[Clip]

(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.

In many of the big money cases - it's very often the case that the wife isn't actually looking after the children. She's out shopping, going to pilates and having coffee with her friends, whilst the children are being looked after by a nanny paid for by the husband. She's not enabling the husband to do anything. In some of these cases (why not McCartney v Mills-McCartney?) there was no question that the wife enabled the husband's earning. Yet she received £16m before Child maintenance was even considered.

And assets are not divided 50/50. "Equality is not enough to produce fairness", don't forget.

The President Sir Mark Potter stated that equal division should be sufficient to compensate the wife for lost career prospects. But wives are often said to be contributing the husband's earning potential. So why then do wives not have awards reduced when the husband increases her future earnings? Heather Mills is only famous because of Paul McCartney. Why does she not receive less as he has effectively enabled her to have a celebrity career?

The other point of "Children First" is that the wife always goes with the children. What they get, she gets. So where the couple can't keep their relationship together, the husband loses not only his children, but has to then keep up his ex-wife. Don't forget it's near impossible to regulate what the wife spends awards on. She can keep the children in rags, whilst living in a house provided "for their best interest".

[calumsteele1]

(Original post by sconter)
will rep, now get back to our arguement ha

thank you, the favour has been returned and we shall commence

[Clip]

(Original post by ckingalt)
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.

I can't remember the case name, it was in Family Law Week - the CoA refused a man his appeal against dismissal of his damages claim in a paternity fraud. The appeal judge basically said he was doing the man a favour by not letting him sue the woman who told defrauded him out of 17 years worth of child support.

[sconter]

(Original post by Clip)
Here's some case law:



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.

.

was just skimming over them, there are probably worse ones in here, but **** that makes me rage.

[Clip]

You need to calm down and take some Prozac, because you're acting like an idiot and your language is appalling.

I fear for your state of mind if I tell you about A v A (Financial Provision) (1998).

[green chica]

If you guys are really that concerned about losing money and assets during a divorce, use your brain and sign a ****ing prenup. Problem solved.

[sconter]

(Original post by green chica)
If you guys are really that concerned about losing money and assets during a divorce, use your brain and sign a ****ing prenup. Problem solved.

loooooooooooool prenups aren't worth the paper they are written on, our law man^ could probably help me here, but they are overuled in the woman's favor time after time. thanks for bringing up another instance where men are mistreated though

[sconter]

(Original post by Clip)
You need to calm down and take some Prozac, because you're acting like an idiot and your language is appalling.

I fear for your state of mind if I tell you about A v A (Financial Provision) (1998).

im * * *** im not using appalling language. ** acting how? it makes me rage, infuriates me angers me.. what emotions are u expecting. it doesnt mean im punching the screen. go on tell me

[green chica]

(Original post by sconter)
loooooooooooool prenups aren't worth the paper they are written on, our law man^ could probably help me here, but they are overuled in the woman's favor time after time. thanks for bringing up another instance where men are mistreated though

Please do explain how prenups can be bent to favor one gender over the other.

[sconter]

(Original post by green chica)
Please do explain how prenups can be bent to favor one gender over the other.

please tell me. that is the point of this thread. there is no logical reasoning.

edit: mainly because it is traditionally the man that makes the money, there arent many cases where the woman is being sued by the man for money, while the have a prenup. - this doesnt alter anything though. doesnt alter the fact judges over rule them the ones that exist in the woman's favor.

[screenager2004]

Sexism affects both men and women. The reason men come off so poorly in divorce settlements and child custody agreements is because the judges/juries/courts are biased into thinking that

a) women should be the ones to look after the kids, not men
b) women are less able to earn after a divorce and so are disadvantaged after a divorce
c) the man is the breadwinner in the house and so is in a better financial situation than a woman is after a divorce.

So as you can see - the reason that men are disadvantaged in the court room is because of negative stereotypes of women. Sexism is not a one-way action - a negative treatment/stereotype of one sex depends on a contrasting unfair stereotype on the other.

I disagree entirely with sexism in the courts, but you can't say it's the fault of feminism. Feminism is working AGAINST the negative stereotypes (demonstrated in points a-c) that result in these unfair rulings.

[sconter]

(Original post by screenager2004)
Sexism affects both men and women. The reason men come off so poorly in divorce settlements and child custody agreements is because the judges/juries/courts are biased into thinking that

a) women should be the ones to look after the kids, not men how is this negative against women?
b) women are less able to earn after a divorce and so are disadvantaged after a divorce not a negative stereotype
c) the man is the breadwinner in the house and so is in a better financial situation than a woman is after a divorce. feminism is against this, up until it works in the woman's favor, eg in the courts

So as you can see - the reason that men are disadvantaged in the court room is because of negative stereotypes of women. lulz Sexism is not a one-way action - a negative treatment/stereotype of one sex depends on a contrasting unfair stereotype on the other. this is clearly your belief, it is not the case

I disagree entirely with sexism in the courts, but you can't say it's the fault of feminism. Feminism is working AGAINST the negative stereotypes (demonstrated in points a-c) that result in these unfair rulings. no it isnt

approximately nothing in this was correct.
...

[screenager2004]

(Original post by sconter)
approximately nothing in this was correct.
...

Oh dear, do you really fail to grasp how unequal distribution of domestic labour is a negative thing?
Do you REALLY need to be explained to how the assumption one sex should earn less is negative?


So much fail..

No wonder you're struggling with understanding how the courts are skewed.

[sconter]

(Original post by screenager2004)
Oh dear, do you really fail to grasp how unequal distribution of domestic labour is a negative thing?
Do you REALLY need to be explained to how the assumption one sex should earn less is negative?


So much fail..

No wonder you're struggling with understanding how the courts are skewed.

you are clearly hugely affected by feminism. i feel bad for you.

i do not see unequal distribution of domestic labour as a negative thing, no.

i do not need it explaining, and am against two people equally qualified with equal abilities equal work ethic, and equal productivity, doing identical jobs, getting paid differently.

i am against feminism, not against equality.

[screenager2004]

(Original post by sconter)
i do not see unequal distribution of domestic labour as a negative thing, no.

Just for the record, you ARE aware of the massive irony that you're complaining against unfair treatment of men in the courts, yet you're advocating the unfair treatment of women in the home?

Kinda nullifies your argument. Just saying.

i do not need it explaining, and am against two people equally qualified with equal abilities equal work ethic, and equal productivity, doing identical jobs, getting paid differently.

Are you implying women deserve to be paid less because they're not 'equally qualified' to men?

i am against feminism, not against equality.

Clearly you do not understand what feminism is.

[sconter]

(Original post by screenager2004)
Just for the record, you ARE aware of the massive irony that you're complaining against unfair treatment of men in the courts, yet you're advocating the unfair treatment of women in the home?

Kinda nullifies your argument. Just saying.

just for the record, you ARE aware that more men work, more women do house work, if this is the way they choose to live their life it is up to them, and not sexist

Are you implying women deserve to be paid less because they're not 'equally qualified' to men?
i am implying merely that looking at sex's pay as a matter of fact thing is stupid, more men are in high skilled jobs etc so the pay between women and men is different. stop looking at gender, race etc, and look at their skiils and abilities. if there are still discrepancies come back to me

Clearly you do not understand what feminism is.im sure you were talking about irony. but ill humor you, please tell me where im getting it wrong

thfghhfsg

[screenager2004]

(Original post by sconter)
just for the record, you ARE aware that more men work, more women do house work, if this is the way they choose to live their life it is up to them, and not sexist

Gotta be one of the most ignorant things I've heard in a while. Society doesn't work that way. That's like saying that the reason there's a higher rate of incarceration amongst blacks is because more black people 'chose' to become criminals.

i am implying merely that looking at sex's pay as a matter of fact thing is stupid, more men are in high skilled jobs etc so the pay between women and men is different. stop looking at gender, race etc, and look at their skiils and abilities. if there are still discrepancies come back to me

Have you ever stopped and wondered WHY more men are in high skilled jobs?
Clue: it's related to the reason why men have to pay out large sums in divorce settlements.

im sure you were talking about irony. but ill humor you, please tell me where im getting it wrong

Feminism is about gender equality. Anyone who says "it's about women getting their way" is just a total idiot who has never read a single scrap of feminist literature in their life.

[sconter]

(Original post by screenager2004)
Gotta be one of the most ignorant things I've heard in a while. Society doesn't work that way. That's like saying that the reason there's a higher rate of incarceration amongst blacks is because more black people 'chose' to become criminals.
so you are staying being a stay at home parent is equivilent to black people commiting crimes, ok.

Have you ever stopped and wondered WHY more men are in high skilled jobs?
Clue: it's related to the reason why men have to pay out large sums in divorce settlements.
i know that is why, it is incorrect

Feminism is about gender equality. Anyone who says "it's about women getting their way" is just a total idiot who has never read a single scrap of feminist literature in their life. feminism is about getting a skewed ideal of 'equality' is filled with flaws and anti-male stuffs. completely sperate to this, feminism isnt about equality, if it was, there would be no problem. a huge problem with it is its general position isnt 'women are great' it's 'men are bad'

.//

edit: from what you are saying you seem to think i don't think women should get anything in a devorce, this isnt the case.

also where is your stance on 'rape is worse if a man does it (statutory or otherwise)' is this not sexism?

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by screenager2004)
Sexism affects both men and women. The reason men come off so poorly in divorce settlements and child custody agreements is because the judges/juries/courts are biased into thinking that

a) women should be the ones to look after the kids, not men
b) women are less able to earn after a divorce and so are disadvantaged after a divorce
c) the man is the breadwinner in the house and so is in a better financial situation than a woman is after a divorce.

So as you can see - the reason that men are disadvantaged in the court room is because of negative stereotypes of women. Sexism is not a one-way action - a negative treatment/stereotype of one sex depends on a contrasting unfair stereotype on the other.

I disagree entirely with sexism in the courts, but you can't say it's the fault of feminism. Feminism is working AGAINST the negative stereotypes (demonstrated in points a-c) that result in these unfair rulings.

I agree with Screenager. In fact, if I have children then I don't want to be working full-time still, I'd just as prefer to take the time to help them grow up instead of working an 8-7 job 5 days a week Unfortunately, bias presumes that the woman will take this role, and men don't get the support to enable them to take that sort of time off.

At the end of the day, all these sexist biases are based on the presumption that men=worker, women=carer. Hopefully the law courts will adapt as more and more career-orientated women enter the system, but I doubt it. If there's anything law courts love more than anything, it's precedent...

If we saw a return to common sense, and specific application of the law on a case-by-case basis, we'd see fairer divorce settlements and a greater degree of gender equality for all

[screenager2004]

(Original post by sconter)
so you are staying being a stay at home parent is equivilent to black people commiting crimes, ok.

Ugh. Have you ever heard of an analogy? never mind. You seem incapable of reasoning.

My Question: Have you ever stopped and wondered WHY more men are in high skilled jobs?
Your response: i know that is why, it is incorrect

That makes no sense. "Have you wondered why?" - "that is why" isn't an answer.
Try again.

Have you ever wondered why more men are in high skilled jobs?

feminism is about getting a skewed ideal of 'equality' is filled with flaws and anti-male stuffs. completely sperate to this, feminism isnt about equality, if it was, there would be no problem. a huge problem with it is its general position isnt 'women are great' it's 'men are bad'

No it's not. You're completely wrong. Have you ever read a single feminist article/essay/book in your entire life? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

also where is your stance on 'rape is worse if a man does it (statutory or otherwise)' is this not sexism?

Of course that is incredibly sexist. Rape is just as bad whether the victim or perpetrator is male or female - rape is rape.