5 ms·

Legal marriage is decreasing. You can draw on more benefits as single from the System. Legal marriage also leads to pathological complications in terms of seper

Legal marriage is decreasing. You can draw on more benefits as single from the System. Legal marriage also leads to pathological complications in terms of seperation in some states.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
A substantial population of men are also deeply concerned that a legal marriage will end in a costly, lopsided, and devastating divorce. It is no secret that women have the advantage in such proceedings.
- vmception 5y ago
  For the breadwinner the outcome isn't very gendered, except for the conditions of custody of any children. And although not very gendered, it is a shitty contract where the worst clauses have extremely high rates of occurring. Even when isolating to later aged upper middle class economic equals, a 10% rate of triggering the worst clauses in a financial contract is extremely bad. You simply can't decouple the financial aspects of a financial contract just because how someone might have been conditioned to romanticize an overarching concept.
  - caeril 5y ago
    > For the breadwinner the outcome isn't very gendered This is a distinction without a difference. Even today, with women's educational attainment and workforce compensation skyrocketing, they still strongly marry "up". In the aggregate, this leaves the situation arguably even worse than before: 1. More men are pushed out of the marriage market. 2. Men who are in the marriage market still face financial devastation when the wife decides it's time to "find herself" in a no-fault divorce state (e.g. nearly all of them).
    - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
      And the power dynamic this creates puts men in a state of walking on eggshells to unrealistic expectations from a partner who can take them to the cleaners for any reason, which is highly destructive to relationships, and a massive reason why so many are opting out of relationships and spend their life online
    - vmception 5y ago
      > Even today, with women's educational attainment and workforce compensation skyrocketing, they still strongly marry "up". Yes, while the delta between spousal earnings is much smaller which also leads to a third observation: 3. Economic equals that are stable are marrying each other for the first time/generation, which increases inequality for the people (mostly for the other remaining women) that have nobody to marry up to. The women aren't interested in being in an unstable situation and are also not interested in taking care of a man, both genders in this binary situation are opting to avoid marriage (or merely consider it unattainable) if there is no stability. And of course there is my observation that it's also a bad contract.
csa 5y ago
> Legal marriage also leads to pathological complications in terms of seperation in some states. This cannot be overstated. True even with a prenup.
- worik 5y ago
  In civilised jurisdictions these rules apply to unmarried couples too. The amount of economic violence, historically, perpetrated by men over women has been huge. The worm has turned
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    What do you mean by "economic violence"? I'm guessing you are not referring to men paying for women's costs of living?
    - worik 5y ago
      That is a very sexist comment
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        No it's not. The parent comment was sexist.
  - csa 5y ago
    > In civilised jurisdictions these rules apply to unmarried couples too. The amount of economic violence, historically, perpetrated by men over women has been huge. I’m guessing we are talking about two different things. I will also add that, in my circle, women are getting screwed as much by this as men, so “the worm has turned” might better be “be careful what you wish for”. I largely have no issues with approximately equal division of assets acquired during a marriage. The two main issues I have are: 1. Determining what counts as an asset. 2. The method of contesting anything in a contested divorce. For 1, appreciation of any asset counts as an asset that should be divided. If you came into a marriage with $1 million in ETFs and a $1.5m house free and clear, and those go up to $1.7m etfs and $2.5m house, spouse gets half of $1.7m asset appreciation for…. I struggle to answer this question in a way that us not “being lucky”. Note that they do not owe half of losses if assets lose value. Meanwhile, somehow inheritance is treated as largely untouchable money. How does that make sense? For 2, if a divorce is not amicable, sometimes the party that feels scorned takes a scorched earth approach and basically is willing to give a ton of money to lawyers (“spouse doesn’t get it!”) while also freezing assets. I’ve seen some very asset rich people be cash poor because their former spouse just wouldn’t let them sell anything, even when they split the proceeds. This was just nothing other than malice. Sure, you can go to court to force them to let you sell for cash, but this is just another example of a pathological aspect of our current system. This aspect can also create complications in things like limited partnerships and other businesses in which it can be really hard to assign values to the asset and even harder divide the value of the asset without simultaneously destroying that value. Pre-nups can help, but they largely make the outcome slightly more certain while still leaving much to be contested via litigation if the party that feels scorned chooses to do so. I know a lot of these rules are in place because of the historical economic shenanigans that men have subjected women to, but that doesn’t mean that the system is reasonable, fair, or not pathological for certain (perhaps many or even most) cases.

Legal marriage is decreasing. You can draw on more benefits as single from the System. Legal marriage also leads to pathological complications in terms of seperation in some states.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

A substantial population of men are also deeply concerned that a legal marriage will end in a costly, lopsided, and devastating divorce. It is no secret that women have the advantage in such proceedings.

vmception 5y ago
For the breadwinner the outcome isn't very gendered, except for the conditions of custody of any children. And although not very gendered, it is a shitty contract where the worst clauses have extremely high rates of occurring. Even when isolating to later aged upper middle class economic equals, a 10% rate of triggering the worst clauses in a financial contract is extremely bad. You simply can't decouple the financial aspects of a financial contract just because how someone might have been conditioned to romanticize an overarching concept.
- caeril 5y ago
  > For the breadwinner the outcome isn't very gendered This is a distinction without a difference. Even today, with women's educational attainment and workforce compensation skyrocketing, they still strongly marry "up". In the aggregate, this leaves the situation arguably even worse than before: 1. More men are pushed out of the marriage market. 2. Men who are in the marriage market still face financial devastation when the wife decides it's time to "find herself" in a no-fault divorce state (e.g. nearly all of them).
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    And the power dynamic this creates puts men in a state of walking on eggshells to unrealistic expectations from a partner who can take them to the cleaners for any reason, which is highly destructive to relationships, and a massive reason why so many are opting out of relationships and spend their life online
  - vmception 5y ago
    > Even today, with women's educational attainment and workforce compensation skyrocketing, they still strongly marry "up". Yes, while the delta between spousal earnings is much smaller which also leads to a third observation: 3. Economic equals that are stable are marrying each other for the first time/generation, which increases inequality for the people (mostly for the other remaining women) that have nobody to marry up to. The women aren't interested in being in an unstable situation and are also not interested in taking care of a man, both genders in this binary situation are opting to avoid marriage (or merely consider it unattainable) if there is no stability. And of course there is my observation that it's also a bad contract.

csa 5y ago

> Legal marriage also leads to pathological complications in terms of seperation in some states. This cannot be overstated. True even with a prenup.

worik 5y ago
In civilised jurisdictions these rules apply to unmarried couples too. The amount of economic violence, historically, perpetrated by men over women has been huge. The worm has turned
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  What do you mean by "economic violence"? I'm guessing you are not referring to men paying for women's costs of living?
  - worik 5y ago
    That is a very sexist comment
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      No it's not. The parent comment was sexist.
- csa 5y ago
  > In civilised jurisdictions these rules apply to unmarried couples too. The amount of economic violence, historically, perpetrated by men over women has been huge. I’m guessing we are talking about two different things. I will also add that, in my circle, women are getting screwed as much by this as men, so “the worm has turned” might better be “be careful what you wish for”. I largely have no issues with approximately equal division of assets acquired during a marriage. The two main issues I have are: 1. Determining what counts as an asset. 2. The method of contesting anything in a contested divorce. For 1, appreciation of any asset counts as an asset that should be divided. If you came into a marriage with $1 million in ETFs and a $1.5m house free and clear, and those go up to $1.7m etfs and $2.5m house, spouse gets half of $1.7m asset appreciation for…. I struggle to answer this question in a way that us not “being lucky”. Note that they do not owe half of losses if assets lose value. Meanwhile, somehow inheritance is treated as largely untouchable money. How does that make sense? For 2, if a divorce is not amicable, sometimes the party that feels scorned takes a scorched earth approach and basically is willing to give a ton of money to lawyers (“spouse doesn’t get it!”) while also freezing assets. I’ve seen some very asset rich people be cash poor because their former spouse just wouldn’t let them sell anything, even when they split the proceeds. This was just nothing other than malice. Sure, you can go to court to force them to let you sell for cash, but this is just another example of a pathological aspect of our current system. This aspect can also create complications in things like limited partnerships and other businesses in which it can be really hard to assign values to the asset and even harder divide the value of the asset without simultaneously destroying that value. Pre-nups can help, but they largely make the outcome slightly more certain while still leaving much to be contested via litigation if the party that feels scorned chooses to do so. I know a lot of these rules are in place because of the historical economic shenanigans that men have subjected women to, but that doesn’t mean that the system is reasonable, fair, or not pathological for certain (perhaps many or even most) cases.