[stefl14]

(Original post by Pride)
it's funny how you imply that the husband always earns more than the wife

This is usually true whether you like it or not.

[stefl14]

Divorce law is so pro-female it is incredible. There is no point in trusting partners as their attitudes towards you are likely to change over time if you grow apart. In the event of a divorce this means that they will try to get as much as they can irrespective of their original reason for marriage. One of my parents' friends wife cheated on him and he lost everything. He had to give child support (this isn't really the problem but his wife benefited from this), lost his house and half his money. I'm sorry but if a woman cheated on me and this happened I would want to murder her. If I do happen to get married someday, I'll do everything in my power prior to marriage to prevent my assets being taken away from me in the event of a divorce. If two partners both work and there are no children involved, assets should be split according to financial contribution. 50-50 is a joke. Even if there are children and the man has paid for the house, he should own the house and be made to let the wife live in it with the kids until they are old enough to leave.

[Astronomical]

Not while pre-nuptial agreements aren't legally binding in all circumstances.

[Evangelica]

(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?

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?

I think that there's such a thing as a prenup and it does actually work both ways for both genders, so if the woman in a marriage earns more than her husband she also risks losing a lot in a divorce.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

true dat. I'm not getting married, **** that.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
According to Alec Baldwin in The Departed:

"It shows you're committed and that your cock works".

[dsmtrst]

The big downside for a woman to marry is a man is he might divorce her and take half her money! money would get split 50:50 so women can lose out too.

[stefl14]

(Original post by dsmtrst)
The big downside for a woman to marry is a man is he might divorce her and take half her money! money would get split 50:50 so women can lose out too.

Yeah but the men usually earn more. In addition to the 50% that women get they also get the kids and the house and child support - some of which they use for themselves. Houses are the biggest asset for most, so I think men lose more!

[Gooner92]

(Original post by Historophilia)
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.

Father absence is devastating for children. Exhaustive peer-reviewed research confirms that the absence of a father is the single most reliable predictor for a whole roster of negative outcomes: low self-esteem, parental alienation, high school dropout (71% are fatherless), truancy, early sexual activity, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, gang membership, imprisonment (85% of jailed youth are fatherless), drug abuse, homelessness (90% of runaway children have an absent father), a 40 times higher risk of sexual abuse and 100 times higher risk of fatal abuse.

Today, 84% of custodial parents in America are mothers, a figure that hasn’t budged in three decades. Forty percent of the 236,000 children (in the 2009 census) whose fathers live outside the home have no contact with them. The other 60% had contact an average of 69 days in the last year.

These figures represent human tragedy on a massive scale for both disenfranchised fathers and their children.
Fathers suffer terribly when their children are wrenched from their lives. It’s no coincidence that men’s suicide rates skyrocket after divorce, while women’s rates stay flat.

Some men are immature jerks and mothers are right to sue for sole custody; some fathers have no instinct for fatherhood and mothers are forced to bring up children alone.

But the many good guys should not be obliged to pay for the sins of the losers.

Why haven’t the facts around fatherlessness made a dent in the family law system? In a word, ideology. Judges aren’t trained in sociology or psychology, but they take courses in “social context” — and the people who write their training manuals toe the feminist line that where children are concerned, mothers mainly have rights, while fathers mainly have responsibilities.

Divorce is initiated by women 70% of the time. From the day they make that decision, the system colludes with them in gaining control of the children. Women can falsely allege violence or sexual abuse of children without having to prove it (unscrupulous lawyers often advise their women clients to do this). When they do, the father is often removed from the home while trying to prove his innocence.
The court will assign financial support obligations to the father. If the father fails to pay his support, even if he can’t, the heavy hand of the law will punish him instantly. But if the mother arbitrarily denies rightful access to the father, the court is reluctant to penalize her. As one Judge told a family lawyer arguing for his client’s continually denied access rights, “It’s not my job to punish mothers.”

It is part of his job, actually, but this view is representative of most family court judges: Whether through a chivalric view of women as vulnerable creatures in need of their protection, or cowed by feminists into believing their mantra that men only want to “control” them, judges reflexively privilege mothers as the natural owners of children, and fathers as accessories to their lives

If mothers were better at parenting than fathers, surely we would be aware of indicators that motherlessness causes more problems than fatherlessness. But there is no such evidence. Nevertheless, female superiority in parenting remains an article of faith amongst intellectual elites, and through trickledown effect, to judges who simply channel their bias.

To see how superfluous men have become in our cultural view of families, one has but to look at america and at President Obama’s much-hyped interactive web-based campaign ad, “The Life of Julia.” The ad, which tracks the stages of one single woman’s life, is aimed at a rising demographic (there are 10 million more single women in America than there are single men). One quarter of the population, they trend leftward in their voting patterns.
Julia has a child. But there is no father in the ad. The ad implies that with the aid of government, women can enjoy secure lives as single mothers at no cost or personal sacrifice. Implicit too is the assumption that Julia’s child won’t suffer either.

[Gooner92]

(Original post by stefl14)
Yeah but the men usually earn more. In addition to the 50% that women get they also get the kids and the house and child support - some of which they use for themselves. Houses are the biggest asset for most, so I think men lose more!

Women just dont seem to understand this?

[Gooner92]

(Original post by Historophilia)
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.

In the U.K, the government has come to its senses finally, because the social costs of fatherlessness here can no longer be borne. Two months ago, our government announced that from this point forward, the preferred option in family court will be “the presumption that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through safe involvement with both parents.” In the absence of abuse, equal parenting will be the default custodial arrangement.

Now when will this pass into law ? who knows, and who said this I have no idea so most likely it could be irrelevant.

Edit:Im not saying youre entirely wrong neither am i going to say you are entirely right. You and her both think it has to do with gender stereotyping , and you both acknowledge this is wrong what further more do you want me to add to this?

[dsmtrst]

(Original post by stefl14)
Yeah but the men usually earn more. In addition to the 50% that women get they also get the kids and the house and child support - some of which they use for themselves. Houses are the biggest asset for most, so I think men lose more!

The woman would only get the house if an agreement is made. otherwise it would be sold and money shared.

child support isn't that much so i doubt there is much over to use for themselves.

Men often earn more because women take career breaks to raise children and so women lose out earlier on before the divorce.

And anyway why are we assuming marriage must end in divorce....

[Dragonfly07]

(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?

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?

The only reason I negged you was because of the stereotype you made of females. In our day and age it can go both ways.

Otherwise, I completely agree with you that marriage is completely useless, stupid, made for couples who lack self confidence to feel safe with the knowledge that their "other half" wouldn't be able to get away from them without having to go through a hassle first.

Edit: sorry I just read the rest of the thread. As for females being the ones who work less because of children - having children is the biggest ****ing loss a person can have. It's not just a loss of money, but it's a loss of precious time and the loss of a whole life. That's the main reason you don't see men taking custody of their children and preferring instead to be the ones paying child support (if they took the mother to court they could win custody of the child instead, but they usually give up early on) - they're not as attached to the children as the mother and they would much rather get away, and rightly so.

[dsmtrst]

(Original post by Gooner92)
Women just dont seem to understand this?

The women on here don't seem to understand because it is a student forum and a woman who goes to uni will earn pretty similar to her male counterpart.

[Gooner92]

(Original post by dsmtrst)
The women on here don't seem to understand because it is a student forum and a woman who goes to uni will earn pretty similar to her male counterpart.

Well not according to feminists glass ceiling and all. , but yeah i get your point but arent the majority of women in this country only educated up to state school level as well as Men. As the explosion in higher education only started about 12-15 years ago, and going before that they werent even allowed out of the kitchen . On a serious note women have overtaken men in the pass couple of years in regards to vast swathes of women entering HE, which my response is to say good on them.

[dsmtrst]

(Original post by Gooner92)
Well not according to feminists glass ceiling and all.

If we look at a man and woman doing the same job a pay gap only really comes in if the woman has children as this can mean a few years off and return to only work part-time so they spend less years in work and hence take longer to get promotions. if a woman has no kids she'll earn same as a man.


edit: quoted you before you edited but yeah...

[Gooner92]

(Original post by dsmtrst)
If we look at a man and woman doing the same job a pay gap only really comes in if the woman has children as this can mean a few years off and return to only work part-time so they spend less years in work and hence take longer to get promotions. if a woman has no kids she'll earn same as a man.


edit: quoted you before you edited but yeah...

I remember reading an article which states that 20 something old women managers were getting paid more than male equivalent managers which got me thinking. Do guys need to start an uprising equivalent to the feminist movement, or would it automatically get shot down for being sexist.

[placenta medicae talpae]

For the love-money debate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ove_and_Money/

[Juichiro]

(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?

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?

Free sex?

[3309will]

I'm guessing because they love their girlfriend? If one is thinking about getting screwed over in divorce settlements before you're even married, then maybe either one is not convinced about marriage as a concept, or your partner is not the one you want to spend your life with. I know how I feel about marriage, but I can understand why some people may be sceptial