Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Equal pay only accounts for employment positions. Was there any such legislature that prevented women from starting businesses? (Not rhetorical. A genuine question.)



    The maternity leave situation is already in the works. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19925686

    And I always assumed the basis for women having more time off was more medical than societal. However, I couldn't say for sure.



    Tbh I give alot of high profile news stories a wide berth. They attract something from all parts of the spectrum.
    Well, equally there were no laws stating that women should be paid less. So I suppose my argument of formal vs societal was more a reference to what needed to be changed, rather than what the barriers were in the first place. For a woman to set up her own business, even as late at the 1950s, I would suggest would be seen as strange. Further, she would have had difficulty getting capital to do so - many people would have been hesitant to invest in a business started by a woman, she would be unlikely to have had her own means unless she was independently wealthy (and this would probably have required her to be unmarried).

    Regards the maternity situation, yes, I am extremely pleased about that. Regards the medical/societal, yes, there are medical reasons why a woman may need time off work after childbirth, but its unlikely to be six months to a year. More like a month or so - though if she is breast feeding she may want longer. However, the point is it should be up to the parents to decide how they want to do this. I will agree, however, that there are some women out there who label themselves 'feminist' whom I do not agree with. I was at a conference last week, where i sat through an entire discussion period after some talks on custody proceedings where women argued that the default position of the courts with regards to giving women custody was correct because women are 'more natural carers'. This was presented as a feminist view and my head almost exploded.

    Finally, with regards to Steubenville - while high profile, I think the reactions have been important. Even if you stay away from the twitter feeds and tumblr posts, the mainstream reporting was awful. CNN and ABC wringing their hands over the 'destroyed futures' of the 'poor young men' convicted of rape. It made me feel quite vomitous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    That's what my original post was about. It's nothing about punishing men - it's about ensuring that a fair deal is found after a divorce. When you agree to marry someone, you agree to stay with each other for the rest of your lives so your lifestyle adjusts accordingly. If your partner earns a lot of money, you might work less because you don't need to work anymore. When the marriage ends, your loss of earnings has to be taken into account which is often why women end up with more.
    At the end of the day, it's their partner's fault for giving up work. No one should get a free ride. It's somewhat revolting that their ex-husband should be required by law to bail them out of an exceptionally poor decision that they made. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Yes it does. Positions of power are usually highly paid, so it's just another reason why it seems to be women who get more out of divorce.
    Are you talking about in Government? Because those positions wouldn't account for very much of the population.

    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    You are SO difficult to debate with. I feel like I have to explain everything to you twice, and from the looks of it, I'm not the only one who feels this way. I didn't say that women being attracted to powerful men was justification for 'walking away with his wealth'. It was an explanation of why it tends to be women who seem to gain from divorce settlements. Btw my mum who is a matrimonial lawyer just told me that it is extremely rare that either partner is given 50% of the wealth unless they have been married a very long time.
    I am merely stating that just because something is, that's not to say it should be.

    And yes, your Mum's a matrimonial lawyer. Uh huh. An exceptionally weak anecdote and yet you posted it as though it was proof. :rolleyes:

    It's not so much about whether they get 50% or not, but rather that women benefit alot more in comparison.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I reckon a dude wrote this
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    At the end of the day, it's their partner's fault for giving up work. No one should get a free ride. It's somewhat revolting that their ex-husband should be required by law to bail them out of an exceptionally poor decision that they made. :rolleyes:
    One partner giving up work is often a joint decision by the couple, funnily enough.




    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    One partner giving up work is often a joint decision by the couple, funnily enough.




    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Would be difficult to prove this. And anyway, nothing can ever be a "joint decision" as long as someone is control of their own body and mind. You can't control people at will.

    Also, I've always been of the opinion that the one who would benefit most was probably the one who first had the idea and did the most pushing for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    On that basis, you have no proof for your position either we appear to be at deadlock.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    On that basis, you have no proof for your position either we appear to be at deadlock.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    The burden of proof was on you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    The burden of proof was on you.
    Why, exactly? You've done exactly the same thing, posting your thoughts, without 'evidence'. I can only speak from my relationships, that of my parents, and others I know that, generally, couples agree. Yes, often one person may drive the decision, but that is usually the way in all decision making. The decision is still usually reached together.

    And it may be anecdotal, but in the example of my parents, in order for my father to persue his career, my mother did give up work. It was, however, my father driving that particular decision, and my mum going along with it to support him, and because the job meant a vastly improved lifestyle for her family, and a great childhood environment for her kids. It also meant tat when they divorced, my dad turned around and effectively said 'its my money, I earn it', ad if she had done, nor sacrificed, nothing in the proceeding 25 years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    At the end of the day, it's their partner's fault for giving up work. No one should get a free ride. It's somewhat revolting that their ex-husband should be required by law to bail them out of an exceptionally poor decision that they made. :rolleyes:
    When you get married, you become a partnership. You expect that partnership to last. Usually both partners agree that one of them gives up work, usually when they have children. Divorce settlements compensate for a loss of earning that are the direct result of the marriage. It is also about maintaining a lifestyle they are used to - it is needlessly cruel to deprive someone of the lifestyle they are used to when they get divorced.

    Are you talking about in Government? Because those positions wouldn't account for very much of the population.
    No, I'm talking about all positions of power. That might be in government, but it could also be the top positions in business, most of which are held by men. What we're discussing doesn't apply to most of the population either. A lot of people don't go through the courts at all and sort out distribution of resources themselves. Most people do not have such a vastly different income that a man would be 'giving up' most of his wealth. The people who we are talking about are the people in positions of power.

    I am merely stating that just because something is, that's not to say it should be.

    And yes, your Mum's a matrimonial lawyer. Uh huh. An exceptionally weak anecdote and yet you posted it as though it was proof. :rolleyes:

    It's not so much about whether they get 50% or not, but rather that women benefit alot more in comparison.
    The only way we will get equal divorce settlements is if women earn the same amount as men. When that is fixed, they too will have to give up some of their wealth to their ex-husbands.

    I asked a law professional for her opinion. You just made up what you think happens.

    I have explained why women get more and it's not about discrimination against men. It's because women are poorer. What do you actually want to happen? Do you think that after divorce each couple should only keep what assets are theirs alone? Not only is it very difficult to determine who own what, it completely ignores the sacrifices people make for each other during marriage.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    When you get married, you become a partnership. You expect that partnership to last. Usually both partners agree that one of them gives up work, usually when they have children. Divorce settlements compensate for a loss of earning that are the direct result of the marriage. It is also about maintaining a lifestyle they are used to - it is needlessly cruel to deprive someone of the lifestyle they are used to when they get divorced.



    No, I'm talking about all positions of power. That might be in government, but it could also be the top positions in business, most of which are held by men. What we're discussing doesn't apply to most of the population either. A lot of people don't go through the courts at all and sort out distribution of resources themselves. Most people do not have such a vastly different income that a man would be 'giving up' most of his wealth. The people who we are talking about are the people in positions of power.



    The only way we will get equal divorce settlements is if women earn the same amount as men. When that is fixed, they too will have to give up some of their wealth to their ex-husbands.

    I asked a law professional for her opinion. You just made up what you think happens.

    I have explained why women get more and it's not about discrimination against men. It's because women are poorer. What do you actually want to happen? Do you think that after divorce each couple should only keep what assets are theirs alone? Not only is it very difficult to determine who own what, it completely ignores the sacrifices people make for each other during marriage.
    I think there was a case not so long go where the 50/50 split happened in reverse, but I can't remember what it was. Though, my stepmom had to give her ex a substantial amount as she was the higher earner. Though they (like most coup,es) settled out of court.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    :facepalm: what a load of ****ing ****. Also you spelt stereotype wrong
    Go and look at the definition of feminism, then tell me how it can be anything else.

    Nice catch on the spelling - I spilt brownie mix on my keyboard when I was cooking and now my "e" key is ****ed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    Why, exactly? You've done exactly the same thing, posting your thoughts, without 'evidence'. I can only speak from my relationships, that of my parents, and others I know that, generally, couples agree. Yes, often one person may drive the decision, but that is usually the way in all decision making. The decision is still usually reached together.

    And it may be anecdotal, but in the example of my parents, in order for my father to persue his career, my mother did give up work. It was, however, my father driving that particular decision, and my mum going along with it to support him, and because the job meant a vastly improved lifestyle for her family, and a great childhood environment for her kids. It also meant tat when they divorced, my dad turned around and effectively said 'its my money, I earn it', ad if she had done, nor sacrificed, nothing in the proceeding 25 years.
    See this.

    You made a claim and agreed it couldn't be proven, and then stated we are somehow "deadlocked" because I equally cannot disprove it. It would be more accurate to say that your argument was simply poor and has no bearing on the debate at all.

    I would have to agree with your Dad on this one, tbh. Something rightfully belongs to someone, unconditionally, if they built/earned/created it. No matter how much morale bile is used as rationale, laying claim to someone else's wealth is pretty much looting.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    See this.

    You made a claim and agreed it couldn't be proven, and then stated we are somehow "deadlocked" because I equally cannot disprove it. It would be more accurate to say that your argument was simply poor and has no bearing on the debate at all.

    I would have to agree with your Dad on this one, tbh. Something rightfully belongs to someone, unconditionally, if they built/earned/created it. No matter how much morale bile is used as rationale, laying claim to someone else's wealth is pretty much looting.
    Ok, bored now, you aren't capable of sensible debate. Have fun with anyone else who can still be bothered to continue the conversation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    When you get married, you become a partnership. You expect that partnership to last. Usually both partners agree that one of them gives up work, usually when they have children. Divorce settlements compensate for a loss of earning that are the direct result of the marriage. It is also about maintaining a lifestyle they are used to - it is needlessly cruel to deprive someone of the lifestyle they are used to when they get divorced.



    No, I'm talking about all positions of power. That might be in government, but it could also be the top positions in business, most of which are held by men. What we're discussing doesn't apply to most of the population either. A lot of people don't go through the courts at all and sort out distribution of resources themselves. Most people do not have such a vastly different income that a man would be 'giving up' most of his wealth. The people who we are talking about are the people in positions of power.



    The only way we will get equal divorce settlements is if women earn the same amount as men. When that is fixed, they too will have to give up some of their wealth to their ex-husbands.

    I asked a law professional for her opinion. You just made up what you think happens.

    I have explained why women get more and it's not about discrimination against men. It's because women are poorer. What do you actually want to happen? Do you think that after divorce each couple should only keep what assets are theirs alone? Not only is it very difficult to determine who own what, it completely ignores the sacrifices people make for each other during marriage.

    (Original post by flying plum)
    I think there was a case not so long go where the 50/50 split happened in reverse, but I can't remember what it was. Though, my stepmom had to give her ex a substantial amount as she was the higher earner. Though they (like most coup,es) settled out of court.
    You might have a point with the divorce laws issue. It seems that it's not as simple as to say the system favours one gender or the other.

    Although, the issue itself is incredibly messy, and according to the article I've found, assets are divided into two categories: marital property and separate property. The article I've found on this is written about divorce law in the USA. In fact, alot of the higher quality articles I'm finding on the issues surrounding our debate are based on the conditions in the USA. Saying that, the King-of-the-Hill Americans are probably a good barometer for anyone, and are Western Society all the same.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffland...ed-in-divorce/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flying plum)
    Ok, bored now, you aren't capable of sensible debate. Have fun with anyone else who can still be bothered to continue the conversation.
    You know, debates can be an effective learning tool. Quality arguments from all sides of a debate can help you assimilate information you wouldn't have otherwise. Don't do yourself a great disservice and miss out on such an opportunity, especially for the sake of trying to one-up people by using logical fallacies, and complaining when your exposed for acting as such.

    Your posts in this thread have by far been the best. Don't become one of the other feminist ankle-biters who started foaming at the mouth at the first sign of resistance. :cool:
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    However, since men could vote, that pretty much means they had a lot more power than women. The PATriarchy certainly cared more for the opinions of men than women.

    No, women were just forced out of education, into marriages, into having children, out of jobs, into sex (wasn't rape if you were married until 1994 in the UK), out of the vote, out of technology...

    It wasn't beneficial to women. It kept them controlled.

    But yes. All her points were utter BS and she merely came across as an utter ranting idiot.
    I apologise,I was scrolling through and accidently neg repped you
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Ebuwa)
    I apologise,I was scrolling through and accidently neg repped you
    It's alright, thanks for letting me know though.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism does not represent the interests of all women. Incredibly white,liberal favoured. It will only work when racial diversity and tolerance for beliefs is encouraged.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ebuwa)
    Feminism does not represent the interests of all women. Incredibly white,liberal favoured. It will only work when racial diversity and tolerance for beliefs is encouraged.
    I reckon as long as people are too lazy to think, stereotypes and generalisations will always form and gather popularity. I don't think you can stop it by just assuring people "you're wrong to think like that!". Most likely you would annoy them and they will resist, and it could potentially worsen the issue.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    I'm afraid you can't speak for "many men" and say they wouldn't find powerful women attractive.
    I can't find the exact link but there is real evidence that successful/powerful women are looked upon negatively by both males and females. This is not the exact study I had in mind but it draws similar conclusions:
    http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/women.aspx



    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Exceptionally weak grounds for establishing an identity.
    Let's put it this way, if that article was a historical document its authorship would be seriously questioned.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.