Wow, how did you know?...
If there is anything I learnt from talking to Flat Eathers, there is not any evidence that could prove them wrong, in or out of this world. They haven't never thought of what evidence would prove them wrong.
If DeSantis wins
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
If there is anything I learnt from talking to Flat Eathers, there is not any evidence that could prove them wrong, in or out of this world. They haven't never thought of what evidence would prove them wrong.
Nobody can argue that getting rid of Lifetime Alimony wasn't an unambiguously good thing. We can only hope that Lifetime alimony will be destroyed across the country, with No Fault Divorce, Common Law Marriage, Alimony in general etc. to follow.
I honestly can't tell if you're taking the piss or not
Considering all these things do nothing but blatantly screw over men and cause inequality, no I'm not.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
This is a terribly shitty take.
Because in the vast majority of times, in a couple, the man works, keeps his work, keeps training, while the woman does household tasks and cater to the children, and when they separate she ends up nearly unemployable, with a huge CV gap, and outdated abilities. THAT is the inequality. But of course, conservative twats keep whining about the "inequality" of any device that tries to correct inequalities, because "oh noes, these correctives only apply to the disadvantaged side boohoohoo I want it too". And such demagoguery is all the pretext they demand.
While some couples do split the whole household duty thing that way, I gotta tell you that hasn't been the majority in reality for a long time simply because one wage is not sufficient to meet current financial demands unless you're earning mid six figures. And even then one of you better be good at budgeting.
Now days both adults in a two person household will work, this is especially true if children are involved. So alimony as it stands has arguably been a relic for the past, twenty or so years. But big ships are slow to turn so here we are.
I don't like their chances in getting rid of no fault divorce though.
Why do I get the feeling that most people who want to get rid of no-fault divorce are people like my brother, who are afraid to get married because they are afraid that women are just out to wait for them to get into money, then divorce them to take half their stuff without needing to work for it?
Yes and no. Even where both parents work, the man is still significantly more commonly doing a relatively higher skill, full time job where the woman is often working in a lower skilled and/or part-time post, meaning at the point of divorce, she is less capable of supporting herself than he is. If she also has custody after the divorce (as also tends to be the case), chances are the childcare limitations on her ability to work an equivalent job to her ex-husband will remain, too.
If two parties have agreed a division of household labour that has impaired the ability of one to earn, it seems reasonable to make up some of the difference upon separation.
I'll cop to this being anecdotal but among the people I work with, the delta between a couple's wages per annum averages out to about 10k, which just isn't as much as it sounds and its even odds who's getting it. And sure, my wife and I are but a sample of one, but we both work full time and we've split all the care-taking and childcare stuff pretty well down the middle and I cannot fathom how anyone else can do it without the earning imbalance being fucking insane. Like someone who can support a spouse and child with maybe the spouse having a part time job, never mind being stay at home, that's the kind of wedge in this environment that probably won't feel alimony loss anyway.
If he's worried about that, just explain that the alternative is a rise in very specific "herbal medicines" from back in the old days. The kind that make you sleep for a very long time
Considering a lot of women are doing exactly that, your brother has a right to be afraid. Most divorces are initiated by the woman, the divorce court system is incredibly and blatantly in favor of the woman even when she is very clearly at fault including alimony, child support, splitting of assets... Men almost always end up the worse one off in divorce no matter how obvious it is that the woman is the one in the wrong or even when neither party is at fault. Then there's the fact that it's hard to get courts to admit the woman is at fault for anything in the first place even with evidence.
Things like alimony are supposed to allow a woman to be able to survive after divorcing so they can get a job to support themselves or get remarried, but that's not necessary anymore. We're not living in a time where the woman has basically nothing if they divorce like we were a few decades ago. Women are just as capable of earning a living now as men are, if not more so. All these draconian laws do anymore is screw over men and encourage women to screw over the men.
Equality means everyone shares in the negatives as well as the positives. If one side is blatantly favored, that's the opposite of equality.
It's fine, the kinds of guys who believe this stuff are chronically unfuckable and face no risk (I mean beyond the fact that it is a virtually entireltly made up scenario that none of us are at risk of). Chalk in a hair dryer factory has gotten more women wet than these dudes.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
And domestic violence by men. COINCIDENCE.
And yes we already pointed out the bullshit in your "equality" arguments (women after a divorce rarely face the same situation as men, because they rarely had equivalent careers if any) but you don't give a shit because parroting incels is more gratifying.
Also if you're against no fault divorce you're just saying out loud that people should be forced to stay married. Like you're just out loud a **** at that stage and need to never pretend you give a quarter of an ounce of a fuck about "freedom". You think people should be trapped against their will.
Also no doubt a coincidence that statistics suggest husbands are over 50% more likely to cheat on their partner than wives.
Anecdotally, when I think of people I know who divorced, I hesitate to use the word "fault" in many cases as it's inappropriately judgemental, but in the majority of cases the marriage was made intolerable for the wife rather than vice versa. This is anywhere from the husband coming out as gay to the husband who left his wife do the childcare and household work and demanded he be allowed to have affairs with other women.
There is little evidence that courts these days are biased.
But this is bearing in mind that courts are generally assessing need, not blame: a pragmatic future, not a moral judgement on the past. For instance, if the children are contested they will generally go to the parent deemed most capable of their childcare. If the woman has been the majority carer in the marriage (as is more often the case than the man), this would be taken into account as evidence that she should continue in that role and all else being equal is therefore likely to win custody. Even if she were at fault, for instance was unfaithful, the divorce needs to consider what is good for the children ahead of vindicating the man's outrage at her cheating. I think this is the sort of context where many people think the courts are unfair in divorce.
Or, you know, it's actually a fact backed up by statistics. 66% of all divorces are initiated by women and it's been as high as 75%. 90% of the time women get custody of the child in a divorce. Women get 65% of time with their child to men's 35%. 83% of child support is awarded to women and men are awarded 10% less even when they are. A mere 3% of all alimony recipients are male in spite of the number of women breadwinners greatly increasing.
25% of domestic violence is committed against men. Half of male victims fail to tell anyone they are a victim of domestic abuse and are two and a half times less likely to tell anyone than female victims. So really that's very likely to be a much lower number compared to actual incidences. Plus in mutual cases the woman starts things more often than the man does. ( 28.3% vs. 21.6%) There's also next to no domestic abuse services for men including reporting, shelters, psychiatric help, etc.
Besides, even if it was true "because majority" isn't an excuse. Saying otherwise is just refusing to acknowledge the problem exists. Saying I'm parroting incels is just a ad hominem attack.
And that hasn't been the case for years which was also pointed out. 64% of all marriages have both in the marriage working. Women in general are also far more likely to have careers than they used to be, married or not. The wage gap is also a myth. Women make less money because they're not willing to get education in higher paying fields as men, to take on the same jobs as men, less likely to ask for raises as men, and work less than men do.
The point is, the justifications for the existence of these draconian practices are not valid anymore. How marriages, divorce, and how couples make a living has vastly changed just in the last 2 decades.
There have been some complaints that courts tend to favor women for custody rights based on being beholden to traditional ideas of gender roles. That might be true.
Aside from that i don't see any bias favoring women. Or men. I don't see much complaining about divorce laws here.
However my country is not the US and as far as i can tell divorce and alimony do work a bit differently here. Not that i ever had a reason to research that in detail.
It will definitely occur on occasion, just because.
There may be variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and judges (frequently old and male) have not always been famed for their progressivity. But court systems have generally put a lot of effort into trying to remove old-dated assumptions of marriage and childcare, and instances of genuine bias will usually be scarce.
To give one of my favourite examples, one of the leading activists for better custody rights for men in the UK about 20 years ago was a guy who worked his 9-5 and spent most his evenings playing computer games or out with his mates, barely interacting with his children. So when his wife finally got too fed up and filed for divorce, who did he think was going to get custody? Rather than have some deep introspection about his own shortcomings as a parent whilst married, take responsibility, and counsel men on the importance of building a relationship with their children, he launched a campaign to claim the courts were biased. The wanker.
Looking it up, it seems the intended default by law here is joint custody. Which must be challenged in family court for one parent to get sole custody. It must be proven that the other parent is not fit for parenthood. But there are some additional hurdles for couples with children that have never been actually married. Here the default is that the woman gets sole custody and the man has to apply for joint custody at court.
But i am not really interested enough to look up how this tends to end up in practice. Half of the complaints seem to be about the implementation of joint custody and how easy it is to to annoy the ex-partner by making it particularly difficult or how often agreements are not actually upheld and how difficult it is to enforce them.
But i am not really interested enough to look up how this tends to end up in practice. Half of the complaints seem to be about the implementation of joint custody and how easy it is to to annoy the ex-partner by making it particularly difficult or how often agreements are not actually upheld and how difficult it is to enforce them.