Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

removing sexism from legal matters.

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Men are mistreated (hugely) in the courts. discuss.

    This topic is certainly NOT limited to custody/devorce.

    edit: nor is this just for the uk
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sconter)
    Men are mistreated (hugely) in the courts. discuss.

    This topic is certainly NOT limited to custody/devorce.

    edit: nor is this just for the uk
    Women always 'play' the role of the victim better than men.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj451)
    Women always 'play' the role of the victim better than men.
    this is true there is also the effect of feminisation of society, and feminism teaching that women are always the victims and men the agressors. but im not going to go into how bad feminism is and how much i hate it.

    i mean more the discrepancies in things like rape or child abuse or assault.

    on statutory rape charges men get much longer sentences for not as bad crimes. in cases where teachers have sex with pupils males are given much larger sentences.

    women get off due to the fact they are women (this thread is mainly in response to a case in america i think, where a guy was in prison for 9 years after his daughter claimed rape, she has since admited it was lies. she wasnt charged because the (female) judge decided it may stop girl reporting real cases...)
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    why should a celebrities wife get millions in a devorce settlement while someone who was actually mistreated gets ££££s in debt and an old car?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There is also domestic violence (Duluth Model) & sexual harrassment, unfairly geared against men.
    In Feb12 Irish Supreme Court ruled that constitutional law allows only teenage boys, not teenage girls can be prosecuted, to be prosecuted for underage sex.

    Mentioned 4 numbered points in earlier post (would paraphrase, but ipad not so good at letting me copy).

    Usa this year, rape laws mean if a woman &/or man is drunk & she later (tomorrow, next year, etc) changes her mind, only the man can be charged for rape, so if man drunk & woman not she can not be prosecuted.

    India & 498a: what was supposed to protect women is being used to unfairly Harm (lotsa suicides) an husband & his whole family.

    The number of sexist/misandric laws are increasing(!), to a point where it is getting into mainstream news.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well, matrimonial law is the most obvious starting point. Not only is it skewed against men at every point at the most fundamental level, but it continues to develop in that manner.

    A divorcing wife is entitled to be kept in a manner to which she has become accustomed, regardless of her position before the marriage.

    A man has to compensate a divorced wife for her loss of opportunity during a marriage.

    A wife's role is to be considered equal in a marriage to that of the (usually) bread-winning husband, even where his earning is outside the norm.

    There is deliberate lack of qualification of a wife's contribution. A wife is a wife is a wife and entitled to her ancillary relief. So a husband that earns £25,000 and just about makes end meet has to provide for his wife who stays at home and looks after the house. Fair enough. But a man who earns untold millions has to provide an equal proportion to his wife who stays at home, but hasn't seen a Henry Hoover or saucepan for years. The husband pays for everything for his wife, including for domestic workers. Yet she is then rewarded for her "contribution" upon divorce.

    And at the end of all this, what do we have? Radmacher v Grantino. Never have pre-nups been enforced in this country, as it would do poor women out of a settlement. Finally, a pre-nup is given weight. And it's for a high earning wife.

    Don't even get me started on the Children Act.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rad_student)
    There is also domestic violence (Duluth Model) & sexual harrassment, unfairly geared against men.
    In Feb12 Irish Supreme Court ruled that constitutional law allows only teenage boys, not teenage girls can be prosecuted, to be prosecuted for underage sex.

    Mentioned 4 numbered points in earlier post (would paraphrase, but ipad not so good at letting me copy).

    Usa this year, rape laws mean if a woman &/or man is drunk & she later (tomorrow, next year, etc) changes her mind, only the man can be charged for rape, so if man drunk & woman not she can not be prosecuted.

    India & 498a: what was supposed to protect women is being used to unfairly Harm (lotsa suicides) an husband & his whole family.

    The number of sexist/misandric laws are increasing(!), to a point where it is getting into mainstream news.
    this is exactly the stuff im talking about.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    Well, matrimonial law is the most obvious starting point. Not only is it skewed against men at every point at the most fundamental level, but it continues to develop in that manner.

    A divorcing wife is entitled to be kept in a manner to which she has become accustomed, regardless of her position before the marriage.

    A man has to compensate a divorced wife for her loss of opportunity during a marriage.

    A wife's role is to be considered equal in a marriage to that of the (usually) bread-winning husband, even where his earning is outside the norm.

    There is deliberate lack of qualification of a wife's contribution. A wife is a wife is a wife and entitled to her ancillary relief. So a husband that earns £25,000 and just about makes end meet has to provide for his wife who stays at home and looks after the house. Fair enough. But a man who earns untold millions has to provide an equal proportion to his wife who stays at home, but hasn't seen a Henry Hoover or saucepan for years. The husband pays for everything for his wife, including for domestic workers. Yet she is then rewarded for her "contribution" upon divorce.

    And at the end of all this, what do we have? Radmacher v Grantino. Never have pre-nups been enforced in this country, as it would do poor women out of a settlement. Finally, a pre-nup is given weight. And it's for a high earning wife.

    Don't even get me started on the Children Act.
    atleast this thread is getting some response now, unsupprisingly from men. brb angry, cant type.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    When a man beats a woman it's domestic abuse
    When a woman beats a man it's empowerment.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    There's Employment Statute if you like.

    A woman can apply for a job, and is legally protected from being asked if she is pregnant. In the public sector, she can then go on maternity leave as soon as it becomes necessary - usually on nearly a year's full pay. Her employer (ok, it's probably an NHS Trust or school) has to keep her job open, and should she decide not to come back - it is at the discretion of her manager whether or not she has to pay back her additional maternity benefit. In practice, it's rare.

    In the meantime, the employer has to find cover. There is nothing saying that they won't find another pregnant woman who will go on leave as well.

    Maternity leave is clearly not open to men. However, paternity leave is a very poor cousin and not well enforced.

    Unmarried fathers do not automatically have parenting rights, and do not have them unless named on the birth certificate. However, they do automatically have child support liability.

    Unmarried fathers are obliged to provide support for children. This is clearly right. However, under the Children Act 1989, the phrase "best interests of the child" comes to the fore, and in any settlement or order, the "best interests of the child" are (at law) paramount.

    Unfortunately for fathers - it has been shown time after time that "best interests of the child" equates to "best interests of the mother". A father will almost never get occupancy of the matrimonial home, which will go to the child, and mother. The attitude of the law is very much - take care of the child to the best extent possible - and this means the mother, too...if there is nothing left for the father - well, that's too bad.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calllu-m)
    When a man beats a woman it's domestic abuse
    When a woman beats a man it's empowerment.
    there was an abc special i saw about this on misc where they employed actors.. a man was beating a woman, people called the police, when they reversed it only one person did. the women walking past said in interviews they were glad, because the guy would have obviously does something wrong etc etc. ****ing feminism.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    There's Employment Statute if you like.

    A woman can apply for a job, and is legally protected from being asked if she is pregnant. In the public sector, she can then go on maternity leave as soon as it becomes necessary - usually on nearly a year's full pay. Her employer (ok, it's probably an NHS Trust or school) has to keep her job open, and should she decide not to come back - it is at the discretion of her manager whether or not she has to pay back her additional maternity benefit. In practice, it's rare.

    In the meantime, the employer has to find cover. There is nothing saying that they won't find another pregnant woman who will go on leave as well.

    Maternity leave is clearly not open to men. However, paternity leave is a very poor cousin and not well enforced.

    Unmarried fathers do not automatically have parenting rights, and do not have them unless named on the birth certificate. However, they do automatically have child support liability.

    Unmarried fathers are obliged to provide support for children. This is clearly right. However, under the Children Act 1989, the phrase "best interests of the child" comes to the fore, and in any settlement or order, the "best interests of the child" are (at law) paramount.

    Unfortunately for fathers - it has been shown time after time that "best interests of the child" equates to "best interests of the mother". A father will almost never get occupancy of the matrimonial home, which will go to the child, and mother. The attitude of the law is very much - take care of the child to the best extent possible - and this means the mother, too...if there is nothing left for the father - well, that's too bad.
    american law is even worse than ours on child support (well atleast i havent heard cases of this, if u have dont tell me, ill rage) guys have taken paternity tests, proven the woman cheated on them, and its not their child, and are still forced to pay child support.. on a child thats not ****ing theirs...
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    To my knowledge no woman has ever been held accountable (criminally or civilly) for defrauding a man into believing someone else's child is his. There are even cases where DNA testing later revealed a man was not the father and a judge ordered him to continue paying child support anyway because he had accepted the role initially.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I disagree with all of the above, generally I think the law is balanced.

    When you have children, those children deserve to be put first. The children shouldn't suffer because the adults are too irresponsible to keep their relationship together. If the children end up with the mother - which often happens but not always - its absolutely right that the children should be put first.

    If you don't want to pay child support and don't want your assets divided 50/50, don't have children. You can't just go to work every day, let the woman deal with the children - in that kind of relationship the woman is enabling the man to work full time, they are his children too.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    please, if you are going to neg the OP, give a reason. dont really see a reason to neg, its the start of a discussion... please respond.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I disagree with all of the above, generally I think the law is balanced.

    When you have children, those children deserve to be put first. The children shouldn't suffer because the adults are too irresponsible to keep their relationship together. If the children end up with the mother - which often happens but not always - its absolutely right that the children should be put first.

    If you don't want to pay child support and don't want your assets divided 50/50, don't have children. You can't just go to work every day, let the woman deal with the children - in that kind of relationship the woman is enabling the man to work full time, they are his children too.
    how is that EVERYTHING above, i made it clear this wasnt just to be about marital law/ custody.


    in response to what you said first. the only time a woman isnt going to end up with the children is ive she is a crack whore, who is a contract killer.
    women shouldnt get half, as i said, how is this fair? paul mccartney's wife (cant remember the ****'s name) got millions for having the misfortune of having everthing bought for her and being married to somone that for the majority of his life could have ****ed any woman alive, yet a woman who is devorcing because her husband beats her gets nothing because he's a dead beat. why does heather mills (just remembered her name) get more?

    i would rather not be enabled....

    edit: surely it would make more sense to not take the house, not take the car, and not take the children, and keep those for the person that earned them (woman or man) and then pay the other loss of earnings?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    despite our large disagreement on my thread i quite like this one and i think men are horribly discriminated against in the courts .. as @clip said especially in the divorce courts ... my uncle divorced his alcoholic bitch of a wife a few years back she ended up with 60% of his pension a £2million house and regular maintainance payments to fund her lavish drinking life style, how are such cases fair? take any other case the women will invariably get the house and the kids ... which the man has worked for [in most cases not all] and why does he usually loose custody of his nkids to? its a gross injustice.
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Here's some case law:

    Miller (2006)
    Baroness Hale basically says here that an equal division of property at the time of divorce is not good enough, and a woman needs more than an equal split, as some time down the road, she may not have as much as the husband, who can earn more

    McFarlane (2006) - judged at the same time
    A husband and wife both had successful careers, and had a marriage lasting 16 years. The wife took a career break to have children. The marriage ended. They had assets of £3m. They agreed to share these.
    They could not agree a PPO (Periodic Payment Order), so the wife prayed and the House of Lords returned a PPO of £250,000 per year ON TOP to see that the wife was properly compensated for her "loss" during the marriage.
    Mrs. McFarlane returned to court in 2009 and prayed again for an increase in her PPO as his earnings had increased, and hers had not. The House awarded a percentage of Mr. McFarlane's income from that point until his retirement. Equality was not enough to produce fairness.


    S v S (2008)
    Wife was awarded additional relief so that she could continue her love of horses.

    C v C (2010)
    Apparently, a wife can claim against money you don't even have yet. Husband was held to "definitely" inherit money as the settlor of a trust fund (of which he was an object) was a 74 year old widow, and it was apparently clear that she would die and leave him a sum. At the time of the judgement, she was still alive, and the husband had not benefited, yet this potential trust fund was counted as his assets for the purposes of ancillary relief.

    B v B (2008)
    In this case, the wife had already inherited money from her parents. It was held that this justified a departure from equality in dividing the assets. Compare that to what happened in C v C.


    Just to finish, let's not forget s.25(2)(g) Matrimonial Causes Act. This concerns how conduct (bad behaviour during the marriage) should affect the division and award of property upon divorce.

    Mr. Justice Burton in S v S (2006) : "conduct from (a wife) which produces a "gasp" should be taken into consideration, but that which produces only a "gulp" should not."

    K v K (1990)
    The wife encouraged her depressed husband to commit suicide. It was demonstrated that she did this in order to inherit. The penalty was that her award (from her husband) was reduced from £14,000 to £5,000.

    Famous case of Clark v Clark (1999)
    Woman married a rich older man. Mistreated him badly, persuaded him to spend vast amounts of money on her. Never consumated marriage. Forced him to live in a caravan in the garden, whilst she moved into the mansion. She banned him from the home. Eventually the husband was financially ruined. They did finally divorce. At first instance, the court felt that her conduct should not affect her award. She was awarded over half a million pounds, although the Court of Appeal reduced that to about a third of that sum. Mrs. Clark went on to try and seduce another wealthy millionaire almost immediately.

    A v A (1995)
    By contrast, in this case a lazy husband and hard-working wife, the court felt that taking into account the contrast in conduct should be a consideration when making the award.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    How comes no females have added their viewpoint to this thread?
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumsteele1)
    despite our large disagreement on my thread i quite like this one and i think men are horribly discriminated against in the courts .. as @clip said especially in the divorce courts ... my uncle divorced his alcoholic bitch of a wife a few years back she ended up with 60% of his pension a £2million house and regular maintainance payments to fund her lavish drinking life style, how are such cases fair? take any other case the women will invariably get the house and the kids ... which the man has worked for [in most cases not all] and why does he usually loose custody of his nkids to? its a gross injustice.
    will rep, now get back to our arguement ha
Updated: April 8, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.