8 ms·

I don’t know how others on HN may feel, but given stories I have heard I personally have no desire to be legally married until men are treated a bit more favora

I don’t know how others on HN may feel, but given stories I have heard I personally have no desire to be legally married until men are treated a bit more favorably by marriage law. As it stands, a man who has accumulated significant assets and net worth as is common in the tech industry, would be easily ruined by a divorce to the wrong woman. Prenuptials do not always save you.

DanBC 8y ago
You fundamentally misunderstand what marriage is.
- matte_black 8y ago
  Now I’m curious as to what you think marriage is.
  - User23 8y ago
    The traditional definition is that marriage is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. The more cynical modernist take is that it's a mix between a tax break and privatized welfare that should be abandoned as soon as it stops feeling good.
- deathanatos 8y ago
  Perhaps, then, you could explain where the commenter you are responding to's misunderstanding lies, for the benefit of him/her and the rest of us?
  - DanBC 8y ago
    The point of marriage is to pool money to provide for each other and your potential children. Once you get married it's not "your" money any more, it belongs to both of you. That's from the States PoV, and since they make the laws that govern marriage it's a reasonable position to take. All the other stuff (eg religious baggage) that comes along are optional extras.
    - belorn 8y ago
      As I explored in an other comment, it used to be that once married the community viewed the family as a single entity and as such the money did not belong to a single person but rather to the family. Very similar, debt also did not belong to a single person but was an property of the family and in cases of death of the parents it also transfered to the children. From the banks PoV, it was a reasonable position to take that it was every family members responsibility to uphold the family honor and repay any debt. This 18th century view was thankfully mostly abolished by later centuries. We don't see children going into debt slavery just to repay their parents or grandparents sins. An other 18th century concept is that children starved and died if they did not have a supporting family. There was no welfare state or no social net. A major progress in the way government operates today is that government operates on individuals. The PoV of the state is that there is individuals that need food, healthcare, and social support. Those individuals could be a child in which a lack of essential needs cause the state to bring in social services. The family is only a factor when evaluating the available support an individual has, but in the end its the individual that the government focus on. 18th century marriage law did not look at the individual, and as such it made sense that marriage was a single entity that formed a family which members had legal responsibility to each other. The state issued the laws that defined a family, the family protected each member, and the chain of command (and law) was simple, clear and established.
- CryoLogic 8y ago
  I'd like to hear this as well. To me marriage is an ancient construct that really was designed to provide structure to single earner families and to align them with the popular religious beliefs of the time. It does't make much sense to me in today's world (in particular in places like the USA) outside of religious constructs. Sure, figure out a ceremony so people can celebrate their love and proclaim their loyalty to each-other. But why should the law and finances get so tightly involved?
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    I'm sorry you think that. Marriage was never about "single earner families." In pre-Modern times, both spouses worked/farmed/whatever to support the family. The point of legally recognizing marriage is to give the partnerships a simplified method of recognizing their rights to/in/with each other. You can recreate most of these rights separately if you wish--all of them except the one related to spousal testimony. As for finances...if you're willing to go through the hassle of drafting a prenup, the spouses can maintain separate finances as well, though in the event of a divorce, the judge will critically examine the agreement to make sure that both spouses were independently capable of supporting their pre-marital and marital standards of living, which generally limits the usage of this arrangement to independently wealthy couples.
CryoLogic 8y ago
I am not sure why you are downvoted. The article even touched on this, marriage was viewed as some type of pseudo-slavery with the man having ownership over the woman in the 1700-1800s. Divorce laws reflect women traditionally not having any means of financing their own lives and being dependent on men especially since the article notes they could not gain higher education even after some jobs opened up to women so would they divorce they would be stuck with very slim financial options (i.e. low paying non-career positions viewed as feminine) It did note however that men used to get ownership of the children in the event of a divorce. I do not know when that changed because I have seen stats that show women are more likely to get the children today.
- matte_black 8y ago
  I’m not sure why I was downvoted either, but perhaps it’s because people believe women really are more disadvantaged after a divorce. The modern woman is more than capable of taking care of herself, even if salaries are not totally equal for both genders yet in all industries. Yet from what I’ve seen in most cases, if there are any children involved in a marriage, the woman will get them AND the house in a divorce. The man will be on his own, possibly paying a hefty child support.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I didn't down vote you. I did consider it. My suspicion is you were likely down voted by someone with strong feelings to the contrary who sees no point in arguing it given your stated position and the fact that this is an overwhelmingly male forum. I post as openly female. I try to be really evenhanded. But I have been here nearly 9 years and have been trying to figure out how to make money online during that time. I know people who made good money because of connections made through HN and that has not worked for me. It is clear to me that my gender is a large factor in that. It's pretty offensive to me to read that you want to protect the wealth of men on the grounds that "women can support themselves" while acknowledging women generally make less and simultaneously decrying the imposition of needing to pay child support. I'm not really interested in debating this with you or anyone. I remain appalled that I could spend so much time here while homeless and struggling to eat while men here poo poo the idea that sexism is any kind of real financial burden for women. I appear to be the only woman to have ever spent time on the leaderboard of HN (under a different handle). That's one woman out of quite a lot more than 100 people over the years given that names on the board come and go. I like HN. I have a lot of good things to say about it. But comments like yours still leave me shaking my head and astonished at the blindness that can be found in such a generally intelligent, well educated etc crowd.
patmcc 8y ago
A marriage is very much like a partnership, legally. Both partners are held to be answerable to each other, share joint ownership of assets, be jointly responsible for children, etc. Joining with a bad business partner can ruin you completely. Dissolution of a partnership may mean one partner is disadvantaged in favour of the other partner (depending on the partnership agreement). Marriage is a special type of partnership where we have a default partnership agreement, by statute and/or common law, because it's in the best interest of society, but you can override that with a contract if you like. If you live in a sensible jurisdiction (maybe not, you're likely in the US) family law is already gender neutral. If you don't like the idea of marriage, fine, but the problem is only marriage law if your marriage law is lousy.
- fvdessen 8y ago
  The difference is that business partners are completely free to set the terms of their partnership. Whereas in marriage, the terms are fixed by the state. No business partners would enter a deal with equal shares if one brings 1M in assets and the other zero. A marriage forces them to.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lazyasciiart 8y ago
    In the US it usually doesn't, where did you learn about marriage property? > generally speaking, Separate Property includes: •Any property that was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage; (random link with explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understanding-how-assets-get-divided-in-divorce/#3b1963652b66 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understa...)
  - patmcc 8y ago
    Three things with that: 1) Prenuptial agreements exist, you can alter the terms of the partnership. 2) As someone else mentioned, pre-marriage assets are generally kept separate. 3) Business partners enter into all kinds of arrangements - maybe one parter brings in less money but has more expertise, connections, or will work more hours over the life of the partnership.
btilly 8y ago
Marriage can work out with either party getting the better end, and divorce usually works out with both parties getting screwed by lawyers. However, on average, men still come out better than women do. See https://www.amazon.com/Price-Motherhood-Important-World-Valued/dp/0312655401 https://www.amazon.com/Price-Motherhood-Important-World-Valu... for documentation of this fact. (Speaking anecdotally, I came out much worse off for my first marriage and that was mostly my fault. My second marriage has been a delight though.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

DanBC 8y ago

You fundamentally misunderstand what marriage is.

matte_black 8y ago
Now I’m curious as to what you think marriage is.
- User23 8y ago
  The traditional definition is that marriage is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. The more cynical modernist take is that it's a mix between a tax break and privatized welfare that should be abandoned as soon as it stops feeling good.
deathanatos 8y ago
Perhaps, then, you could explain where the commenter you are responding to's misunderstanding lies, for the benefit of him/her and the rest of us?
- DanBC 8y ago
  The point of marriage is to pool money to provide for each other and your potential children. Once you get married it's not "your" money any more, it belongs to both of you. That's from the States PoV, and since they make the laws that govern marriage it's a reasonable position to take. All the other stuff (eg religious baggage) that comes along are optional extras.
  - belorn 8y ago
    As I explored in an other comment, it used to be that once married the community viewed the family as a single entity and as such the money did not belong to a single person but rather to the family. Very similar, debt also did not belong to a single person but was an property of the family and in cases of death of the parents it also transfered to the children. From the banks PoV, it was a reasonable position to take that it was every family members responsibility to uphold the family honor and repay any debt. This 18th century view was thankfully mostly abolished by later centuries. We don't see children going into debt slavery just to repay their parents or grandparents sins. An other 18th century concept is that children starved and died if they did not have a supporting family. There was no welfare state or no social net. A major progress in the way government operates today is that government operates on individuals. The PoV of the state is that there is individuals that need food, healthcare, and social support. Those individuals could be a child in which a lack of essential needs cause the state to bring in social services. The family is only a factor when evaluating the available support an individual has, but in the end its the individual that the government focus on. 18th century marriage law did not look at the individual, and as such it made sense that marriage was a single entity that formed a family which members had legal responsibility to each other. The state issued the laws that defined a family, the family protected each member, and the chain of command (and law) was simple, clear and established.
CryoLogic 8y ago
I'd like to hear this as well. To me marriage is an ancient construct that really was designed to provide structure to single earner families and to align them with the popular religious beliefs of the time. It does't make much sense to me in today's world (in particular in places like the USA) outside of religious constructs. Sure, figure out a ceremony so people can celebrate their love and proclaim their loyalty to each-other. But why should the law and finances get so tightly involved?
- gamblor956 8y ago
  I'm sorry you think that. Marriage was never about "single earner families." In pre-Modern times, both spouses worked/farmed/whatever to support the family. The point of legally recognizing marriage is to give the partnerships a simplified method of recognizing their rights to/in/with each other. You can recreate most of these rights separately if you wish--all of them except the one related to spousal testimony. As for finances...if you're willing to go through the hassle of drafting a prenup, the spouses can maintain separate finances as well, though in the event of a divorce, the judge will critically examine the agreement to make sure that both spouses were independently capable of supporting their pre-marital and marital standards of living, which generally limits the usage of this arrangement to independently wealthy couples.

CryoLogic 8y ago

I am not sure why you are downvoted. The article even touched on this, marriage was viewed as some type of pseudo-slavery with the man having ownership over the woman in the 1700-1800s. Divorce laws reflect women traditionally not having any means of financing their own lives and being dependent on men especially since the article notes they could not gain higher education even after some jobs opened up to women so would they divorce they would be stuck with very slim financial options (i.e. low paying non-career positions viewed as feminine) It did note however that men used to get ownership of the children in the event of a divorce. I do not know when that changed because I have seen stats that show women are more likely to get the children today.

matte_black 8y ago
I’m not sure why I was downvoted either, but perhaps it’s because people believe women really are more disadvantaged after a divorce. The modern woman is more than capable of taking care of herself, even if salaries are not totally equal for both genders yet in all industries. Yet from what I’ve seen in most cases, if there are any children involved in a marriage, the woman will get them AND the house in a divorce. The man will be on his own, possibly paying a hefty child support.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I didn't down vote you. I did consider it. My suspicion is you were likely down voted by someone with strong feelings to the contrary who sees no point in arguing it given your stated position and the fact that this is an overwhelmingly male forum. I post as openly female. I try to be really evenhanded. But I have been here nearly 9 years and have been trying to figure out how to make money online during that time. I know people who made good money because of connections made through HN and that has not worked for me. It is clear to me that my gender is a large factor in that. It's pretty offensive to me to read that you want to protect the wealth of men on the grounds that "women can support themselves" while acknowledging women generally make less and simultaneously decrying the imposition of needing to pay child support. I'm not really interested in debating this with you or anyone. I remain appalled that I could spend so much time here while homeless and struggling to eat while men here poo poo the idea that sexism is any kind of real financial burden for women. I appear to be the only woman to have ever spent time on the leaderboard of HN (under a different handle). That's one woman out of quite a lot more than 100 people over the years given that names on the board come and go. I like HN. I have a lot of good things to say about it. But comments like yours still leave me shaking my head and astonished at the blindness that can be found in such a generally intelligent, well educated etc crowd.

patmcc 8y ago

A marriage is very much like a partnership, legally. Both partners are held to be answerable to each other, share joint ownership of assets, be jointly responsible for children, etc. Joining with a bad business partner can ruin you completely. Dissolution of a partnership may mean one partner is disadvantaged in favour of the other partner (depending on the partnership agreement). Marriage is a special type of partnership where we have a default partnership agreement, by statute and/or common law, because it's in the best interest of society, but you can override that with a contract if you like. If you live in a sensible jurisdiction (maybe not, you're likely in the US) family law is already gender neutral. If you don't like the idea of marriage, fine, but the problem is only marriage law if your marriage law is lousy.

fvdessen 8y ago
The difference is that business partners are completely free to set the terms of their partnership. Whereas in marriage, the terms are fixed by the state. No business partners would enter a deal with equal shares if one brings 1M in assets and the other zero. A marriage forces them to.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  In the US it usually doesn't, where did you learn about marriage property? > generally speaking, Separate Property includes: •Any property that was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage; (random link with explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understanding-how-assets-get-divided-in-divorce/#3b1963652b66 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understa...)
- patmcc 8y ago
  Three things with that: 1) Prenuptial agreements exist, you can alter the terms of the partnership. 2) As someone else mentioned, pre-marriage assets are generally kept separate. 3) Business partners enter into all kinds of arrangements - maybe one parter brings in less money but has more expertise, connections, or will work more hours over the life of the partnership.

btilly 8y ago

Marriage can work out with either party getting the better end, and divorce usually works out with both parties getting screwed by lawyers. However, on average, men still come out better than women do. See https://www.amazon.com/Price-Motherhood-Important-World-Valued/dp/0312655401 https://www.amazon.com/Price-Motherhood-Important-World-Valu... for documentation of this fact. (Speaking anecdotally, I came out much worse off for my first marriage and that was mostly my fault. My second marriage has been a delight though.)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]