TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Woman was "completely blindsided" by the way her ex husband went after her money. He hired a lawyer and pursued a percentage of her earnings, including her future assets! She worked years for that money.

ThiefOfNightTime

August 9, 2018
1805 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/10089286
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Woman was "completely blindsided" by the way her ex husband went after her money. He hired a lawyer and pursued a percentage of her earnings, including her future assets! She worked years for that money.
Author

ThiefOfNightTime

Upvotes 1805
Comments 180
Date August 9, 2018 3:28 AM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/95sxxf/woman_was_completely_blindsided_by_the_way_her_ex/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/woman-was-completely-blindsided-by-the-way-her-ex.896495
https://theredarchive.com/post/896495
Top posts by ThiefOfNightTime

Police instructions don’t apply to me because I’m a woman.

12239 upvotes
March 11, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

I’m a woman with “anxiety and mental issues” therefore I don’t need to comply with police... gets comically dragged from car.

10111 upvotes
January 24, 2021
/r/PussyPassDenied

This judge doesn’t care if you’re pregnant, if you steal half a million dollars you’re going to jail.

6300 upvotes
September 12, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Imagine getting a verbal reprimand from Head Of State? Context: Brighton Property Values are around $2.7 million.

5351 upvotes
July 19, 2020
/r/PussyPassDenied

Minimum 2 years prison sentence for false rape claim in exchange for her victims 5 year battle (including prison time and removal of access from his son). It’s start, but we still have work to do for justice to be fairly served.

5211 upvotes
January 17, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

‘People shouldn’t chuck us in prisons, we’re single mothers’.

3693 upvotes
February 21, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Rape some boys and you get 9 years and NO parole in Australia. We don’t care about your difficult upbringing.

3553 upvotes
December 9, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Consequences? I’m a woman they don’t apply to me... Wait! WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?

2612 upvotes
August 11, 2020
/r/PussyPassDenied

Comments

[–]89peters 737 points738 points739 points 7 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

Surreal reading. A woman had to go through what men go through every day? OH THE HORROR. And yes, it is horrific. Perhaps it's time to start empathizing with the opposite sex, ladies? Men don't seem to have a problem doing so...

[–]GreyTortoise 409 points410 points411 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

You hear about that judge who ordered the more masculine of two lesbians to pay child support and alimony to the other while awarding full custody to the more feminine of the two in divorce? Comments spoken so bluntly we're along the lines of "how wrong it is for her to be treated like a man".

The story I just read here is diet cyanide.

[–][deleted] 81 points82 points83 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd like to read that, but have no idea what to Google. Sauce?

[–]GreyTortoise 40 points41 points42 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Ahhh fuck it was on here a while ago, I'll look for it when I'm out of work.

Edit: Here you go, the article I'm thinking of wasn't on USA Today but this is the case in question. In the state this took place in same-sex couples are not considered biological family units by law and are only made one legally through marriage. Lesbian whose partner gave birth via artificial insemination lost all parental rights in divorce but could only get them back by defining herself as an ex-husband. The result is paying alimony, child support and having short-end custody, but it is the only way the state could legally recognize her as anything but a sex partner to the biological parent to their son.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/05/10/same-sex-marriage-divorce-tennessee/315909001/

Men might have been getting the shit end from family courts for a long-ass time, but same-sex couples apparently have a ton of trouble fresh on the scene. Sad to know, but LGBT groups are making headway all the time. Fathers' rights? Get in line.

[–]CrimsonT-Rex 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Here is the Reddit post.

Lesbian granted 'husband rights' in same-sex divorce...Ahh that sucks

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

Thank you.

[–]BroaxXx 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Almost as if it's some sort of..... female.... privilege.... ?

[–]ColonelVirus 52 points53 points54 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The article is badly written, clearly creating a more "sympathetic" angle. But the woman herself seems to only really be shocked over the future royalties part of divorce.

Although I'm confused (again article is badly written), if the royalties are from ANY book she writes in the next 10 years, if it's from past manuscripts she worked on whilst with her ex, or if it's only from books released during their time together.

The only scenario that would be acceptable imo for future earnings, is earning money on a thing produced during your time with an EX.

[–]AdamWillis 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Isn’t this just another way of saying alimony? If a man gets divorced and continues to earn money, isn’t he giving his wife his future earnings?

[+]ColonelVirus -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I don't think so, alimony is awarded depending on how the marriage ended. Alimony is conditional under "no-fault" divorces and down to the judge to grant (although that's in 25 states ATM, I think it's permanent but still has rules on how it's workout). The agreement is normally a set sum (as far I'm aware at least), which is then either paid upfront or over coming years out of wage packets. It used to be tied to rearing a child, but that's obviously fallen to the way side as couples divorced without children.

Either way, this royalty deal depending on the he scenario (which the article doesn't cover), could be endless, which would be extremely unfair to anyone.

[–]Shadoe17 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't know how the courts work down under, but in America alimony is totally separate from child support, and is "intended to keep the lower earning spouse in the life style they have become accustom until they can provide for this on their own". So it often times has an expiration, but not always, and will end if the person getting the alimony gets remarried. (thus the reason so many have turned to live in relationships rather than marriage) By that definition, alimony is giving your ex- part of your future earnings, regardless of whether you set those earnings in motion when you were together or not.

[–]ColonelVirus 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I looked up the US. When I said used to be dependent on a child I was talking about pre 1970s when the laws were overturned.

I basically just looked up alimony on Wikipedia and copy pasted.

The alimony your describing is only one kind awarded 'rehabilitiative alimony'. Their are others like temporary, permenant (until death) and reimbursement. It comes down to the invidiuals case and the judge, and isn't a guarantee in 25 states to be granted and has strict stipulations in those where it is granted.

In this case it really depends how the royalties are treated. Normally alimony is paid regardless of where the income is from. So if she stopped writing and the EX no longer got royalties, does that mean she off the hook?

You could say they can be included and part of an alimony. But I don't think it's correct to say "this is another way of saying alimony".

I would expect royalties to be on top of an alimony. With a % of her wage after book sales or other income to be going to him as well.

[–]Shadoe17 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So if she stopped writing and the EX no longer got royalties, does that mean she off the hook?

To begin with, just because she stops writing doesn't mean the royalties off what she has already written will stop. Royalties go on as long as the books are being sold. I know of writers that are still getting income off a book written in the 1970s, and they never wrote another.

But, putting that aside, the case is in Australia, and I don't claim to know how the laws handle alimony down there, and don't have time to educate myself on them ATM. So, seeing that nothing else was mentioned regarding alimony it is natural to assume that this is part of the alimony settlement, just a part that she didn't anticipate. But for men it is a given that we will pay on all future income if we are subject to alimony.

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

Again it depends how the royalties are treated. Is it only passed books? Is it anything she wrote or worked on?

Alimony was only mentioned because someone said isn't royalties just another way of saying alimony. Which it isn't, the royalties COULD be part of an alimony or they might not be. It purely depends and the article doesn't stipulate.

It's not a 'given' men will pay alimony on future income, at least in the US. It depends on the judge and the type of alimony granted. Everything is situational and very personal to the case presented.

[–]AdamWillis 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I’ve read stories about alimony being more than the actual money earned leaving the man with $0. I think the story is great that a woman can even slightly feel the pain of divorce that most men experience. She’s lucky she’s not this guy: https://articles.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.amp

[–]ColonelVirus -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Your a jaded person to wish that upon another human being.

Applying other people's cases or experience to someone else is completely irrelevant. They are separate and should be treated at such.

This women could be unjustly being screwed, but that's ok because men suffer all the time? Wow... You realise how irrational and retarded that sounds right?

[–]AdamWillis 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It’s not that she should suffer. It’s that she should get the same “equal” treatment that (mostly) men receive until issues like alimony are fixed/adjusted to meet today’s relationship standards where men are not required to be the only breadwinner when women have many opportunities to work and provide for themselves. Not to mention, alimony maintains a woman’s standard of living while neglecting the males completely.

I’m not looking for retribution’s. I want equality until it’s fixed.

[–]ColonelVirus -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't agree tbh. The system is skewed against men because society is bias (in certain areas) against men. That should not mean to be treated as equals women then have to be subjected to the SAME bias. That's not "equal" across genders that's just tipping the seesaw back and forth violently.

The laws are already setup to be equal in these circumstances, it's the judges and lawyers who apply them unequally and from evidence it's also us that's part of the issue (men claim for alimony only something like 3%-6% of cases), probably because of stigma, or maybe they earn enough it doesn't matter to them. Who knows.

TBH my viewpoint is always going to be bias, because I don't know any women in my life who are stay at home mum's/trophy wife's. All the women I know either work and pay equal shares, or they're the breadwinner. So gender doesn't factor into my view point. All I see is a person being fucked over, not a man or woman.

[–]AdamWillis 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I am jaded, but when I was in the Navy, I saw many guys come back from deployment to divorce papers and then end up with almost nothing. They can barely afford to live on the ship rent free because their wives get the house and the kids and the child support with alimony. They can’t even have partial custody because they don’t have a suitable place to live because they’ve been reduced to E-1 (financially speaking). The ex-wives then invite their new boy toy in, and they live together and will never marry because they have a free paycheck coming in as long as they’re “single.”

I understand what you are saying about bias and all that, but I don’t believe the issue will be fixed or the implicit bias will be recognized until this stuff effects more women. It’s never “bring back our boys,” it’s “bring back our girls.” If we need laws or bias to be corrected, I think women need to face this injustice as “equally” as men do. Is it wrong? Maybe… but I don’t see this getting fixed just because men don’t like it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There are countless men - orders of magnitude more than the number of women - being robbed by alimony.

Women deserve no sympathy here. Many men have lost millions to women who never worked a day in their whore lives.

I have no sympathy for women knowing the men who have committed suicide as a result of policies protected by feminists.

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

I dont really see how any of that applies here...

This case and article is about a specific women and her divorce, and depending on how the royalties are based is being screwed unfairly. I don't see why men or women who have nothing to do with this case should invalidate that?

Why do they matter in this case? Are you saying because men get fucked over all the time, screw the women who do? That's extremely bitter and twisted. It's exactly how hardcore feminists think... Which makes you no better than them.

[–]theQuandary 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Creative jobs are a funny area. It's very likely that she's been throwing around a lot of ideas she intends to write during their time together. Most likely, they argued that 10 years is compensation for those ideas. In any case, I'm not extremely interested in people with enough money to pour tens of thousands into divorce court. They are extreme edge cases and are going to squabble no matter what the law says at that point just because they can.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

“Almost 10% of the homeless are women. Shocking! We must change this!”

Same emotion based bullshit.

[–]Rethgil 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alternative headline;

'Woman glimpses equality. Cries about it not being all in her favour'

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

Men have a problem empathizing with men as do women. Everyone fights for women and few fight for men.

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

It would be ironic But you would need a soul to appreciate irony. So it’s between us I guess

[+]skwishy29 -26 points-25 points-24 points 7 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

How do men not have a problem being empathetic when everyone is making fun of her? Why you gotta say dumb stuff like women can’t be sympathetic

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points34 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

It's not all or nothing. There's always exceptions.

But most divorces are initiated by women, so most men are on the back of their heels from minute one. Most men lose significant time with their children, due to the divorce, and most men see a net transfer of wealth from themselves to their ex-wives, either directly as alimony or indirectly as child support well in excess of the actual costs.

And women aren't falling over trying to rectify that situation, are they? Ergo, they aren't empathetic enough of men's situations to see how unfair they are unless they get hit by something similar in return. Then, all of a sudden, they have empathy. By definition, if you only start calling for reform of divorces and how they are handled when you are personally hit by the negatives, you lack empathy, because this has been going on for decades.

So, if you get divorced and you have a fair, reasonable, just ex-partner, thank your lucky stars, because they are rare.

[+]skwishy29 -13 points-12 points-11 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

I think the people who wrote this article don’t have empathy. I’ve personally talked to a few people (women too) who have empathy for men. That’s not an excuse to not have empathy

I also want to point out that people always say “men have to pay the child support and give the woman money” like yea but there’s nothing wrong with that it’s for raising the child. If the woman has the child for more days she needs child support so the child can eat on those days

[–]neveragoodtime 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s not for the child though, it goes to the ex wife, just like alimony. How can you say that the money the ex gets for divorce is handled in any way differently than the money she gets for child support? How can you say it improves the child’s standard of living but not the ex? That money directly and implicitly goes to the the ex. Even if it’s spent on baby food, that’s $100 she didn’t have to spend that she can use for her hair and nails.

The bigger issue for me is the government is valuing children of divorce differently than children of marriage, which goes against our foundation of all people being equal. If a married couple supports their child on $100/month, the government doesn’t care, even if a parent is making 100k. But if a divorced mom is raising her child on $100/month, the government steps in and says, no no, your child needs more money and we will take it from the child’s father, even if you took the child from the father, moved states, and don’t allow contact.

Why is there a value for how much a child must be raised on for divorced parents? And why is it different across families? Do children of rich parents really deserve, legally deserve, to be raised on more money than children of poor parents? There is no income requirement for parenthood, but there is for divorced parenthood. Dad loses his job? Sucks for you kid that’s life. Divorced dad loses his job? Sucks for you dad your child is entitled to $1,000/month and you will be jailed for not giving your child the arbitrary amount your government ruled.

Children are raised on the amount of money parents choose to spend. Parents can have millions in the bank and still raise their child middle class. That’s their decision based on their values. If one parent isn’t allowed to have a relationship with the child, they can choose not to spend money on that child because they have no control over how that money is spent. The parent may want to help, but giving money is not help, anymore than giving cash to homeless and hoping they don’t spend it on drugs. If you want both parents to help, force shared custody. Then both parents are obligated to provide food, shelter, and clothes for the child. If you want one parent to provide more support than the other, give them more custody, and they end up having to pay more of those living costs.

[–]janglang 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

... and what if that woman knowingly quits working or earning bc she knows that will play out in her favor in court in regards to child support?

[+]skwishy29 -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Then she’s insane but either way the child support money is either enough to support the child or a little more. Unless the husbands rich there’s no child support that is enough to raise a child and enough extra to make you quit your job for it

[–]guillemqv 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Child support wouldn't be necessary if custodies were shared, 50/50. But usually the woman gets the custody, and the dad the visits.

[–]shellbross 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My brother got 50/50 custody of the children during divorce, yet he still has to pay more than $1000 each month to the ex in child support, just because she never wanted to work in her whole life...

[–]guillemqv 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And that shouldn't happen. Alimony shouldn't be a thing. You're a responsible adult, you have to work. What a fucking bitch...

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists and NOW have repeatedly opposed default equal cuatody.

[–]guillemqv 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course, because if both sides have equal time with the kid, child support makes no sense.

[+]skwishy29 -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I’ve heard it can’t be 50/50 because young children rely on the stability of being at one parents house most of the time. Child support will probably always be a thing.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a lie perpetalrated by man hating feminists. The reality 8s that being away from one parent so much is more detrimental than moving.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/06/what-new-studies-say-is-best-for-children-of-fractured-homes/

It was always a tool for parental alienation used by women to abuse men.

[–]skwishy29 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So they literally asked children what they think the best environment would be? Should we also ask children to see what their best diet is, and how many hours they should be sleeping? Dumb study basically

[–]guillemqv 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

That's bullshit. The kid should stay in a house, and the parents take turns in that house. Do you see how simple the solution is?

I know a guy who owns a house. He got married, had a kid, and a year later, the wife wanted to divorce because she felt in love with another man.

You know the rest, the ex-wife is living in HIS house with HIS kid, with another man.

That house should be for the kid, and the parents take turns on that house.

That bullshit shouldn't happen.

There's no justificable reason not to have 50/50 custody except in cases where domestic violence or abuses are involved.

[–]skwishy29 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This is the most abstract idea so far. You want them to just leave and enter a house? What about their stuff? Does this mean there’s 3 houses now?

[–]eac555 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My step kids went to their dads house for 5 straight days every two weeks during the school year and every other week during the summer. It messed them up. His home was unreliable and no routine. It took them a day or two to recover when they came back to their Mom's and my home each time.

[–]janglang 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Could you call my ex wife and explain this concept to her? I'm not rich by any means.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is utter bullahit child support is often enough to bankrupt a man and make him homeless. He'll get thrown in jail for being unable to support her greedy self as well.

Western Women are the most privileged group of human beings on the planet.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I also want to point out that people always say “men have to pay the child support and give the woman money” like yea but there’s nothing wrong with that it’s for raising the child.

In theory, you are right, but in practice, that's not how child support is handled. For one, child support is calculated on gross pay, and there's no mention at all of need or the costs involved, so virtually every western jurisdiction saw men's payments get well above 1/2 the actual costs of caring for that child. For two, there's no accounting, so there's no guarantee that the money you're handing her every month actually goes to the child.

Then, in recent years, another shift happened where even more pressure was put on the system to equalize the income of the two houses, because women's groups lobbied that men still had more money than they did, after divorce, and could use/abuse that money to woo their children to them with a fancier house, nicer clothes, their own bedrooms, gadgets and toys, etc. So, there was an intentional shift to increase child support so as to somewhat equalize the income between the two homes, for the duration of the children's minority.

Therefore, most men pay significantly more than 1/2 the actual costs of raising their kids and their child support includes at least some money every month that is simply a wealth transfer from Dad to Mom. When I was at the peak of my child support for my son, I was paying $980 a month, which was 185% of his actual costs, not 50%. That extra 135% above and beyond my share of his costs … she just took.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women and feminists demanded and enforce this policy. Feminists constantly fight alimony and child custody reform because they know it hurts men more than women.

Women deserve no sympathy in this category until the laws are made equal.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women and feminists created this policy of robbing men.

Just whores being whores I'm glad it's hurting them. Perhaps when women get driven to suicide at the rates men do we'll see some actual attention to it.

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

Oh my God your so sexist LOL

[–]Got2B22 283 points284 points285 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

well now that women are suffering, we MUST do something about it

let's make only men pay!

[–]Allevil669 189 points190 points191 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

You jest... But that is exactly how they're going to "fix" this problem.

[–]p0rnpop 23 points24 points25 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That's what they already do by taxing men more. They aren't complete idiots and hide it by finding factors to tax upon that hit men far more, but don't explicitly say they are taxing men more. As more men realize this it is going to end up backfiring.

[–]thenarddog13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Can you provide some examples? I'm genuinely curious, as I've not heard this before.

[–]89peters 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He's probably talking about the earnings gap. Men earn more on average because eg they work on average 15 hours more per week, perform more difficult and dangerous jobs etc. So the majority of taxes are paid by men. A study in New Zealand determined that "only men pay taxes" because women take more out of the tax coffers than they put it (women also spend much more money than they earn). Whatever we want to consider "just", we should acknowledge these facts when we talk about the "pay gap."

[+]OnlyTheRealAdvice1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

It's deeper than the "earnings gap". There is the "benefits gap". Meaning far more federal dollars goes towards women than men. For example, in the US women live 5 years longer than men and have the same retirement age. Thus consume far more medicare and social security, which is a huge percentage of total government spending.

In the UK it is even worse where women both retire earlier and live longer than men.

[–]The_Best_01 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And even with all this shit, there's still more funding for women's health. It's fucking disgraceful.

[+]OnlyTheRealAdvice1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

The issue is that men have been trained to "man up" (which means take on any burden) and to do it in silence. Women are trained to complain about even the smallest grievances in life.

Combine this with mass communication that occurred starting in the 1920s with radio and getting worse every year with newer and better forms of mass communication and you have basically elevated the platform for women to make grievances to the stratosphere. Thus, due to them constantly complaining and men not, it is easier to just bow down to their needs.

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, the net has definitely exacerbated this problem. However, maybe men are finally starting to realize they can complain too and be heard, and be taken seriously. There are a lot of people who take our complaints seriously, even if they're not MRAs, (or at least I hope) and people can't ignore us. Men's issues are becoming more mainstream thanks to our online presence, so that's nice.

[–]thenarddog13 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for the information. That wasn't something I'd given much thought to.

[–]p0rnpop 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Single vs head of household. The latter applies far more to single women who have custody and can have children far easier than a single man. Tax credits directly for children. It may benefit married men and women the most, but among singles women come out on top again.

[–]FemaleIsEasyMode 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think women don't really marry down? This just reinforces the belief that women shouldn't 'settle' for someone who is below them.

[–]theQuandary 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They said he out-earned her by 2x. She was just pissed off because creative works have more stringent regulations to keep her from making a bunch of stories then waiting until after divorce to cash them out.

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

He was able to include future income. So if she was an up and coming writer or predicted to have a best seller, her income could greatly exceed his.

[–]Hadashi_blacksky 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep

[–]HotJohnnyTabasco 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men already pay 97% of alimony. For the most part, only men are already paying.

[–]JohnjSmithsJnr 127 points128 points129 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They use two different people in a way to twist it and suit their own narrative. It doesn't say "And x person also experience...." It just continues and if you don't read it carefully you wouldn't realise that it had started talking about another person.

It also suffers from a near complete lack of context

[–]RacelessSexlessName 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I noticed that as well and had to go back and reread sections... Horrible writing.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When it suddenly said "both women", I had to go back to check if I was reading about a lesbian relstionship the whole time lol

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

... Horrible writing.

Either really bad or intentionally misleading. If this was intended was it bad writing then?

[+]wisty1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

What's really funny is that they have 2 stories. A woman (who had presumably earned more) who was sued for assets, and another woman with fewer assets who had to spend a lot on legal fees. Both are apparently victims.

[–][deleted] 75 points76 points77 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And they make it sound like one person, so someone reading it without being critical would think that the woman earning less had to promise half of her earning potential. You'd be forgiven for wondering if this is intentional...

[–]Jexmaster 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad you picked up on this. I was searching through the comments hoping I wasn't the only one.

[–]TheShShCreature 75 points76 points77 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

This is the risk every single man accepts when he gets married. A really risky ass risk when you realize how the majority of marriages end in divorce, and so this happens to men on such a regular basis that it’s boring. It’s un-talkabout-able because it’s just accepted. It will never make it on the news and it will never be argued against, but when the same happens to an “innocent little” adult women it’s a travesty.

[–]The_Best_01 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the majority of marriages end in divorce

Isn't it like 40-45%? And the rate is slowly decreasing.

[–]PM-ME-YOUR-MEMEZ -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, even though a majority of marriages end in divorce -- this rate is heavily impacted by serial divorcers. So most couples that get married don't actually get a divorce, but John Smith with commitment problems may get married and divorced 5 times throughout his life..affecting the divorce rate.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The problem with your false claim is that women initiate most divorces

John Smith doesn't have commitment problems it's greedy whores being greedy whores.

Women are given the financial incentive to divorce and so they do.

[–]PM-ME-YOUR-MEMEZ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How is my claim false you fucking moron? John Smith is a tentative person who could be male or female. My example was just that an example...what I said is not false, and is not a claim. It is a true fact.

[–]TopofToronto 28 points29 points30 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it wrong that I find this funny.

That after decades of woman celebrating how they "stick it to their Ex and made him pay" in almost every woman's magazine, Tv Talkshow, movie etc.

That here and now when a tenth of it happens to a woman they are shocked and appalled.

A tenth because children are not involved, which would mean that she would still be paying for the house , just she would not be living in it, and those 1000's of dollars in legal fees, would be paying just to try to have / enforce access.

Also the "male privilege" of cost and effort to document everything you show how you have been repeatedly denied access for months the Judge will turn to the wife and say, Now now Ms.Exwife.

[–]Mythandros 87 points88 points89 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

It's not so great when the shoe is on the other foot, eh ladies?

Good to hear that they have to go through this crap too, but not nearly frequently enough.

[–]torrentfox 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Good to hear that they have to go through this crap too, but not nearly frequently enough.

Maybe I'm naive, but it doesn't make me happy to read of anyone going through this shit. The system seems to be set up in such a way to mainly benefit bloodsucking lawyers and family courts, and relieve the state of any and all responsibility.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes women are normally the bloodsuckeing ones. Feminists have constantly opposed alimony reform and child custody reform.

These same women use the family court systems which have for most of our history been biased against men putting the wants of women above the need of the child and treating men as slave labor.

[–]torrentfox -5 points-4 points-3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which same women? I don't see any indication that the women affected by this are feminists or bloodsuckers. I just see a fucked up system that's hurting people. The fact that it's hurting women I'm sure is an eye-opener for a lot of people. Maybe when alimony's former proponents see how it's being abused in the other direction, they'll chance their tune.

[+]jeegte12 -10 points-9 points-8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

this is about one lady specifically.

[–]chadwickofwv 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Two, read it again.

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Women pay about 3% of alimony

[+]UltimateLegacy1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

In other words, only 3 percent of women marry men who didnt out earned them.

[–]Mode1961 46 points47 points48 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, it isn't that 3% of women pay alimony: It's that women pay 3% of alimony

[–]itgscv1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

3% of the total amount of alimony? Or 3% of the alimony payers? It’s still very underrepresented number compared to split of breadwinners.

Last stat I saw put couples where women earns more at around 30%

[–]Mode1961 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

AFAIK: 3% of money paid is paid by women.

[–]1LegendaryWombat 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So...equality? Whats the problem?

This thing was written completely biased though. Replace woman with man, nobody bats an eye, again.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Privileged member of society suddenly confronted with equal treatment, finds it oppressive.

[–]OleSpecialZ 41 points42 points43 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This sounds like r/nottheonion stuff.

[–]NorseGodLoki0411 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I became aware that not only are our assets shared but so are our debts, our super, our HECS debts — all of a sudden I was facing my partner's $50,000 HECS debt," she says.

"At the same time my super was also significantly less because I'd worked less. I'd been on maternity leave working part-time.

It's almost like women work less and hence are paid less. How very interesting.

[–]ChubbyMuffin479 16 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This reads like satire. So clueless.

[–]c_w_o_o_l_l_y 17 points18 points19 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

"It was the most traumatic thing I've lived through"

It really does blow my mind. How can they not see the obvious parallels to what men have to go through after EVERY. SINGLE. DIVORCE. EVER? How is it suddenly traumatic and awful when it happens the other way around? Just insane.

[–]DevilishGainz 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

low my mind. How can they not see the obvious parallels to what men have to go through after EVERY. SINGLE. DIVORCE. EVER? H

question. if you do not marry but live in same house i.e.common law here in canada. does the same thing happen. I stumbled upon this subreddit and started reading through last few weeks and you dudes got me terrified of common law and marriage. Basically if i live with a girlfriend for more than a year do all my moneys get taken?

[–]c_w_o_o_l_l_y 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

My state of Oklahoma does, but not all. LINK

[–]DevilishGainz 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

but this is for the usa. Im in canada.

[–]c_w_o_o_l_l_y 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I thought you were asking about the laws here. Here's a link to Canada's laws: LINK

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

thanks

[–]DevilishGainz 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"There is no automatic right to the division of property when a common law marriage ends. Often there is no division of property, and each party takes what is in his or her name. If this is a greatly unfair result, the spouse who was treated unfairly can make a claim for unjust enrichment, but this is a difficult and expensive legal claim to make."

thank god! thanks for link. So if i dont get married im okay. BUT if i do have a kid then i might as well be married. What this doesnt answer is that can they take all my assests or jut assest from the time we commonlaw/marriage/kid Or is it everything i ever owned.

[–]c_w_o_o_l_l_y 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the way marriages usually work is they take everything that you have, regardless of when it was acquired. Does it make sense? No, but welcome to marriage laws.

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

Common law this way too? I'd assume with a kid for sure

[–]Mackowatosc 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

its not the same for them - there in their heads, obviously women are betters so deserve more /s

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

Well, this is what the feminine agenda is trying to accomplish, right? Let's focus in on the areas that women are behind, ignore the valid reasons why they are behind in those areas, and definitely ignore the areas where women have incredible societal advantages. They perfected the art of highlighting women's disadvantages while ignoring their advantages so well that they can literally complain about something happening to one woman that happens to all men 90% of the time. It's actually impressive.

[–]DragonCeaser217 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Classic hypocrisy. These types of women are terrible humans.

[–]WhateverWhateverson 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh yes, he went for women's tactics

[–]fellate-o-fish 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So when a woman experiences what millions of women do to men every year, suddenly it is newsworthy?

I thought women wanted "equality." Well...Welcome to equality, bitch.

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

women only ever wanted equality if and where it suited them at the moment.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this satire? I hope this is satire.

[–]crippsy1988 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel for the individuals involved as I think the whole divorce proceeding are just screwed. However this happens to men all the time so get used to it. It's 2018, word of the year is equality isn't it?

[–]ShitPsychologist 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Typical Australia. r/australia would be gobsmacked.

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

I gave it a standing ovation.

Gents who can pull this off are mint material.

[–]Brusanan 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As usual, problems in society are only worth attention when they affect women.

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

A woman living what men constantly go through. Thank feminism for this ladies.

Every man should enforce this. Laws won't get changed until they impact women because feminists dont view men and boys as people

[–]wifemakesmewearplaid 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

HOW'S IT FEEL NOW?!

I'm not bitter.

[–]tacticalslacker 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She worked YEARS. What a shame. /s

[–]seeking101 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i bet it was her who wanted the divorce as well

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

😂😂 Guess a woman got a taste of her own medicine.

[–]jamesdanton 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's your ULTRA LEFT ABC. Publishers of such gems as the Privilege Rap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIIggkrhj-s

[–]Loban8990 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hmmm. But it's ok when this happens to men though right?

[–]Macismyname 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not happy that this women is getting the same terrible treatment men have been getting in family courts.

I'm very hopeful that if this keeps happening to women things will finally change and we get real reform in these proceedings.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These women may well be innocent but feminism is not. These policies were created on behalf of women.

[–]Sneakerp1mp 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Equal rights = Special treatment

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When men are on the receiving end, it is "Protecting my interests!".

[–]toddmalm 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol. Hilarious.

[–]dinnerwithfunions 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Everyone calls us misogynists but honestly I sympathize with what this lady’s going through. I’m sure it’s no fun dealing with a vengeful ex-spouse trying to drag you to the cleaners.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If only women weren't doing this to men and demanding that the laws be made as they are now.

You'll find no group that hates alimony reform as much as feminism.

[–]driplikewater 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

BUT FOR THE CHILDREN?!~

[–]drock18 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I saw that there is a disclaimer at the bottom saying that the story was from possibly several sources. It did not list any sourced material. There is no discussion on that site

[–]Mefic_vest 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Got to love how badly they squall and throw temper tantrums when the shoe is finally on the other foot.

It’s high time that they learned how to sleep in the bet that they’ve made for themselves.

[–]UsernameChecksOut56 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure she broke up with a woman, they kind of bury the lead but one line says both women avoided going to court. That almost makes this article less impactful

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

Nope.

There are two stories in this article. It reports that both women were able to settle with their respective ex-husbands out of court.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This really is a good thing. It's a shame that women have not really had any empathy for men in the past, but as more women are victimized by the family court system, maybe something will change.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is normal for male divorcees.

[–]Mackowatosc 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

outrage. she was treated like a man or something /s

[–]croidhubh 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Uh...yeah...it's called alimony, and if you make more than the other spouse, you have to pay. Welcome to equality, cunt

[–]Barthaneous 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Why havent the laws been made to be striaght and clear on such issues? Like if they have kids then 50/50% time to equal visits , and or more % for the parent that is able to take care of the child.

Then with pocessions that are clearly bought for each other in the marriage then let them duel for it by either flipping a coin, doing rock, paper, scissors, or pulling a short straw. I mean in these cases its always fair and left to chance.

But with actual finances, all finances in savings should be just split if both parties work for a living. If the wife or husband however does not work and did not help with the finances then they only get a 1/4 of the savings. Thats it. And that to me is still being generous.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists particularly organizations like NOW have repeatedly opposed equal custody and alimony reform.

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

And these feminists need to rot in hell. Because be they damned ,anyone who would tell me I can not see my children..

[–]Poparajasmin 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why would someone even be entitled to 1/4 of the others money?? If there are kids sure money goes to rais and provide for them. Other than that I work for my money and she works for her money since in todays world women are practically equal or even better off than men.

[–]Barthaneous 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hey I agree 100%, but the whole point of making an oath of "till death do us part" should be enforced as well. I mean we need to hold marriage as more sacred as it used to be.. It has always been a sacred thing until the last 100 years and especially since the last 20 years. People have no idea what marriage is , they think its just a nice little gift that can be shared and mixed matched as they wish..

So for me like I said 1/4 of the finances in savings should go to the other party because they BOTH made the promise to take the oath of never separating no matter what. So they are both liars and both should be punished. And 1/4 is the most I would ever give think is fair to the other party who was not working. Alot of the times men dont want the women to work and stay home with kids , which I understand thus some should go to the women since she did raise the children....But again case by case issues will arise and Judges should make the fair and balanced decision on how to proceed . Like if the mother did stay at home and raise the kids but she was constantly on drugs and really didnt do a good job, deserves not a fucking dime and the kids should go to the father...

[–]seeking101 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

totally agree about their marriage vows

[–]Numerous1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s easy to say “there should be clear cut rules, except for weird one-offs” but that’s the problem. There are a million different shades of weird one-off situations. If somebody is leaving a partner due to abuse, or cheating, or stealing, or drugs, or just plain arguing all the time.

There are situations where one partner “did everything right” but the other partner just wants out and will make life a living hell until a divorce is agreed upon. In those cases the partner that tried should not be “punished” the same way.

[–]Numerous1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Even if both parties work for a living there is a lot of potentially weird ways that partners split finances. Not everything is “all expenses are 50 50 all the time” some do big purchases, some do small. Some pay rent where the other partner does utilities, groceries, gas, etc.” Some people safe for retirement or pay for insurance while the other doesn’t (since partner A’s company plan might be better and it gets automatically removed from their paycheck). It is very hard to say “I have my account. You have yours. See you later

[–]Barthaneous 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Of course that's my point of "case by case ". But in terms of equal spending 50/50 and if one party doesn't work and has no kids. Good bye so long farewell. But if they do have kids 1/4 max is what the other party should give. Unless of course if the party on the other side is the cheating adulterous party then they don't get jack shit. So many different things can occur. I just wish people actually gave a shit about marriage though. That's kinda my whole main point. So many fucking losers including family members who don't know how to be selfless and put forth sacrifices in relationships all due to having themselves been raised by shitty parents who never taught them to stick with their promises. And put I their kids a false sense of entitlement instead of the spirit of forgiveness a d mercy

[–]Numerous1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, yea. That’s all true. Some people just don’t put in the work or effort or realize it’s not always perfect, I guess.

[–]vwolf800 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

A taste of your own medicine, bitch.

[–]torrentfox 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Did she do this to someone else in the past? I didn't see that in the article.

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

she isnt just "well, men deal with this every day. who am i to complain?"

no, she went straight to victimhood and poor ole me.

so yeah, id say a "taste of your own medicine" is appropriate here.

[–]torrentfox -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

She feels wronged, and rightfully so. Why should she individually feel like she shares guilt for the stuff that men deal with in divorce? That's the same sort of original sin bullshit that feminists like to trot.

It would be "her own medicine" if she were some vocal proponent of alimony, but there's no evidence of that.

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

she only feels wronged because she knows that men are the ones having to pay for 97 percent of all alimony. she only feels wronged because she knows or witnesses only 20 percent of mothers pay child support. in her world, she feels wronged because we as a society have been treating males so badly that it feels completely normal. of course she feels personally wronged.

she sees herself as a monolith. shes a woman. women dont lose in divorce. that is ridiculous. /

my theory is that she sees herself as a monolith, therefore, we shall treat her as a monolith: "heres a taste of your own medicine."

[–]torrentfox 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I feel like making assumptions about individuals based on their gender and treating them certain ways based on that is something we usually rail against.

She's a person and not a monolith, and it's very likely she's not even aware of the statistics. Definitely unfair to assume she feels any certain way towards alimony in general. I'm sure now she probably isn't a fan of it.

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

i get what youre saying. and perhaps its the cynic in me.

how about this:

if she thinks like i theorized she does, we agree.

if she think like you do, that is, on the individual scale. you win.

we both win. thats why its a theory.

we are both right, i feel. or we both CAN be right.

[–]torrentfox 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure, I just like to assume people are generally good and let them prove me wrong.

[–]tmone 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i like you

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

if they can push it, we can push it back too. fair's fair I guess.

[–]Super_offend3d 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I'm with you. We can't become the very characteristics we seek to destroy (vindictive/entitled).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem will never be addressed while it only happens to men.

Equality should be celebrated. I'm glad women are getting higher and higher doses of it.

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

being vindictive is ok if its beneficial to us, in my book.

[–]vwolf800 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Speaking about women in general.

[–]junkeee999 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why is this article being met with so much derision here? A person, it doesn't matter male or female (does it?) is complaining of the exact treatment that is bemoaned here constantly. Is she not allowed to complain about it because she doesn't belong to the right team?

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

Exactly. Every woman I ever met felt entitled to the future earnings of her ex-spouse, but it's oh-so-horrible if it happens to THEM.

[–]mrsuperguy 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not sure this is a r/mensRights issue but wow. That's awful. Can someone explain to me how it's even possible for a partner to go after your future earnings like that? Or just how it's possible for a divorce to just take everything from one partner...

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

I'm not sure the article is as hypocritical as we're making it out to be. Did the article suggest that the laws should be changed? Or that it's unfair that men are receiving their share of the assets?

Sure, I guess one woman was "completely blindsided" but I'm sure you could find many men that might also say the same thing when their ex goes after their money hard.

I took it as more of a "lifestyle" article that basically says this is the reality of divorce. And overall, I think it's a positive thing when articles highlight the possibility that women could be supporting men. It means that women might think about themselves as losing out upon divorce - and therefore they might support a more balanced policy on divorce, alimony and the division of assets.

[–]red-pill-man 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And pigs might fly...

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men need to do this to women at every opportunity that's the only way women will care.

Drive them to suicide the way they do to men just fucking ruin their lives.

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

#WompWomp

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

So fucking what lol

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

I think if women were treated exactly like men, most women would die within the next year.

[–]Leroyjankins8989 -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why is this news?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because it's impacting women and not Men.

Clearly when it's women it becomes an actual issue.

[–]ThiefOfNightTime[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Publicly funded news broadcaster in Australia. 80% of its reporting is excellent, but then they have shit like this.

[+]cjbpnw1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

This isn’t about a man and a women ... this is about two women. It says towards the bottom that “the two women we’re able to settle out of court.” That’s just my take on the read ...

[–]EricAllonde 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are two stories in this article. That's saying that both women were able to settle with their respective ex-husbands out of court.

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

You're wrong, but the error is understandable due to how they randomly switch to a new woman halfway through with little signposting

[+]Goatsac -16 points-15 points-14 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This was two lesbians divorcing.

[–]Mode1961 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Unless I misread the article, that story is about two different women, NOT two women in the same relationship.

*Jude says she was "completely blindsided" by the way her ex went after her money.

He hired a lawyer and pursued a percentage of her earnings, including her future assets — projected royalties from her books over the next decade *

Notice is says "HE" went after her money.

[–]Goatsac 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, my bad. I skimmed it, thought I recognised it as another article I'd read a little while ago. Two lesbians divorced and one got reamed like a man.

[–]fellate-o-fish 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

hahaha if true, it's even funnier

lol

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter