5 ms·

> The divorce laws take care of that imbalance. They do not. 90% of US households have a total household net worth of less than $300,000. Even if you got all o

by xnyan 3y ago

> The divorce laws take care of that imbalance. They do not. 90% of US households have a total household net worth of less than $300,000. Even if you got all of that, it's not enough to make up for the lack of marketable skills. Similarly, a judge can award all the alimony and childcare in the world, but that does not help you if it does not get paid.

willcipriano 3y ago
Then you'd be as poor as when you were married. At a certain point we need some level of accountability for the partner staying home, if you had a kid with someone who doesn't earn much money and you don't work yourself why would you expect to be middle class once you get divorced? You'll get your money, many men have most of their paycheck forcibly taken from them each week. You can't even get a driver's license in many states if you are behind on child support. These insane expectations are part of the reason why marriage is a bad deal for the provider.
- watwut 3y ago
  Well, it is reasonable for that person to want to be able to influence own outcome by having ability to actually earn. Instead of having to sue ex for money. Also, alimony and child support are two different things. What you call accountability for partner at home is not accountability. It is just complete helplessness and dependence.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Then get a job, but the idea that they are helpless is insane. They have the full force of the law behind them. Go to family court as a woman, make up a sob story about abuse and provide no evidence and you'll have the power to prevent a father from seeing his children. That father is experiencing helplessness. Having to get a job isn't, that's accountability.
    - watwut 3y ago
      Employers do not want someone who was not employed for 10 years. So, we are back to "actually it is loosing deal for one partner to stay at home. It puts you at massive disadvantage and makes you dependent. Hence, it is simply not good for you". Otherwise said, being at home makes you very vulnerable and puts you at risk of poverty. The longer you stay, the worst off you are. I am not the one pushing for the system where one parent has to sacrifice his or her independence when kids are born. I am just saying that if economy requires one of them at home, that person is being put at risk. > Go to family court as a woman, make up a sob story about abuse and provide no evidence and you'll have the power to prevent a father from seeing his children. That father is experiencing helplessness. In these situations, when father contests, courts tend to side with father. It takes a lot for father to not be allowed around the children in reality. It is simply not true that a single sob story would made course side with mother.
- gizmo 3y ago
  The mother would be not as poor as before marriage but way poorer, because now she's older, she's been out of the workforce for a long time, and still has to take care of the kid(s) after the divorce. The father, by contrast, has accumulated professional connections and work experience. Single mothers end up in poverty way too often, and alimony is an attempt to rectify this. As with any legal process you can find examples where justice has failed, but overall a world with alimony and child support is way better than the world we had before, where women were condemned to destitution after divorce.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    The previous comment was about divorcing someone without money. In your example my argument holds as she would receive not only half of the current assets but a claim on his future earnings, no matter how she behaves in the marriage. Great deal for women. Horrible deal for men.
    - gizmo 3y ago
      I get what you're saying but it's plainly false. Just look at the statistics: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/population-profiles/marital-status-poverty-1.svg https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/population-profiles/marital-... In broad strokes: married people tend to be way wealthier than never married people, and divorced women do much worse than divorced men do. (Women are much poorer across the board also, of course). If your claim was true then the poverty gap between divorced men and divorced women would be much smaller, and we see that's not the case. If alimony/child support is such a raw deal for men it should be visible in the statistics. Note the poverty rate for men who never got married vs men who got divorced. Marriage is not the raw deal for men you think it is.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        Correlation is not causation. Women try to marry men with resources. Men without resources or ambition are ignored by women.

by xnyan 3y ago

willcipriano 3y ago

Then you'd be as poor as when you were married. At a certain point we need some level of accountability for the partner staying home, if you had a kid with someone who doesn't earn much money and you don't work yourself why would you expect to be middle class once you get divorced? You'll get your money, many men have most of their paycheck forcibly taken from them each week. You can't even get a driver's license in many states if you are behind on child support. These insane expectations are part of the reason why marriage is a bad deal for the provider.

watwut 3y ago
Well, it is reasonable for that person to want to be able to influence own outcome by having ability to actually earn. Instead of having to sue ex for money. Also, alimony and child support are two different things. What you call accountability for partner at home is not accountability. It is just complete helplessness and dependence.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Then get a job, but the idea that they are helpless is insane. They have the full force of the law behind them. Go to family court as a woman, make up a sob story about abuse and provide no evidence and you'll have the power to prevent a father from seeing his children. That father is experiencing helplessness. Having to get a job isn't, that's accountability.
  - watwut 3y ago
    Employers do not want someone who was not employed for 10 years. So, we are back to "actually it is loosing deal for one partner to stay at home. It puts you at massive disadvantage and makes you dependent. Hence, it is simply not good for you". Otherwise said, being at home makes you very vulnerable and puts you at risk of poverty. The longer you stay, the worst off you are. I am not the one pushing for the system where one parent has to sacrifice his or her independence when kids are born. I am just saying that if economy requires one of them at home, that person is being put at risk. > Go to family court as a woman, make up a sob story about abuse and provide no evidence and you'll have the power to prevent a father from seeing his children. That father is experiencing helplessness. In these situations, when father contests, courts tend to side with father. It takes a lot for father to not be allowed around the children in reality. It is simply not true that a single sob story would made course side with mother.
gizmo 3y ago
The mother would be not as poor as before marriage but way poorer, because now she's older, she's been out of the workforce for a long time, and still has to take care of the kid(s) after the divorce. The father, by contrast, has accumulated professional connections and work experience. Single mothers end up in poverty way too often, and alimony is an attempt to rectify this. As with any legal process you can find examples where justice has failed, but overall a world with alimony and child support is way better than the world we had before, where women were condemned to destitution after divorce.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  The previous comment was about divorcing someone without money. In your example my argument holds as she would receive not only half of the current assets but a claim on his future earnings, no matter how she behaves in the marriage. Great deal for women. Horrible deal for men.
  - gizmo 3y ago
    I get what you're saying but it's plainly false. Just look at the statistics: https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/population-profiles/marital-status-poverty-1.svg https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/population-profiles/marital-... In broad strokes: married people tend to be way wealthier than never married people, and divorced women do much worse than divorced men do. (Women are much poorer across the board also, of course). If your claim was true then the poverty gap between divorced men and divorced women would be much smaller, and we see that's not the case. If alimony/child support is such a raw deal for men it should be visible in the statistics. Note the poverty rate for men who never got married vs men who got divorced. Marriage is not the raw deal for men you think it is.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Correlation is not causation. Women try to marry men with resources. Men without resources or ambition are ignored by women.