"So it's fair to get half of his stuff?" "Yes!"

otiswild · 2014-05-05T02:45:24+00:00

No marriage.

Not once, not ever.

magical_artist · 2014-05-05T04:10:16+00:00

[permanently deleted]

IllimitableMan · 2014-05-04T22:13:14+00:00

TLDR: expected a woman to be reasonable, got a slap from reality, is quickly learning women are as reasonable as an early morning erection.

-Tyler_Durden- · 2014-05-05T04:40:42+00:00

Half!

I see no utility in marriage in this day and age. It has no benefit for a man what so ever.

Maybe men should try to change their preferences and start looking for their own beta orbiters./s If it was only that simple.

tmpjb · 2014-05-05T05:13:47+00:00

I like how they always say "I take care of him". Bitch you mixed some of my clothes in your washing while I keep you off the streets. SMH

darksoldierk · 2014-05-05T00:50:38+00:00

I love how bluepillers think that just because a woman was alive in your house, she gets your shit.

absntmindedprofessor · 2014-05-05T02:48:16+00:00

This comment has been removed, as the user has moved on to greener pastures (baaaahh!), where they take free speech a little more seriously.

Pornography_saves_li · 2014-05-05T03:25:32+00:00

Even in Canada she wouldn't get half, the best she could do is get a share, equivalent to time spent over time of ownership. She could also make selling it difficult. But she wouldn't get half.

2014-05-05T04:47:02+00:00

It took me a while to actually understand just b/c of the wording. I had to read it a few times.

But yes, if she gets housing in exchange for cooking and cleaning, its not fair that when she stops her end of the bargain that she gets 1/2 of the housing.

At first, the wording made it sound like both of them were contributing to his work.

2014-05-05T08:59:56+00:00

Everything is always 50/50 as long as the woman's 50% is much less work.

2014-05-05T09:08:30+00:00

If you give someone the ability to rip you off, they are probably going to rip you off.

ThisShitRules · 2014-05-05T05:54:01+00:00

Yeah I heard this reasoning before. "B-but I put my career on hold!".

cabsarehere · 2014-05-04T22:29:04+00:00

I think this is a bit sensational. I think the reason that women get half when they are stay at home moms and such is because they actually do earn that money.

I had four brothers growing up and my mom stayed home while my dad worked. By staying home, my mom enabled my dad to focus on his career and make more money. If she was not in the picture, he could not have done that.

So women are indirectly earning the money that their husbands are making.

On top of that, by becoming a stay-at-home mom, she is giving up her career. By doing so, she cancels out any progress she has been making in her field and if a divorce happens, she is way behind the 8-ball in terms of good career options.

I think these two things put together shows why women get money in a divorce. Dividing everything 50/50 might not be the fairest way to do it because every case is different, but it also seems to be the easiest.

Blood_Vaults · 2014-05-04T21:47:30+00:00

Emotions vs logic?

magx01 · 2014-05-05T02:49:50+00:00

I messed up by not mentioning that they have no kids together and his kids are out of the house. I'll edit this.

raceAround126 · 2014-05-05T06:34:48+00:00

...and this is why marriage: Not even once!

2014-05-05T11:02:41+00:00

Reasoning with a woman is always a waste of energy.

She doesn't give a shit. Marriage is an investment for a bitch. She just wants her return. And she'll get it with or without him.

CropDuster33 · 2014-05-05T12:59:40+00:00

marriage is a joke.

Menadian · 2014-05-05T14:39:08+00:00

Quite good example you got there. And a very well formed set and progression in the discussion. I learned from this.

2014-05-05T07:18:26+00:00

[permanently deleted]

AgentSmith27 · 2014-05-05T06:31:09+00:00

Premarital assets are typically not up for grabs during a divorce (in most states AFAIK)

General_Fear · 2014-05-05T09:54:22+00:00

I work with a guy who grew up in the Soviet Union. He said the Communist Russia, there was no such thing as alimony. A woman walks and she got nothing. There was reasonable child support but no alimony. Think of it, she can be married for 30 years as a housewife and if she files for divorce, she got nothing.

LiLBoner · 2014-05-05T10:04:57+00:00

Well I think marriage is like such an arrangement. I don't know much about marriages but I think that in my country you can choose to marry with or without shared money/possessions. And if you choose to share than you have to split it when you divorce. It's a stupid arrangement for the one who works. But without it, the one who does the housework has no money left and can't buy a house.

Maybe a better system would be if the one who works and earns money pays some money to the one at home for the housework.

Jake0024 · 2014-05-05T12:07:18+00:00

Actually the way you describe this makes it sound like she should be entitled to half of whatever they acquired after they got married (or started living together), if you honestly think they were each contributing half the work.

jonesbusiness · 2014-05-05T13:16:06+00:00

The stuff that blows me away is how can the wife of a rich guy get half??? I mean, she's not cooking because she has a chef. She's not cleaning because she has a maid. She's not managing the household because he has an assistant. Her only job is banging her husband. That's it. And she gets half?! Sticking with porn seems cheaper.

cooltrip · 2014-05-05T13:31:20+00:00

This is the only "equality" feminists understand: the "equality-on-men's-shoulders".

She paid her living in her boyfriend's house through her domestic tasks. Now that she has to go, she wants to take half the house with herself. So you go to a hotel, you pay for your room, and once you go, you can take your room with yourself.

It's only equality if it is beneficial to them.

Tuzantar · 2014-05-05T16:30:31+00:00

This is one of the things where I actually disagree with RP.

In a marriage (atleast in my country) working a job and earning a salary is equal to staying home with the kids, cooking and cleaning etc. That's the point of marriage - you each contribute something. And one thing isn't worth more than the other.

If the stay-at-home wife didn't get half, then how should she get by? She sacrificedv a potential career by watching the kids. It meant that she couldn't have a job.

Another point is the fact that this isn't gender-biased. This day and age a lot of women are working more successful jobs - and in that case, the husband "wins" at divorce.

Tl;Dr: If you don't like it, just get a prenup.

arhombus · 2014-05-05T11:20:33+00:00

But, that is how it works no matter if you like it or not, it's the law. There's a legitimate reason for why this is the way it works, and let's not forget it. If you're a housewife for 5, 10, 15, 20, whatever amount of years, that's X amount of years away from the workforce. It's common knowledge that the more time you spend away from the workforce, the less desirable you are as a worker.

The fact that they have no kids makes monetary compensation after divorce seem less necessary but by no means unnecessary in my opinion.

RedPope · 2014-05-05T00:39:46+00:00

Another prime example of idiots who know nothing talking about things they have no business talking about.

The only things that are split in a divorce, assuming a complete lack of a prenup, are things (or value, I'll get to that) which were bought during the marriage. Is this split fair? If both partners did a perceived 50% workload, then of course. Sure, the breadwinner may earn the actual money, but he or she also benefits from the cooking and cleaning and shopping done by the other partner. If they go their separate ways, everyone takes half of what was earned and deals with their own shit.

If something was bought before a marriage it isn't split. It goes to the original owner. The only thing "split" is any increase (or decrease, surprise!) in value. That last part makes little sense as valuation is mostly passive but what kind of world would we live in if laws were rational?

Divorce law is surprisingly fair, assuming you had the good sense of marrying a partner who is financially your equal and who doesn't trick you into buying shit for the both of you (like a house). If you're so desperate to be a manly man that you need a woman at home instead of at work then be prepared to deal with the consequences. Simple as that. You're marrying someone. Ideally, for life. If you can't deal with the responsibility that entails (including the financial rape a divorce will cause) then you're marrying the wrong person at the wrong time.

Beltox2pointO · 2014-05-05T01:58:30+00:00

This is why automatic prenups should be a thing.

On the flip side though. A woman attaining half of assest through a divorce makes sense in some ways. For example if she was a house keeper / cleaner and sacrificed her career to care and raise the children.

Then while he is working she is "missing out" on employment opportunities. So taking half the stuff and in some ways alimony is payment because if they both leave the marriage with equal assets the man has a much higher earning potential than the woman. Which is logical to a point. The woman doesn't need as much as some get and it definitely shouldn't last forever.

ajswdf · 2014-05-05T02:00:02+00:00

I don't know about this situation in particular, but this the of logic does make sense depending on the situation. By being a stay at home wife, she's sacrificing her own potential career growth. At the same time, but taking care of the domestic chores, this frees up the husband to increase his income and net worth more than he would have been able to do without her. In this case it makes perfect sense for her to get some of the financial assets she indirectly helped accumulate.

Of course, if he had $1 million before they even met, she shouldn't be able to touch any of that.

Anderfail · 2014-05-05T13:51:51+00:00

This is why if you ever marry, DO NOT MARRY A STAY AT HOME MOM!

Marry a woman with her own ambitions and career. She contributes to the household from a monetary point of view as well as a household upkeep point of view. Even if one of you makes less, both will contribute in some manner and have something invested into the relationship.

Any man who marries a woman who desires to be a stay at home mom is asking for trouble. Not to mention the fact that these women always become ridiculously detached from the real world after a few years of not working.

This is also why it's so incredibly important to marry a woman with solid parents. My wife has fantastic parents with her dad as the alpha of the family. If you marry a woman from a broken home, the chances are good that she will turn your family into a broken household as well. Whereas if she comes from a family with good parents who believed in hard work and discipline, then chances are she will also follow that path and will be unlikely to have major issues.

One of the biggest ways to improve your quality of life permanently is picking the right person to marry. Do that and you will permanently up your well-being, happiness, economic level. Choose wrong and you can destroy your life. Of course everyone nowadays is too quick to divorce and leave because they want the quick fix. All marriages, even the best ones, require significant amounts of work and effort to maintain. No relationship will ever survive on feelings and dopamine. I don't honestly understand the revulsion many have for marriage on this subreddit.

This is not antithetical to TRP as some believe here. I believe it fits in well with Athol Kay's viewpoints. Take it for what you will.

solarbang · 2014-05-05T03:19:38+00:00

Shaking my damn head. Yeah, no sense in trying to talk logic. Terrible.

Title	"So it's fair to get half of his stuff?" "Yes!"
Author	magx01
Upvotes	165
Comments	158
Date	May 4, 2014 9:36 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/24q1o9/so_its_fair_to_get_half_of_his_stuff_yes/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/so-its-fair-to-get-half-of-his-stuff-yes.15008 https://theredarchive.com/post/15008