Marriage laws are one of the main reasons men embrace MGTOW philosophy. We are all aware of how unjust the laws are and how brutal the family courts are against men.

So then, what would a fair and sane marriage arrangement actually look like?

One that treats both partners in a balanced fashion, accordance with their contributions. One that offers wholesome and non-violent solutions to problems that typically tear families apart. One that treats everyone in the family with the respect they deserve. One that removes government from the sacred vows and is not inherently set up for failure.

Below is a concept for a fair arrangement, a framework that has at least some chance of working.

But, see, that's the problem. With the current laws, almost this entire arrangement would be illegal and entirely unenforceable, precisely because it is too fair, removes the state from the marriage agreement, and allows no exploitation or transfer of wealth.

The terms:

​

  • Mandatory accounting of existing assets/liabilities upon entering the marriage, as well as all earned income and asset appreciation during the course of the marriage, each based on earner's individual employment or investments, tracked by separate personal accounts. Dissolution of marriage does not transfer one partner's personal assets or liabilities to the other partner.
  • The marital home and cash account of specific shared expenses (child care, utilities, groceries, group health insurance etc.) are placed into a household trust. Any cash contributions to the trust are compensated with shares of the trust, to be diluted proportionally with additional contributions. The household trust is then property of its shareholders, with each share heritable equally to that individual shareholder's biological children.
  • One partner may become a stay-at-home caregiver, agreed upon in writing by both partners. He/she is to work full-time on housekeeping, childcare, and assistive services as directed by the income-producing partner, and is to be treated as an employee of the household trust, paid the market value of their labor. He/she may save or spend all earnings, or purchase shares of the trust.
  • If the household trust becomes insolvent (ie. no cash), a stay-at-home caregiver may earn his or her compensation in equivalently valued household trust shares, if agreed upon in writing by the income-producing partner.
  • If the stay-at-home partner chooses not to work on housekeeping duties or assistive services as directed by the income-producing partner, or there are no children to attend to, or the income-producing partner does not agree to compensating the stay-at-home partner with household trust shares, the stay-at-home partner must pay market value rent and associated expenses (ie. health insurance) to the household trust, which may require gainful employment for the formerly stay-at-home partner.
  • If the stay-at-home partner fails to pay rent and associated expenses from the previous scenario, then the stay-at-home partner's shares in the household trust, equivalent to market value rent and shared expenses, will be transferred on a monthly basis to the income-producing partner.
  • If the stay-at-home partner fails to pay rent and shared expenses from the previous scenario, and the stay-at-home partner has no shares remaining in the household trust, the household trust has the right to evict the stay-at-home partner from the marital home and to terminate payment of all associated shared expenses.
  • 50/50 mandatory child custody upon dissolution of marriage unless one partner is convicted of child abuse in a criminal jury trial.
  • No child support or alimony provisions. Zero.
  • Liability release of all ex parte claims for domestic violence between the married partners. All civil claims of domestic violence or similar allegations must be settled out-of-court through arbitration.
  • If either partner brings a child to live in the marital home that is a biological descendant of only one of the two partners, the biological parent is entirely responsible for the child's share of the expenses. Either the child's expenses must be paid for directly by the biological parent, or by equivalent compensation to the household trust as described above. Adopted or foster children do not count towards this penalty if stewardship is agreed upon by both partners in writing.
  • Misappropriating funds of the household trust is a breach of contract and requires some form of disciplinary action, such as a share deduction penalty equivalent to the amount misappropriated, as well as an account access restriction for 3 months, to be decided by out-of-court arbitration, to be paid for by the household trust.
  • All violations of this agreement that cannot be resolved between the partners must be decided by out-of-court arbitration, to be paid for by the household trust.