attorney is aware of this and will then try a different tact.

Research case law in your state and supreme court decisions in this matter. It is improper for the court to impute income unless you shirk your parental responsibilities by hiding income or working less to avoid support. Put this case law in your legal brief. Make sure you are working at least a minimum wage job at 35 hours per week. If you do that, they cannot legally impute income to you. Make sure you say “I fully intend to follow the order of the court in regards to support, but can only pay what does not put me under the poverty level and what is consistent with the standard guidelines”. The only way to get this changed is with an expensive appeal, so remember to halt it in its tracks. This is generally done to self employed men. If you are self employed, take some time and get a regular job that pays the same for a while if you can. Sometimes another self employed guy who has been in the same boat can do this for you until you get the final order.

False “Abuse” Allegations
You can count on seeing this bullshit if you are a man. You were mean to her, you were mean to the kid(s), you kicked the dog and choked her cat. Expect this. These outright fabrications will no doubt be written in some journal or diary, probably years worth written with the same color ink. What a crock of shit. The times will be noted like this….. Tuesday, May 5th, 2008 at 4:07PM (it was cloudy and warm)…… Seriously. They will be so well documented because they are made up long after the actual NON INCIDENT. They are fake. Fabrication, unsubstantiated allegations, outright lies, invention and conjecture. Because it is more believable, allegations of sexual abuse will more likely be made if you were dumb enough to marry a single mother. Those are her kids and guess who they will side with in all of this? Don’t be surprised if the teen step-daughter you helped at every turn now says you spied on her in the shower. How will you prove you didn’t? Simple, you cannot. Any questions about who the judge will believe? Oh, they have some DNA that matches you that was found in her underwear. Impossible? No, too fucking easy. All she has to do is snag a pair of mom’s dirty underwear, put them on, and go down for the rape exam. You yelled, slammed doors and she had to get a restraining order because she feared for her kids and their safety. Even if these are your biological children, this will be used against you.

Solution: First, no matter what, never meet the ex to “talk” unless it is in front of a judge or mediator. DO NOT FUCKING DO IT!!! Never be alone with her kids especially if they are female teens. She says she signed off on the restraining order….. Really? If she did, the cops and court will notify you of that. Do not believe a word she says. Her attorney is even less credible than she is. Next, keep your own journal of EVERYTHING that happens. Never use threatening language or show anger. Be factual and accurate. Include the names of witnesses. If you can record her without her knowing, and this is legal where you reside, do it. Make sure you push her buttons, just like she will do to you, before you start recording.

As soon as you know what is going on….. go see a counselor about your fears regarding this vindictive woman who has threatened to do these things to you. Fill the counselor in on how she has threatened you and how you fear it will affect you and your children. Bring your journal where you have noted the details of these threats to “screw” you. If you have kids, bring them on the second appointment. Let the kids talk to her (or him) alone, right away, only if you know they can communicate without just repeating what their mom coached them on. This is a gamble because she was likely planning all this before you had any idea. Know the names of your child’s teachers. Talk to them at school conferences. Know the name of the primary care doctor your children see. You will be asked these things to determine how involved you are in your children’s lives. Know their favorite color and who their best friends are. Volunteer at every turn to work with kids in a safe setting (Boy’s and Girl’s Club, Cub Scouts, Youth Sports, etc.) It is even better if your kids are involved with these activities and impartial witnesses can see you interacting with them. Always note any and all activities you and the kids do. Most important, this is not the kid’s fault. You fucked up and married. Women use the kids as weapons enough on their own. If her attorney hand picks a guardian ad litem, get a different one (preferably from out of town). If there are police reports, get copies of them. Better for you if they detail her “crazy” behavior and not yours. Never lose your cool with her or the kids no matter how much she deserves it.

You Cannot Win
Your ex and her attorney will try to drill this into your head at every turn. They are against you. They will lie. The corrupt judge will ignore you and the law. The police do not care and are just an extension of the court. This is all in attempt to get you to give up.

Solution: Don’t get married and do not have kids. You cannot win, but you can minimize the damage. You can make them spend a lot more money than you do. If you lie down and give up, it just makes it that much easier to screw the next guy. Just remember, whatever it takes to be rid of the treacherous leach, it is worth it. A lot of men lose everything in a divorce. Let’s turn that around. No one can take your dignity, self respect and honor unless you give it to them.

[+]deadlast -11 points-10 points-9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DBi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Irrel_M 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DBi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Irrel_M 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DBi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Knight_of_Malta 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ninfan200 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dr_Whoville 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]slicecom 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Irrel_M 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]genuinemra 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]RC_5213 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]arnoldwhat 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]AgCrew 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]arnoldwhat 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]genuinemra 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SunnydaleJazzBand 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chillax_bro_im_jk 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]somethingofdoom 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ninfan200 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IMdub 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsilvers 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 26 points27 points28 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amunium 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xanthine_junkie 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]windoverxx 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jalilaldin 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Unenjoyed 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CharlieTango 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Paultimate79 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jisano 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eluusive 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nduece 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SmashingSmasher 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shepherd62 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SenorSpicyBeans 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 41 points42 points43 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Midwest_Product 21 points22 points23 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]nancy_ballosky -17 points-16 points-15 points 14 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]cyber_rigger 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]kilo4fun 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cyber_rigger 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfallibleBiship 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No absolutely not. As I described elsewhere, if one partner in a marriage elects to not spend their time working up their career ladder and instead maintains the home and takes care of children in order to support the working spouse, that should obviously be taken into consideration. No matter how a divorce shakes out, the spouse that didn't get to work can't go back and make up the lost time they could have networked, gained experience, promotions etc.

That being said, these sorts of things should be considered ONLY. This should be a fair splitting of assets based on needs of the two splitting parties to make sure that each gets their equal share. It shouldn't be "well, she cheated, so I get her most prized possessions to do with what I please."

Also, I do have an issue with cases like with Tiger, where his wife got hundreds of millions. You can't tell me she was doing any home maintenance, he was a billionaire. She could get more than enough money to be set for life along with a nice house and car and he still wouldn't have lost even 10% of what he did in that divorce.

[–]nancy_ballosky 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfallibleBiship 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rolten 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xanthine_junkie 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nancy_ballosky 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xanthine_junkie 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingNick 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LAMFF -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]openToSuggestions 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]woofoo 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]woofoo 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sfacets 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pkurk -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnPaulJones1779 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pkurk 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]hardwarequestions -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]openToSuggestions 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]swizzcheez -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bogatyr89 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]thefran 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thefran 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aikidi 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why isn't it? We're a partnership. That's what happens after getting married.

Think of it this way. Pretend two men decide to open a restaurant together. One handles getting it set up. He handles the design, as well as all the advertising, staffing, cooking, reservations, etc. The other goes out and gets investors, gets money to start the business and to pump into the business to get it up and running. A few years go by, and it turns into something big. The restaurant is worth a lot. They decide to sell. Now, the business wouldn't have existed if the one partner didn't go out and get money from investors, but it wouldn't have thrived if the other partner didn't do the actual setting up and the actual work in the restaurant. When they sell the business, should the one who worked at the restaurant get nothing?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]KingNick 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SpawnQuixote 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I stay at home with the kids while my husband works. I have my degree, but my career is on complete hold while our kids are young. Meanwhile, he works and puts about ten percent of his checks into a 401k type account for our retirement. We work out the finances together, and I'm in charge of paying the bills and try to find extra money to pay off his student loans faster. I coupon clip and plan nour meals to save as much money possible. We won't divorce, but, hypothetically speaking, if we did, I should be entitled to half of our retirement money, half of the value of the house, etc. Also, if he then found a better paying job because of the degree he just finished because we worked to put him through school, shouldn't I have some compensation for having no work experience because I stayed home to raise our children? Or should I be financially punished since we chose for me to stay home and him to get his degree? we are a partnership and a family, and we made our family decisions together. The spouse who sacrifices job experience to stay home with the kids shouldn't be punished for that.

[–]SpawnQuixote 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't make sense to me. My husband and I are a team. We're a partnership.

When we got married, he didn't have a job. I supported us. A few months in, he got a gig with a temp agency, and for the next year and a half, he would fluctuate between working and not as the agency found him random jobs. Then, they found him a permanent job. A few months later, I got pregnant. For about a year, we both worked, and so we qualified for a mortgage. When we had our first child, we decided--together--that I would stay home with the children. He would work.

We share everything. He works, and I watch the kids. I plan our meals and do the shopping and clip coupons. I take the kids to appointments like WIC to get extra food and to their health appointments to get their state insurance. I'm the one who takes care of the house. That doesn't just involve cleaning. I also do things like painting, restaining cabinets, replacing and updating cabinet hardware, etc. I do the home improvement that adds to the value of our home. Day care would run about $24,000 a year for our two kids. I do that. Health insurance for our family would be about $10,000 a year. I take care of that.

The thing is, I don't get an actual paycheck for my work. My husband goes to work, and he gets the check. He puts a hunk of it into his retirement account that is for us, and he puts some into our savings, which is for us. The rest, I use to purchase our groceries and pay our bills because that's my job, too.

My work might not bring in a check, but we're both part of a partnership. I don't see the value of our home being mine because I'm the one who has done the home improvement. I see it as being ours. It's our home. The home is ours, the family is ours, the accounts are ours.

Nothing could happen that would lead to divorce. We're in this for life. But, hypothetically speaking, if divorce did occur, half of our savings would be mine. I helped save the money. Half of our retirement accounts would be mine. We've planned this together.

You're trying to say that, in the chance of a divorce, that I'd get nothing? I stayed at home and haven't worked outside of the home. I don't have references for years. I haven't spent the last few years moving up and getting raises. I'd be back where I last left off--making $12 an hour. Had I worked these past few years, you can bet I'd be making more than that by now. I'm not moving up because my husband and I decided I'd stay home. A working parent shouldn't punish a stay at home parent by taking everything they've worked to build together. That doesn't make sense.

But, then, I guess I see my husband as my partner, and that's why we don't ever consider divorce and never would. Perhaps all you angry men who discuss why you need to leave women high and dry are going through divorce because you don't see your life partners that way. You don't see your spouse as your equal, and so it's no wonder (to me) that things aren't working out. Who would want to be with you with that attitude?

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]elmariachi304 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nycjohndoe -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]fran13r 14 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

what if the guy was a douchebag?

[–]ElBiscuit 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]fran13r -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]osufan765 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]fran13r 14 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

HERP DERP I'M BUTTHURT

[–]osufan765 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fran13r -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KingNick 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]junkeee999 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stln00b -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	We need divorce reform.
Author	TerriChris
Upvotes	1211
Comments	510
Date	May 16, 2012 1:21 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/tpwe2/we_need_divorce_reform/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/we-need-divorce-reform.1021736 https://theredarchive.com/post/1021736

Comments