6 ms·

Good question, but I'm not sure why you included the gender distinction. Do you think divorce is less devastating for women, or that risk of divorce is more of

by foxylad 10y ago

Good question, but I'm not sure why you included the gender distinction. Do you think divorce is less devastating for women, or that risk of divorce is more of a factor for men?

blawson 10y ago
I think they mean how resources are split after a divorce, where courts are viewed as being more favourable to women. For example I think women are more likely to keep children, whereas the men will pay alimony to support them. If there are no kids the resource split might be more equitable. [edit] Also see further down: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12184148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12184148
- kaitai 10y ago
  Courts are more favorable to women in some ways, but the economic consequences are generally worse for women. "Worse" and "better" all depends on what endpoint you're looking at, just like all those studies on cholesterol (do you want to lower cholesterol or not die from heart problems?) -- do you want the alimony now or the overall financial health?
  - zaroth 10y ago
    According to the 2010 Census only 3% of Americans receiving spousal benefits were men. This is after splitting the estate "equitably". So I really don't understand what you mean by economic consequences are generally worse for women? 97% of the time it's the man's wages being garnished.
    - moseandre 10y ago
      You are simplifying to wage garnishing. Probably the parent comment is intimating things like loss of socioeconomic position due to the divorce. If marriages are financially unequal in many cases, fundamentally, then divorce shows that too. But the consequences are like, how well you fare after versus before... the schoolteacher and the banker divorce, and which can maintain the social connections?
      - zaroth 10y ago
        During a marriage, spouses share equally the family income even if one spouse is actually earning more than the other. At the time of separation, the estate is valued and then split equally. From that point forward these two people have chosen to part ways. They no longer rely on each other or are bound to each other. They are two individuals existing independently in the world. But a man is expected to pay the woman every week, until one or the other dies, or the woman remarries. So an independent single divorced woman, her ex is now a paycheck. Almost never the other way around. It's not a question of, were they better off married, because the marriage is over. Now as singles, what is the consequence of having been married? The economic consequence of getting married and then divorced for a woman is a weekly payment. The economic consequence for a man getting married and then divorced is a large percentage of income after taxes is confiscated from him.
        makomk 10y ago
        Not even necessarily a percentage of actual income either - it can be a percentage of the income the courts think the ex-husband should be earning, because there's this idea that men who are unemployed or underemployed, or even just self-employed and not doing as well as before, are doing it to screw their ex-wife out of the money they should be earning for her. (Little details like the entire industry they were employed in going away, or them being in their 50s and in a line of work with massive ageism, matter less than they perhaps ought. Especially since he probably can't afford a good lawyer.)
        zaroth 10y ago
        Reading news articles of judges telling 67 year old men to "just get a job" was pretty eye opening. [1] MA passed an alimony reform act specifying that alimony should cease at full retirement age. The courts reinterpreted it to only apply prospectively to agreements after the law was enacted, when the clear meaning was that it should apply to all alimony. [2] These are the economic consequences. [1] - https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2013/10/19/new-state-alimony-law-once-hailed-model-causing-confusion-and-being-misinterpreted-ignored-judges/jeWGmkiyGiR6Q0lkshlNkI/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2013/10/19/new-s... [2] - https://www.divorcelawmonitor.com/2015/02/articles/alimony-and-child-support/3-cases-that-significantly-impact-alimony/ https://www.divorcelawmonitor.com/2015/02/articles/alimony-a...
    - foxylad 10y ago
      It would be interesting to know what percentage of that 97% had child custody. The economic consequences of dependant children are enormous - apart from the cost of feeding, housing, clothing and caring for them, it significantly reduces your employment options.
DominikR 10y ago
It depends on the legal framework of the country you live in, but generally in the West I'd answer the question with no, at least from a financial perspective. For example in the EU country I live in I'd have to pay 40% of my net income to my ex-wife even if there are no children and there was no fault (from a legal perspective) on my side for the divorce. Considering that 40% of my net income is much more than even 100% of the average males income the risks of marriage by far outweigh the benefits for many men in my financial situation. I realise of course that many women end up having to deal with financial issues after divorce because not every women can attract a husband with a high income and also women on average, regardless of education, devote less time to their careers compared to men (many choose to work part time to optimise for more time with children) which impacts their own income. But the fact still remains that within the current legal framework a wife can decide at will to turn her husband into a revenue stream for life, doesn't matter how the conduct of both parties was. She gets the real estate they've been living in, even if her husband owned it before marriage, she gets the children and in many Western countries she can even prevent her husband from seeing his children without having to face any penalties. Does that kind of contract sound fair to you?

by foxylad 10y ago

Good question, but I'm not sure why you included the gender distinction. Do you think divorce is less devastating for women, or that risk of divorce is more of a factor for men?

blawson 10y ago

I think they mean how resources are split after a divorce, where courts are viewed as being more favourable to women. For example I think women are more likely to keep children, whereas the men will pay alimony to support them. If there are no kids the resource split might be more equitable. [edit] Also see further down: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12184148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12184148

kaitai 10y ago
Courts are more favorable to women in some ways, but the economic consequences are generally worse for women. "Worse" and "better" all depends on what endpoint you're looking at, just like all those studies on cholesterol (do you want to lower cholesterol or not die from heart problems?) -- do you want the alimony now or the overall financial health?
- zaroth 10y ago
  According to the 2010 Census only 3% of Americans receiving spousal benefits were men. This is after splitting the estate "equitably". So I really don't understand what you mean by economic consequences are generally worse for women? 97% of the time it's the man's wages being garnished.
  - moseandre 10y ago
    You are simplifying to wage garnishing. Probably the parent comment is intimating things like loss of socioeconomic position due to the divorce. If marriages are financially unequal in many cases, fundamentally, then divorce shows that too. But the consequences are like, how well you fare after versus before... the schoolteacher and the banker divorce, and which can maintain the social connections?
    - zaroth 10y ago
      During a marriage, spouses share equally the family income even if one spouse is actually earning more than the other. At the time of separation, the estate is valued and then split equally. From that point forward these two people have chosen to part ways. They no longer rely on each other or are bound to each other. They are two individuals existing independently in the world. But a man is expected to pay the woman every week, until one or the other dies, or the woman remarries. So an independent single divorced woman, her ex is now a paycheck. Almost never the other way around. It's not a question of, were they better off married, because the marriage is over. Now as singles, what is the consequence of having been married? The economic consequence of getting married and then divorced for a woman is a weekly payment. The economic consequence for a man getting married and then divorced is a large percentage of income after taxes is confiscated from him.
      - makomk 10y ago
        Not even necessarily a percentage of actual income either - it can be a percentage of the income the courts think the ex-husband should be earning, because there's this idea that men who are unemployed or underemployed, or even just self-employed and not doing as well as before, are doing it to screw their ex-wife out of the money they should be earning for her. (Little details like the entire industry they were employed in going away, or them being in their 50s and in a line of work with massive ageism, matter less than they perhaps ought. Especially since he probably can't afford a good lawyer.)
        zaroth 10y ago
        Reading news articles of judges telling 67 year old men to "just get a job" was pretty eye opening. [1] MA passed an alimony reform act specifying that alimony should cease at full retirement age. The courts reinterpreted it to only apply prospectively to agreements after the law was enacted, when the clear meaning was that it should apply to all alimony. [2] These are the economic consequences. [1] - https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2013/10/19/new-state-alimony-law-once-hailed-model-causing-confusion-and-being-misinterpreted-ignored-judges/jeWGmkiyGiR6Q0lkshlNkI/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2013/10/19/new-s... [2] - https://www.divorcelawmonitor.com/2015/02/articles/alimony-and-child-support/3-cases-that-significantly-impact-alimony/ https://www.divorcelawmonitor.com/2015/02/articles/alimony-a...
  - foxylad 10y ago
    It would be interesting to know what percentage of that 97% had child custody. The economic consequences of dependant children are enormous - apart from the cost of feeding, housing, clothing and caring for them, it significantly reduces your employment options.

DominikR 10y ago

It depends on the legal framework of the country you live in, but generally in the West I'd answer the question with no, at least from a financial perspective. For example in the EU country I live in I'd have to pay 40% of my net income to my ex-wife even if there are no children and there was no fault (from a legal perspective) on my side for the divorce. Considering that 40% of my net income is much more than even 100% of the average males income the risks of marriage by far outweigh the benefits for many men in my financial situation. I realise of course that many women end up having to deal with financial issues after divorce because not every women can attract a husband with a high income and also women on average, regardless of education, devote less time to their careers compared to men (many choose to work part time to optimise for more time with children) which impacts their own income. But the fact still remains that within the current legal framework a wife can decide at will to turn her husband into a revenue stream for life, doesn't matter how the conduct of both parties was. She gets the real estate they've been living in, even if her husband owned it before marriage, she gets the children and in many Western countries she can even prevent her husband from seeing his children without having to face any penalties. Does that kind of contract sound fair to you?