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

In society, is there any benefit for a man to get married?

Announcements Posted on
Live webchat: Student Finance explained - on TSR from 2 - 3pm 17-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    x

    (Original post by poohat)
    x
    I think what both of you are saying about pre-nups are correct. The Supreme Court basically ruled that pre-nups have decisive weight in divorce proceedings, and will be upheld if they are fair. However, they reserved the power to alter the agreements, or to destroy them completely, if they are unfair. A decisive factor was that it was signed in Germany, showing an intention to be legally bound by it, however that does not mean that signing in Britain would make it any less legally enforceable.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well, I know that I'm most likely never going to get married (or have children) because I see it as more responsibility for me. The mother of the house is usually the glue that holds the family together, making sure the whole family is fed (including the husband when he's home from work),the children are happy, the house is clean (yes I'm sure the husband will 'help out' every now and then) and your life is no longer your own. You are merely living your life at the beck and call of your husband and children, and statistics have proven for decades that single women are happier than married women (I read this frequently when studying sociology A level, but I can only find this now http://cyberparent.com/women/marriage1.htm).

    I know I'm pretty cynical, and this is probably all due to the fact that I'm middle eastern and will be expected to marry a middle eastern man who will expect me to behave as a proper wife should, but as far as I can see, men get far more benefit from marriage than women. Maybe things would be different if the women is able to work full-time (in which case they're 'neglecting' their children) but all that would change is that the husband would help out more, the domestic sphere will ALWAYS be her responsibility.
    Sorry I know this is long, I wanted to get everything out in one go.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaliack)
    I think what both of you are saying about pre-nups are correct. The Supreme Court basically ruled that pre-nups have decisive weight in divorce proceedings, and will be upheld if they are fair. However, they reserved the power to alter the agreements, or to destroy them completely, if they are unfair. A decisive factor was that it was signed in Germany, showing an intention to be legally bound by it, however that does not mean that signing in Britain would make it any less legally enforceable.
    Agreed, and it is fair to alter/remove the prenup for such circumstances. At the beginning, i merely referred to simple cases where there are no circumstances that factor in

    http://www.prenuptialagreementsuk.co...eements-uk.php
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A man can also divorce a woman and take half her stuff...
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The reason that case has a long article in the Guardian is that it's so unusual. But note that the judge didn't exactly try to overturn precedent - he just said that prenups could be taken into consideration in the usual divorce proceedings and even then only in some cases. So a prenup might give you better chances but it does not give anything like a guarantee.


    Marriage is supposed to be a lifetime commitment; now if one side breaks the agreement or was insincere then divorce should be possible, but that person should be the only one to lose out. "No fault divorce" is a nonsense in my opinion. Both parties should be able to jointly void the contract if they want, but only on terms they both agree to.

    (Original post by poohat)
    It wasnt 'enforced' as such, the judge said it could be taken into consideration by the divorce court but they have no obligation to do so. Also the reason why this happened is because the pre-nup was made in a different country where it was legally binding, and its unlikely that it apply to one made in the UK.
    The general consensus of opinion on Radmacher is that it was not an isolated case and was meant to be precedent. This is clear as the top matrimonial firms are all now offering not only ante-nuptial services, but also insurance against them failing. I don't think there was any suggestion in the judgement of Radmacher that the location of the formation of the contract was relevant.





    Also the people saying the wife gets half in divorce cases are wrong, if the couple has children then the courts will generally rule that their interests take priority. This often means that the wife will be awarded sole residence rights in the family home while the husband has to move out, on the grounds that it would be disruptive for the children to have to move (and the husband will never win primary child custody unless there are serious extenuating circumstances.). Since for most couples their home represents the bulk of their capital, its more accurate to say that the wife gets 80-90% in a typical divorce

    (although in theory when all the children reach the age of 18 the husband can then ask for the house to be sold and the proceeds split).
    This isn't necessarily so (in terms of the Mesher Order). Meshers are creatures of the CA, and not really of marriage - and what you are describing would more likely apply to an unmarried father. A married man is extremely unlikely to get anything back from his ex-wife - if anything her demands can become greater if she perceives any inequality between their respective positions. This was basically the position in Mcfarlane, where post divorce the man began to do much better than the woman. Despite having half the £3m family assets, Mrs. Mcfarlane was dissatisfied with her £250k per year payment order and returned to court to have it increased in line with Mr. Mcfarlane's current earnings. The order that was finally made awarded her a percentage of his income until he retired or died.
    • 22 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Movember)
    i got thinking the other day that there is no benefit to a man getting married as far as i am aware. the big downside is a woman can divorce and take half his stuff. how is this fair and why would any rational man get married on this basis?:confused:

    before you say that its for loving couples to show their committment, why do you need a piece of paper for that? i dont understand why you cant be a loving couple without getting married. i asked my dad about this (he is married to my mum and believes in marriage) and he said i shouldnt be so untrustworthy and cynical about women but with so many gold diggers out there, who knows if a woman could marry you and take half your stuff. its a massive gamble. what are your thoughts?
    it's funny how you imply that the husband always earns more than the wife
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Movember)
    i got thinking the other day that there is no benefit to a man getting married as far as i am aware. the big downside is a woman can divorce and take half his stuff. how is this fair and why would any rational man get married on this basis?:confused:

    before you say that its for loving couples to show their committment, why do you need a piece of paper for that? i dont understand why you cant be a loving couple without getting married. i asked my dad about this (he is married to my mum and believes in marriage) and he said i shouldnt be so untrustworthy and cynical about women but with so many gold diggers out there, who knows if a woman could marry you and take half your stuff. its a massive gamble. what are your thoughts?
    All I know is there definitely isn't any benefit for anyone to get married to someone like you

    As for other men, they're not stupid, they see the benefits
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ok, assuming that the husband will earn more, which is possibly still the case but I'm not sure these days then your post does make sense from a purely financial perspective with no children involved. However, if the husband wants children then it is a different matter entirely.

    A single man raising children (which would be hard to achieve anyway in the event of a custody battle or persuading for adoption) would struggle to have a successful career. Therefore, getting married will allow him to have a full income, to the best of his ability anyway, with the mother having probably less income but still contributing to the household and taking more responsibility for the children.

    Surely being married allows the husband to have children and have a successful career and a wife who can sort out domestic matters. Without the wife then he can only have the successful career and no family. Divorce payouts, in my view, are there to pay back the wife for sacrificing a successful career, i.e. her independence, to support the family which both parties wanted. In practice I'm sure there any many who milk the legal system but that is the primary reason for it as I can see. It definitely gets more complicated with both sexes working fulltime etc.

    You could find a girl who might have your kids without getting married and also sacrificing her career chances but then if it all went wrong she would still probably get their custody but then the children would have a worse quality of life, so what is the benefit to the husband of not paying out?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gooner92)
    It's interesting that, while it's almost never talked about, leniency for female criminals is probably the single most well-documented fact within the criminal justice system. Sex is the single greatest contributory factor to the length of criminal sentence, it plays a greater role than race, religion or ethnicity, but your claiming that there's no maternal bias in family courts (it's interesting that feminists don't march for equal treatment by sentencing judges btw.) The claim that family courts are not biased is absurd on its face and contrary to basically every piece of evidence in existence, but there seems to be no shortage of media outlets willing to post nonsense as long as it conforms to the politically correct narrative that women are always victims and never privileged.
    Okay this is going off on a slight tangent but I had to respond to this:
    1. There has actually been a sharp increase of women being sent to prison from an average of 1,811 in 1994 to 12,650 in 2002 with no correlation of women committing more offences or more serious offences. Over 70% of women in prison are only there for less than 12 months, half of which have dependant children, which begs the question 'what is the point of them even being there other than spiteful punishment?'. Also, women are now twice more likely to go to prison for theft, such as shoplifting baby clothes because they can't afford to pay for them. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of women in prison are mainly there because of the men in their lives (domestic or sexual abuse, prostitution, drugs, or helping them out in a serious crime)
    2. No, we can't ask for simple, plain equality, because the situation of a women being charged and a man being charged are too different to be treated equally, particularly when they are the prime caregiver for children. People seem to have the view of 'you want equality? Well, you'll get equality'.
    3. Applying this to family courts, what Historophilia is trying to say is that the maternal bias in family courts is the fault of society through gender stereotyping and therefore should be confronted first before a complete transformation of family law itself.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE= Originally Posted by Historophilia
    That is because custody is most often given to the primary caregiver of the children. And who are more likely to be doing this? Women.

    The root cause of unfairness in family law courts are because of outdated stereotypes about men and women. Ie. that women should be the ones to devote themselves to bringing up children and that man's role should not be to do so and instead to be a breadwinner.

    Therefore courts will be more likely to give custody to women because in societies view woman = child-rearing.

    Break down these gender stereotypes and you'll stop many of these gender discrepancies. Break down the gender stereotypes and you'll see more men taking on the role of primary care-giver, and therefore more men getting custody.

    Don't blame bias towards females for what is at bottom caused by narrow gender stereotypes.

    Also, about another contentious issue reg divorce cases, women getting possession of the family home. It stems from the same set of gender stereotypes, that women are childcare, therefore they should stay with the children, it is better for children to remain in their family home and not move, therefore the house goes to the mother.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------


    It's interesting that, while it's almost never talked about, leniency for female criminals is probably the single most well-documented fact within the criminal justice system. Sex is the single greatest contributory factor to the length of criminal sentence, it plays a greater role than race, religion or ethnicity, but your claiming that there's no maternal bias in family courts (it's interesting that feminists don't march for equal treatment by sentencing judges btw.) The claim that family courts are not biased is absurd on its face and contrary to basically every piece of evidence in existence, but there seems to be no shortage of media outlets willing to post nonsense as long as it conforms to the politically correct narrative that women are always victims and never privileged.[/QUOTE]

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Historophilia will have to forgive me if I'm wrong, but from what I read of her post, she was saying that the family courts ARE biased towards women! They are biased as a result of the patriarchal society we have come from. Women have always been expected to be the ones to stay at home with the children and clearly they still are?
    That was my take on her post anyway...

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Sorry for not properly quoting you both!!!!! No idea what went wrong there! :-s
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gooner92)
    It's interesting that, while it's almost never talked about, leniency for female criminals is probably the single most well-documented fact within the criminal justice system. Sex is the single greatest contributory factor to the length of criminal sentence, it plays a greater role than race, religion or ethnicity, but your claiming that there's no maternal bias in family courts (it's interesting that feminists don't march for equal treatment by sentencing judges btw.) The claim that family courts are not biased is absurd on its face and contrary to basically every piece of evidence in existence, but there seems to be no shortage of media outlets willing to post nonsense as long as it conforms to the politically correct narrative that women are always victims and never privileged.
    And again I can point to gender stereotypes to support that

    Women are child bearers and child rearers.

    Therefor courts are more likely to take into account the effect on a woman's children in sentencing her but will not do so when it is a male criminal. Despite the fact that fathers are hugely important to children, something which society does not recognise nearly enough in my view.

    It is also wort remembering that women who commit crimes are more likely to be single mothers. So if a single mother is given life in prison her children will most likely have to be taken into care. Which for many children will result in their doing poorly in school and having lots of other issues psychological and otherwise and result in many girls becoming teenage mothers and boys either going to prison themselves or spending their life unemployed.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocean_Rox)
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Historophilia will have to forgive me if I'm wrong, but from what I read of her post, she was saying that the family courts ARE biased towards women! They are biased as a result of the patriarchal society we have come from. Women have always been expected to be the ones to stay at home with the children and clearly they still are?
    That was my take on her post anyway...

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Sorry for not properly quoting you both!!!!! No idea what went wrong there! :-s
    Basically yes I am saying that they are.

    But I'm saying that the reason they are is not because women are viewed as wonderful virtuous people who are always right and always the victim as some seem to assume but because their role in life is viewed as being to raise children. It stems from societies habit of reducing women in value solely to what they produce from their wombs.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Movember)
    i got thinking the other day that there is no benefit to a man getting married as far as i am aware. the big downside is a woman can divorce and take half his stuff. how is this fair and why would any rational man get married on this basis?:confused:

    before you say that its for loving couples to show their committment, why do you need a piece of paper for that? i dont understand why you cant be a loving couple without getting married. i asked my dad about this (he is married to my mum and believes in marriage) and he said i shouldnt be so untrustworthy and cynical about women but with so many gold diggers out there, who knows if a woman could marry you and take half your stuff. its a massive gamble. what are your thoughts?
    You see this is why leg irons and forced labour were invented.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saachi)
    You talk about being untrustworthy and cynical of women as though they're like this breed of gold diggers and cougars, when you don't realize that you come across as selfish and wary about something that comes from love. If you're wary, then don't get married! Just don't say you can never understand why any rational man would want to get married, because you're insulting thousands of married men who are perfectly rational and capable of working out the 'disadvantages' of marriage for themselves.

    When a man gets married, he isn't thinking about what all the ways in which his wife could potentially cheat him. Loving and trusting your partner is part of the deal. Break ups and divorces are rarely a planned thing. It is not a 'massive gamble'. The problem with you is that you're looking at it purely as a legal arrangement, a calculated decision. While all that does exist, believe it or not, it isn't the most important part of marriage for most people.
    Then why do a lot of women do this?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truby_Liz)
    This is why I want to work full time whilst I'm married. I don't want to have to depend on a husband to provide for me when I'm not providing for him, and if it all goes wrong, I'd only be able to support myself for a little while if I didn't have a job. And if you think all women are like that, you probably don't know many women. (or maybe you just know the ones around your age group, people's opinions change as they grow older. I know just a few years ago I wanted to have 10 kids! I can't imagine myself with any more than 3 at most now)

    Sometimes guys marry for religious reasons. My dad is a Christian and had a two and a half year dry spell after my mum died and he got married to my stepmum because he believes sex outside of marriage is immoral. Other religious reasons include having your relationship recognised in the eyes of whichever deity you believe in.
    I think a lot of women would take half the money if the money was worth more than 5 million pounds. (*In my opinion)
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamalAhmed)
    I think a lot of women would take half the money if the money was worth more than 5 million pounds. (*In my opinion)
    I see what you did there.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CallmeNemo91)
    Okay this is going off on a slight tangent but I had to respond to this:
    1. There has actually been a sharp increase of women being sent to prison from an average of 1,811 in 1994 to 12,650 in 2002 with no correlation of women committing more offences or more serious offences. Over 70% of women in prison are only there for less than 12 months, half of which have dependant children, which begs the question 'what is the point of them even being there other than spiteful punishment?'. Also, women are now twice more likely to go to prison for theft, such as shoplifting baby clothes because they can't afford to pay for them. It is also worth mentioning that the majority of women in prison are mainly there because of the men in their lives (domestic or sexual abuse, prostitution, drugs, or helping them out in a serious crime)
    2. No, we can't ask for simple, plain equality, because the situation of a women being charged and a man being charged are too different to be treated equally, particularly when they are the prime caregiver for children. People seem to have the view of 'you want equality? Well, you'll get equality'.
    3. Applying this to family courts, what Historophilia is trying to say is that the maternal bias in family courts is the fault of society through gender stereotyping and therefore should be confronted first before a complete transformation of family law itself.
    CallmeNemo91, as the saying goes, there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I can't wait till i get married and have babies.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gooner92)
    CallmeNemo91, as the saying goes, there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics.
    And that is an answer how?

    Unless you're saying that these statistics are made up and how do you have any proof of that.

    Both CallmeNemo and I have shown you why this is the case but you have't responded to it with your arguments or conceded that we are right.

    You in fact brought up the whole issue of female sentencing as a substitute for acknowledging my points about family courts.

    I suggest that you either come up with some arguments as to why we are wrong or accept that we are right. Don't either ignore them or try to distract from them.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    the beauties of a pre-nup

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 31, 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.