Women more likely to ask for divorce

ThinkProgress

I think women get bored more easily in a relationship... I really think it's often that simple.

Part of the problem with this imo, is that men tend to have more going on in their social lives outside (or alongside) their relationships. Where as women often tie up far more of their happiness and fun within their relationships...

Women need more from a relationship than most men. I know it's a cliche to say that men often just want sex (and it's also somewhat over simplistic too), but it's also somewhat true!

If you hang a higher % of your life happiness and fulfillment on your marriage, then obviously it's not hard to understand why you'd be quicker to divorce when that marriage becomes slightly less fulfilling.

Many male hobbies can be the indirect cause of break-ups in my experience. Because women start to resent the man having fun that isn't directly related to their happiness. (instead of cultivating their own hobbies/interests that might give them the same enjoyment/fulfillment)

Colser

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Relax chicken, listen personally I'm not a big fan of marriage, I enjoy a quiet life and I don't really like the idea of spending the rest of my life with the same person, but again that's purely my opinion, not saying I'm right.

But say if 2 people are getting a divorce would the following not be much fairer?

a) whatever each partner took into the marriage (ie land, a business, property etc etc) they retain in full after the divorce.

b) whatever the 2 of them bought or invested in together as a couple gets evenly split, with the amount invested by each party taken into consideration.

c) equal custody of the children, this is a no brainer wherever it's remotely possible, no normal parent should be denied the right to equal custody.

Do you think that would be a fair way of conducting a divorce for both men and women?

What about women who give up work to stay at home and rear the children ect. should they walk away with nothing after a relationship breakdown? Do a lot of men really want equal custody as in 50/50?

zeffabelli

It's easier, not that it's ever easy mind you, to initiate divorce, when you don't have to be scared of the real possibility you will never ever live with your children again.

Huntergonzo

Colser wrote: »

What about women who give up work to stay at home and rear the children ect. should they walk away with nothing after a relationship breakdown? Do a lot of men really want equal custody as in 50/50?

Well generally speaking women choose to have children and hence often choose to give up work (not every woman does) and rear their children, it's not inflicted upon them and they get support from the state as well.

They certainly shouldn't walk away from a relationship with nothing, they should walk away with whatever they brought in plus whatever half of what they invested in as a couple.

No some men probably don't want equal custody and therefore it shouldn't be the default position, but if a man requests equal custody and there's no reason not to give it to him then he should get it.

Is what I've said not fair and equal?

ahnowbrowncow

B0jangles wrote: »

So many hateful generalizations about women in this thread

If we're so terrible the answer is blindingly obvious; don't get married and don't have any relationships with women - your precious belongings are safe from the harridans and no women will have to put up with your paranoid hateful self!

I would have said there's many generalszations about both genders in this thread.

I want generalisation equality.

Colser

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well generally speaking women choose to have children and hence often choose to give up work (not every woman does) and rear their children, it's not inflicted upon them and they get support from the state as well.

They certainly shouldn't walk away from a relationship with nothing, they should walk away with whatever they brought in plus whatever half of what they invested in as a couple.

No some men probably don't want equal custody and therefore it shouldn't be the default position, but if a man requests equal custody and there's no reason not to give it to him then he should get it.

Is what I've said not fair and equal?

Can you expand on the above?

Huntergonzo

Colser wrote: »

Can you expand on the above?

You don't get to ask all the questions, answer mine first please, this is a give and take.

ThinkProgress

Colser wrote: »

Can you expand on the above?

I don't really see what he needs to expand on. His post was quite clear and easy to understand.

Colser

Huntergonzo wrote: »

You don't get to ask all the questions, answer mine first please, this is a give and take.

No prob:)
..Im actually for all things being equal but it may not be straightforward.For example I cut down my working hours when I had a child,it that just my loss? I could have worked on full time and we would have paid childmindingso would that not have to be reflected in a split? Also a lot of couples decide to have a child together and accidents arent just down to woman so Im still asking you to reply to my previous post.Is that fair enough?:P

Huntergonzo

Colser wrote: »

No prob:)
..Im actually for all things being equal but it may not be straightforward.For example I cut down my working hours when I had a child,it that just my loss? I could have worked on full time and we would have paid childmindingso would that not have to be reflected in a split? Also a lot of couples decide to have a child together and accidents arent just down to woman so Im still asking you to reply to my previous post.Is that fair enough?:P

Haha hang on now, I never said 'accidents' were just down to women, not sure where that came from.

Now if you cut down your hours then fairplay, you wanted to spend more time with your child and that's your call. I don't know your financial situation or entitlements but cutting down your hours could effect the household income, but I'm sure your child must gain from having a parent around more often.

Should this be reflected in a split, not entirely sure what you mean there but I'll answer simply like this. I think if a child has 2 normal loving parents who both want custody then the only fair way is an even split, neither the mother nor the father should get preference, I don't know if you agree with that, but it's my view of it.

Colser

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I don't really see what he needs to expand on. His post was quite clear and easy to understand.

Well if the choice to have children is made by (or mainly made by)the woman why are so many men complaining about custody or saying that the would split up if custody wasnt an issue?

daisybelle2008

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Relax chicken

b) whatever the 2 of them bought or invested in together as a couple gets evenly split, with the amount invested by each party taken into consideration.

Do you think that would be a fair way of conducting a divorce for both men and women?

:rolleyes:

Regarding point B. I don't think it should necessarily be based on what each party invested if it happened during the marriage it was done communally not as a single person. it should be divided equally.

Colser

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha hang on now, I never said 'accidents' were just down to women, not sure where that came from.

Now if you cut down your hours then fairplay, you wanted to spend more time with your child and that's your call. I don't know your financial situation or entitlements but cutting down your hours could effect the household income, but I'm sure your child must gain from having a parent around more often.

Should this be reflected in a split, not entirely sure what you mean there but I'll answer simply like this. I think if a child has 2 normal loving parents who both want custody then the only fair way is an even split, neither the mother nor the father should get preference, I don't know if you agree with that, but it's my view of it.

Im still not sure what you meant by women generally choose the have children..do you mean within a relationship/marriage?

NachoBusiness

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lol @ even considering marriage as a man these days until the laws are changed, especially regarding children.

Well, a recent study in states has shown that apparently the numbers of men considering marriage as part of their future is down compared to women, so that effect is beginning to be seen for sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCpBa4ITEcI

Huntergonzo

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Regarding point B. I don't think it should necessarily be based on what each party invested if it happened during the marriage it was done communally not as a single person. it should be divided equally.

Well fair enough, I just mean in cases where say maybe one partner invests feck all, the court could take that into consideration.

Ps, before anybody gets offended, one of the biggest, no good users I know is actually a man and if he were to split from his missus (they have no children) presumably he would be entitled to half her stuff, surely that's not fair on her!

Huntergonzo

Colser wrote: »

Im still not sure what you meant by women generally choose the have children..do you mean within a relationship/marriage?

Well I mean when women actually choose to have a child with their partners (a mutual decision), ie not abused or raped or any of those horrific cases. Sorry for any confusing there, I didn't mean women generally choose, as in it's not the man's choice.

ThinkProgress

Colser wrote: »

Well if the choice to have children is made by (or mainly made by)the woman why are so many men complaining about custody or saying that the would split up if custody wasnt an issue?

I think you've misunderstood his point. He wasn't saying the decision to have children was the woman's decision solely... he was just pointing out that the decision was not forced on them against their will - they had a choice!

Many men also want children, and want a relationship with their children. Just because women often choose to be the primary care-giver (ie housewife), doesn't mean men should get shafted with regards to custody rights after a divorce! Or get financially penalized for their wife's decision/desire to stay home.

I think you just need to read his comments a bit more carefully before replying.

daisybelle2008

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well fair enough, I just mean in cases where say maybe one partner invests feck all, the court could take that into consideration.

Ps, before anybody gets offended, one of the biggest, no good users I know is actually a man and if he were to split from his missus (they have no children) presumably he would be entitled to half her stuff, surely that's not fair on her!

It is fair, the gender is irrelevant. The marriage is a contract to commune property. Thats the choice you make when you decide to stop being single and decide to share with another. You cant turn around after years and decide to draw a line in the sand and pretend you were single the whole time with regard finances. The marriage deal is to share your assets. There are consequences to poor choices and if one has more than the other well that's the consequence. It's not a 'financial penalty', you agreed when you married that you were a financial unit. Surely people understand that when they marry?

Huntergonzo

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

It is fair, the gender is irrelevant. The marriage is a contract to commune property. Thats the choice you make when you decide to stop being single and decide to share with another. You cant turn around after years and decide to draw a line in the sand and pretend you were single the whole time with regard finances. The marriage deal is to share your assets. There are consequences to poor choices and if one has more than the other well that's the consequence. It's not a 'financial penalty', you agreed when you married that you were a financial unit. Surely people understand that when they marry?

Feck it then don't get married I think is the safest bet.

Wibbs

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Well, a recent study in states has shown that apparently the numbers of men considering marriage as part of their future is down compared to women, so that effect is beginning to be seen for sure.

Again NB that's America, where a very different cultural, social and legal landscape exists.

daisybelle2008

ThinkProgress wrote: »

.. get financially penalized for their wife's decision/desire to stay home.

If a couple weigh up their finances and decide that one of them will stay at home, that is a decision they made as a married unit to balance their lives a certain way (I.e tax credits, child rearing expense etc.). The person earning doesn't get to keep all the money if things go wrong!

hatrickpatrick

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Another woman bashing thread then. When we aren't tricking men into raising another guys child, we're marrying and divorcing just to get some property and money. Sure what other reason would there be for leaving a marriage?

It's not about women bashing. Women didn't write the laws which give them such an unfair hand of cards compared to men in these scenarios. The natural consequence of those laws (written by men) is that men are more trapped in horrible marriages because they are punished more by the system for wanting to leave them.

So it's a system bashing thread. Not a woman bashing thread. And I for one find the immediate knee-jerk "this is woman bashing" any time systems which disadvantage men are discussed fairly comical.

ThinkProgress

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

It is fair, the gender is irrelevant. The marriage is a contract to commune property. Thats the choice you make when you decide to stop being single and decide to share with another. You cant turn around after years and decide to draw a line in the sand and pretend you were single the whole time with regard finances. The marriage deal is to share your assets. There are consequences to poor choices and if one has more than the other well that's the consequence. It's not a 'financial penalty', you agreed when you married that you were a financial unit. Surely people understand that when they marry?

Marriage certainly should be about sharing assets when you're married...

But it's not necessarily fair that many partners exit that marriage with FAR more assets than they brought in or contributed. (and often continue to benefit from the other's financial gains long after that marriage has ended)

Considering marriage is now more of a legal and political entity than it is religious or emotional... I think it's wise that most people avoid it unless 100% certain that they have their a$$ covered if (likely when) they need to exit.

hatrickpatrick

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

If a couple weigh up their finances and decide that one of them will stay at home, that is a decision they made as a married unit to balance their lives a certain way (I.e tax credits, child rearing expense etc.). The person earning doesn't get to keep all the money if things go wrong!

If the person not earning chooses to sh!te all over the contract by cheating on their partner, then in my view they should be considered to have voided their rights to have the other party fulfill their own contractual obligations. As in, if you're the less earning partner and you run away with someone else, you don't get to drag your cheated-on partner to court and demand that they keep supporting you.

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the person not earning chooses to sh!te all over the contract by cheating on their partner, then in my view they should be considered to have voided their rights to have the other party fulfill their own contractual obligations. As in, if you're the less earning partner and you run away with someone else, you don't get to drag your cheated-on partner to court and demand that they keep supporting you.

See, cheating is not always black and white. I don't agree it's a carte Blanche on a revenge full throttle .

95% of the time the cheated had something to do with it. Like most victimisations. No one wants to hear that though.

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

See, cheating is not always black and white. I don't agree it's a carte Blanche on a revenge full throttle .

95% of the time the cheated had something to do with it. Like most victimisations. No one wants to hear that though.

I just don't agree. If you're not happy in a relationship, have the decency to walk away first before getting with someone else. Wanting to screw another person and remain in your existing relationship is literally the exact definition of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

Brian?

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I don't really see what he needs to expand on. His post was quite clear and easy to understand.

It was also complete nonsense.

daisybelle2008

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Feck it then don't get married I think is the safest bet.

Well if money is your priority then no or only marry someone richer than you..:P

Marriage is a clubbing together as a unit, it's sharing a life and assets. In most cases there will be one person bringing more € to the table, but people are perfectly happy to share when signing marriage deeds. When they no longer love the person and it goes tits up they soon forget that piece.

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I just don't agree. If you're not happy in a relationship, have the decency to walk away first before getting with someone else. Wanting to screw another person and remain in your existing relationship is literally the exact definition of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

I don't agree. If you don't have sex with someone for a year, wtf do you expect to happen?

If you build up such barriers as to leave the other in a loneliness no one can beat then you need to take some account of your own contributions to your victimisation before you go on a court revenge spree.

ThinkProgress

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

If a couple weigh up their finances and decide that one of them will stay at home, that is a decision they made as a married unit to balance their lives a certain way (I.e tax credits, child rearing expense etc.). The person earning doesn't get to keep all the money if things go wrong!

But often this is not the scenario... Most times it's the woman that actively decides to stay at home. It's her desire to do so.

She has a choice. She also has a choice to use child-minders and continue to work.

After a divorce, custody and child-care should be split 50/50 (if desired)... and if one partner decides they don't want child-caring responsibilities, only then should they be penalized financially.

Nobody is talking about "keeping all the money"... You leave with what you brought in. And any assets with shared ownership should be split 50/50.

Even if one parent was the primary care-giver before divorce, the option should still be presented for 50/50 responsibilities after the divorce. Because post divorce is now a completely new situation - it warrants a completely new status to be established.

B0jangles

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Relax chicken, listen personally I'm not a big fan of marriage, I enjoy a quiet life and I don't really like the idea of spending the rest of my life with the same person, but again that's purely my opinion, not saying I'm right.

But say if 2 people are getting a divorce would the following not be much fairer?

a) whatever each partner took into the marriage (ie land, a business, property etc etc) they retain in full after the divorce.

b) whatever the 2 of them bought or invested in together as a couple gets evenly split, with the amount invested by each party taken into consideration.

c) equal custody of the children, this is a no brainer wherever it's remotely possible, no normal parent should be denied the right to equal custody.

Do you think that would be a fair way of conducting a divorce for both men and women?

Thanks Duckie I'm perfectly relaxed.

Now to your points:

A.) Assets owned by each party prior to marriage should remain their property after divorce.

B.) Totally unfair to any parent that gives up their career to raise their family - they will not have anything like the same ability to directly contribute financially. BUT by staying at home they are saving the family the cost of childcare - it is estimated that you have to be earning over 30,000 euro in this country to make working fulltime and paying for childcare financially viable. Your suggestion essentially rates what they did as having no financial value, which is nuts.

C.) Sounds great in theory, as long as the parents live reasonably close to each other - what happens when one person moves? In my opinion custody debates should always have the best interests of the children front and centre; stability is hugely important.

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

I don't agree. If you don't have sex with someone for a year, wtf do you expect to happen?

If you build up such barriers as to leave the other in a loneliness no one can beat then you need to take some account of your own contributions to your victimisation before you go on a court revenge spree.

If your partner is treating you like crap, as you outline, then break up with them first before getting with someone else.

I've always regarded that as common decency. It's still going to hurt, but at least it'll be pain without the betrayal aspect, which has a particularly vile aftertaste.

Are you suggesting that people in relationships like you've described here should stay in them?

ThinkProgress

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Well if money is your priority then no or only marry someone richer than you..:P

Marriage is a clubbing together as a unit, it's sharing a life and assets. In most cases there will be one person bringing more € to the table, but people are perfectly happy to share when signing marriage deeds. When they no longer love the person and it goes tits up they soon forget that piece.

Just because you agree to share during a marriage... doesn't mean you should have to share and financially support that person AFTER the marriage too!

The agreement to share assets should only apply DURING the marriage.

Otherwise what's the point of divorce? You get punished for the rest of your life because you fell out of love with someone??

That seems really fair!

Where is the punishment for the woman? She might be the one who made the mistake by marrying an unsuitable person, but she comes out of it with a big juicy reward??

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If your partner is treating you like crap, as you outline, then break up with them first before getting with someone else.

I've always regarded that as common decency. It's still going to hurt, but at least it'll be pain without the betrayal aspect, which has a particularly vile aftertaste.

Are you suggesting that people in relationships like you've described here should stay in them?

What I am saying is the cheated is not necessarily entitled to feel all high and mighty in their gooey victim feelings and sob in a courtroom because chances are they had a part in it, but no one ever wants to look at that.

anothernight

ThinkProgress wrote: »

She has a choice. She also has a choice to use child-minders and continue to work.

On this point, some people (usually women) become stay-at-home parents because for them it's more cost-effective than paying for childcare just so that they can work. My sister, for example, had to change jobs to avoid having this issue when her hours got reduced. http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/working-parents-need-to-be-earning-30000-just-to-cover-childcare-costs-30879215.html

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

What I am saying is the cheated is not necessarily entitled to feel all high and mighty in their gooey victim feelings and sob in a courtroom because chances are they had a part in it, but no one ever wants to look at that.

But where am I suggesting anything whatsoever to do with courtrooms?

I'm suggesting that if you cheat on your partner, you should automatically void the contract, because you've breached one of the terms of it. No sobbing in a courtroom would be required - it would be a case of, prove infidelity, and the contract is automatically torn up.

I believe that anyone who wants to sleep with another person should dump their existing partner first. Otherwise, it's a have your cake and eat it scenario. Do you disagree with this? You have every opportunity to end an unhappy relationship before sleeping with another person. If you don't take it, you're effectively saying "I want to sleep with someone else, but I don't want to lose what I have here in my relationship". Well sorry, but... You don't get to have it both ways.

Huntergonzo

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Well if money is your priority then no or only marry someone richer than you..:P

Nah money isn't my priority but do know something I'd make a great little husband, I'm notoriously tidy, I love cooking, I'm good with kids, I'm tall, ruggedly handsome and I'm a generous lover, maybe I should find myself a sugar mama :-)

anothernight

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Where is the punishment for the woman? She might be the one who made the mistake by marrying an unsuitable person, but she comes out of it with a big juicy reward??

Afaik maintenance payments are done by the person with the higher salary. That this is often the man is a different issue altogether.

My father never gave my mum a cent in maintenance, after he repeatedly cheated and tried his best to block the divorce. If you think the woman wasn't punished in that case, you're very wrong.

ThinkProgress

anothernight wrote: »

On this point, some people (usually women) become stay-at-home parents because for them it's more cost-effective than paying for childcare just so that they can work. My sister, for example, had to change jobs to avoid having this issue when her hours got reduced. http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/working-parents-need-to-be-earning-30000-just-to-cover-childcare-costs-30879215.html

If it's a practical decision purely based on the fact the woman's job doesn't pay enough... that's not really the man's fault.

Should he be punished because the woman's career is not financially rewarding enough.

Most of the time it's not purely a pragmatic decision... it's usually something the woman actively choose to do.

In the case of financial decisions, both parties should be equally culpable for poor financial planning with regards to raising their children - not just the man.

zeffabelli

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But where am I suggesting anything whatsoever to do with courtrooms?

I'm suggesting that if you cheat on your partner, you should automatically void the contract, because you've breached one of the terms of it. No sobbing in a courtroom would be required - it would be a case of, prove infidelity, and the contract is automatically torn up.

I believe that anyone who wants to sleep with another person should dump their existing partner first. Otherwise, it's a have your cake and eat it scenario. Do you disagree with this? You have every opportunity to end an unhappy relationship before sleeping with another person. If you don't take it, you're effectively saying "I want to sleep with someone else, but I don't want to lose what I have here in my relationship". Well sorry, but... You don't get to have it both ways.

If you don't have kids, who cares, do what you want.

But with kids involved, extended families etc, your marriage is not just about you, it's about a lot of other people too.... It's the space between public and private.

So no I don't agree, I would not by default think an infidelity is a reason to break up a family and all that entails. The consequences are long lasting for a lot of people, are transgenerational....so for me...it would be very contextual.

hatrickpatrick

zeffabelli wrote: »

If you don't have kids, who cares, do what you want.

But with kids involved, extended families etc, your marriage is not just about you, it's about a lot of other people too.... It's the space between public and private.

So no I don't agree, I would not by default think an infidelity is a reason to break up a family and all that entails. The consequences are long lasting for a lot of people, are transgenerational....so for me...it would be very contextual.

Fair enough, that's your view. And I don't oppose child maintenance from the person who doesn't get custody, by the way. But personally if a woman cheats on me, I'm gone. And I don't intend to spend the rest of my life funding her "to the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed" or whatever the phrase is. She chose to betray me, I reserve my right to cut her out of my life. And I'd expect the same response from a woman if I was low enough to cheat on her.

Also, your post is a little non-sensical because "if you don't have kids, do what you want" isn't how the courts see things.

anothernight

ThinkProgress wrote: »

If it's a practical decision purely based on the fact the woman's job doesn't pay enough... that's not really the man's fault.

Should he be punished because the woman's career is not financially rewarding enough.

Most of the time it's not purely a pragmatic decision... it's usually something the woman actively choose to do.

In the case of financial decisions, both parties should be equally culpable for poor financial planning with regards to raising their children - not just the man.

I never said it was anyone's fault. I was just stating a fact. Take it or leave it.

Among the people I know, very few actually chose to stay at home to look after the children. It's probably different between different sections of society though.

However, I do need to point out that planning to have one spouse (and it's not always the woman) in the home to look after the children doesn't necessarily constitute poor financial planning. It's just planning.


I'm not too sure why you thought I was trying to blame men but I find it a little bizarre tbh.

ThinkProgress

anothernight wrote: »

Afaik maintenance payments are done by the person with the higher salary. That this is often the man is a different issue altogether.

My father never gave my mum a cent in maintenance, after he repeatedly cheated and tried his best to block the divorce. If you think the woman wasn't punished in that case, you're very wrong.

It's not really a different issue. It's a big part of the issue... women have no barriers to earning potential.

So men should not be punished just because they earn more money.

99% of the time it's the woman that comes out of divorce with the better deal. The man is unfairly punished for the failed relationship, while the woman often gets rewarded for her part in that failed union.

It's almost one of the smartest financial investments any woman could make... forget stocks and bonds.... just get married.

daisybelle2008

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Where is the punishment for the woman? She might be the one who made the mistake by marrying an unsuitable person, but she comes out of it with a big juicy reward??

'punishments' 'juicy rewards'??

There seems to be a lot of people going through courts to get any kind of maintenance for their kids, I know a few who struggle especially when the ex is in a new relationship and the new partner resents the outgoings. I am not sure how accurate this view of women sitting on fat juicy alimony cash piles while the poor husband rots in a bedsit and if the numbers stack up. But then I don't know many very very wealthy people. I think there is definitely some cases but not as many as you'd be led to believe. My friend works in family law and speaking to her there is more struggle to get the most basic family responsibility paid and other posters have said that was their case growing up. Contributing to kids maintenance and selling the family home when kids are left seems to be common and fair.

anothernight

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It's not really a different issue. It's a big part of the issue... women have no barriers to earning potential.

So men should not be punished just because they earn more money.

99% of the time it's the woman that comes out of divorce with the better deal. The man is unfairly punished for the failed relationship, while the woman often gets rewarded for her part in that failed union.

It's almost one of the smartest financial investments any woman could make... forget stocks and bonds.... just get married.

Right so, feel free to believe whatever you want. I'm out.

If you think women are out to screw you though, remember to move out before the 5 year limit (or 2 years if you have children). Or better yet, just don't get into a serious relationship. :rolleyes:

daisybelle2008

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It's not really a different issue. It's a big part of the issue... women have no barriers to earning potential.

So men should not be punished just because they earn more money.

99% of the time it's the woman that comes out of divorce with the better deal. The man is unfairly punished for the failed relationship, while the woman often gets rewarded for her part in that failed union.

It's almost one of the smartest financial investments any woman could make... forget stocks and bonds.... just get married.

There is a gender inequality with pay rates, it is changing but not there yet.

The rest of your post is not accurate.

ceadaoin.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Relax chicken, listen personally I'm not a big fan of marriage, I enjoy a quiet life and I don't really like the idea of spending the rest of my life with the same person, but again that's purely my opinion, not saying I'm right.

But say if 2 people are getting a divorce would the following not be much fairer?

a) whatever each partner took into the marriage (ie land, a business, property etc etc) they retain in full after the divorce.

b) whatever the 2 of them bought or invested in together as a couple gets evenly split, with the amount invested by each party taken into consideration.

c) equal custody of the children, this is a no brainer wherever it's remotely possible, no normal parent should be denied the right to equal custody.

Do you think that would be a fair way of conducting a divorce for both men and women?

Shared custody is the default. If you mean that the kids should split their time evenly between both parents residences then this is not what is best for them, especially when they are young. The less upheaval they go through, the better. So that means staying in their primary residence with their primary carer (who most often happens to be their mother).

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well generally speaking women choose to have children and hence often choose to give up work (not every woman does) and rear their children, it's not inflicted upon them and they get support from the state as well.

They certainly shouldn't walk away from a relationship with nothing, they should walk away with whatever they brought in plus whatever half of what they invested in as a couple.

No some men probably don't want equal custody and therefore it shouldn't be the default position, but if a man requests equal custody and there's no reason not to give it to him then he should get it.

Is what I've said not fair and equal?

It's most often not a choice to give up work in my experience. Childcare is expensive and having to accommodate drop off and pick ups as well as any sick days etc can be detrimental to a job.

What support do they get from the state to stay at home? I wasn't aware there was any.

ThinkProgress

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

There is a gender inequality with pay rates, it is changing but not there yet.

The rest of your post is not accurate.

No there isn't. That's a myth perpetuated mostly by feminist groups... the gender pay gap simply does not exist anymore!

If men earn more in individual circumstances, that's just law of averages. He should not be punished for the rest of his working life because he was involved in a marriage that failed.

That's exactly what the current system does. Women get a golden handshake and smile/wink from the judge... congratulations on a job well done. Another man with his b*lls in a jar on the mantle piece! lol

Tbh, any man who's aware of these biases and willing signs up for this fcuked up agreement, gets zero sympathy from me...

Know your rights - or live with the consequences.

Medusa22

I'm in a civil partnership with a woman, soon to be a marriage once the legislation comes through. So am I doubling my chances of getting divorced then since we're both women? I suppose we'll both try to screw each other over then financially if we do get divorced. :rolleyes:

daisybelle2008

Medusa22 wrote: »

I'm in a civil partnership with a woman, soon to be a marriage once the legislation comes through. So am I doubling my chances of getting divorced then since we're both women? I suppose we'll both try to screw each other over then financially if we do get divorced. :rolleyes:

No, you are increasing your chances of becoming cash rich,..Getting married as a woman is better than investing in stocks and bonds and 99% of women make out like a bandit, houses, cars, as many kids as you want. With those odds you both will be loaded and are free to do it again and again. It's the way to go if you have a vagina. :;)