4 ms·

Divorce courts are very anti-men. Many men get lifes destroyed due to insane "child support" payments which are totaly out of bounds for what "child support" s

Divorce courts are very anti-men. Many men get lifes destroyed due to insane "child support" payments which are totaly out of bounds for what "child support" should be. So if by "faster divorce" they mean that the "women can take everything from a guy faster", I'm not sure this is going to end well as far as men's incentives are to get married.

yieldcrv 3y ago
there is definitely room for more accountability of judges in those courts, and there is definitely room for pushing a model bill through the legislature The primary flaw in US jurisdictions is that a spouse, well - let's back up. I want to try to balance this with ungendered neutral language, but the courts are gendered and that's the main incompatible flaw I want to address. The pervasive logic in our society and permeating in our court system is that the woman is A) providing emotional and homemaking labor B) it is uncompensated labor C) it is the basis for the success of the man's labor D) compensation for this in a divorce has an unlimited market value these are convenient beliefs, that lack substantiation and reality There are some jurisdictions that have laws that recognize this. Where ultimately there is a fixed - capped - value and time length, not based on any proportion of wealth or lifestyle. a uniform law like this across the US would make this more tenable and predictable. As US states are a total patchwork of conditions, assumptions, and even our most progressive heavily populated jurisdictions are backwards in this regard. Primarily because men don't feel comfortable being associated with this conversation.
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  Most people are far more likely to see family court than criminal court, and can end up in family court through no fault of their own, whereas you're much more able to avoid criminal court by not committing crimes. It's a huge encroachment of the state on personal life where protections such as the right to jury does not exist. The fact that this state encroachment has lead to disastrous outcomes should come as no surprise.
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    > protections such as the right to jury does not exist. The 6th amendment is for criminal trials and the 7th is not currently applied at the state level.
    - cjbgkagh 3y ago
      I'm not suggesting that it's an illegal encroachment, just that if such provisions are considered wise at the federal level then would it not be wise to apply the same provisions at the state level?
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Man, did I see that in action. In a California divorce my ex's statements about "emotional labor" were admitted at face value, I had to spend over $400k demonstrating that she was actually just a layabout who physically abused the children. I initially had a rookie female judge who was openly hostile to men in court, who was later reassigned out of family court, but not before she had cost me an insane amount of money. Also I had to pay both sides' attorneys even though my spouse was in control of half the assets. Insanely bad system and I've been told that California's is one of the more neutral.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    The flipside of this is that most judges and lawyers do not want to work family court, for various understandable reasons. My guess is that, much like Reddit mods, there's a subset of judges who are willing to tolerate family court bullshit in order to push their agenda, and they're the ones who wind up staying. This is on top of the more general issues caused by gating access to justice behind a bunch of really expensive professionals with student loans to pay off, of course.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    when they say California is more neutral, that just means the wife can be a sex worker who smokes weed and that won't automatically invalidate her character, claims, or cause child protective services to descend upon your lives. and its bad that other states would without more information, I just wouldn't take that to mean California is anything progressive with regards to men, which maybe makes your experience make more sense.
bigbillheck 3y ago
> Divorce courts are very anti-men. Dudes have been saying this for a long time but I've never seen any argument as to why that actually holds up to scrutiny.
- svnt 3y ago
  My ex-wife was able to avoid answering any question that would have made her look bad by breaking down crying and saying the proceedings were too stressful. Try that as a man and see where it gets you.
  - bigbillheck 3y ago
    I wonder what her side of the story would be, and what might be left out of this accounting.
    - friend_and_foe 3y ago
      Suppose nothing. Would it still be believable? If so there you go, you got what you asked for.
    - svnt 3y ago
      I see why you can’t find any counter-examples: you’re using all your mental abilities to support your predetermined conclusion.
Analemma_ 3y ago
When people actually do the accounting and add up the expenses incurred by raising a child, the conclusion is invariably that child support payments are not enough and, if anything, should be higher. The problem here is that divorce, by its nature, destroys a tremendous amount of wealth. Because there are a bunch of assets which can no longer be shared, the total amount of cash needed to raise a child goes way up after a divorce happens. This, not anti-male bias, is the reason why both parties feel screwed by child support: the men feel like they're getting bled dry (because they are) while the women feel like they're still not being made whole (because they're not). It's a thorny problem but it's not made easier by griping about bias. When thinking about child support payments, take as your foundational axiom "divorce destroys a bunch of wealth and makes both parties poorer on average; there is probably no solution that doesn't make both people feel fucked over."
trealira 3y ago
> Divorce courts are very anti-men. Why do you say that they're anti-men? > Many men get lifes destroyed due to insane "child support" payments which are totaly out of bounds for what "child support" should be. Why are they out of bounds? What would make a reasonable child support payment service?

yieldcrv 3y ago

there is definitely room for more accountability of judges in those courts, and there is definitely room for pushing a model bill through the legislature The primary flaw in US jurisdictions is that a spouse, well - let's back up. I want to try to balance this with ungendered neutral language, but the courts are gendered and that's the main incompatible flaw I want to address. The pervasive logic in our society and permeating in our court system is that the woman is A) providing emotional and homemaking labor B) it is uncompensated labor C) it is the basis for the success of the man's labor D) compensation for this in a divorce has an unlimited market value these are convenient beliefs, that lack substantiation and reality There are some jurisdictions that have laws that recognize this. Where ultimately there is a fixed - capped - value and time length, not based on any proportion of wealth or lifestyle. a uniform law like this across the US would make this more tenable and predictable. As US states are a total patchwork of conditions, assumptions, and even our most progressive heavily populated jurisdictions are backwards in this regard. Primarily because men don't feel comfortable being associated with this conversation.

cjbgkagh 3y ago
Most people are far more likely to see family court than criminal court, and can end up in family court through no fault of their own, whereas you're much more able to avoid criminal court by not committing crimes. It's a huge encroachment of the state on personal life where protections such as the right to jury does not exist. The fact that this state encroachment has lead to disastrous outcomes should come as no surprise.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > protections such as the right to jury does not exist. The 6th amendment is for criminal trials and the 7th is not currently applied at the state level.
  - cjbgkagh 3y ago
    I'm not suggesting that it's an illegal encroachment, just that if such provisions are considered wise at the federal level then would it not be wise to apply the same provisions at the state level?
jeffbee 3y ago
Man, did I see that in action. In a California divorce my ex's statements about "emotional labor" were admitted at face value, I had to spend over $400k demonstrating that she was actually just a layabout who physically abused the children. I initially had a rookie female judge who was openly hostile to men in court, who was later reassigned out of family court, but not before she had cost me an insane amount of money. Also I had to pay both sides' attorneys even though my spouse was in control of half the assets. Insanely bad system and I've been told that California's is one of the more neutral.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  The flipside of this is that most judges and lawyers do not want to work family court, for various understandable reasons. My guess is that, much like Reddit mods, there's a subset of judges who are willing to tolerate family court bullshit in order to push their agenda, and they're the ones who wind up staying. This is on top of the more general issues caused by gating access to justice behind a bunch of really expensive professionals with student loans to pay off, of course.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  when they say California is more neutral, that just means the wife can be a sex worker who smokes weed and that won't automatically invalidate her character, claims, or cause child protective services to descend upon your lives. and its bad that other states would without more information, I just wouldn't take that to mean California is anything progressive with regards to men, which maybe makes your experience make more sense.

bigbillheck 3y ago

> Divorce courts are very anti-men. Dudes have been saying this for a long time but I've never seen any argument as to why that actually holds up to scrutiny.

svnt 3y ago
My ex-wife was able to avoid answering any question that would have made her look bad by breaking down crying and saying the proceedings were too stressful. Try that as a man and see where it gets you.
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  I wonder what her side of the story would be, and what might be left out of this accounting.
  - friend_and_foe 3y ago
    Suppose nothing. Would it still be believable? If so there you go, you got what you asked for.
  - svnt 3y ago
    I see why you can’t find any counter-examples: you’re using all your mental abilities to support your predetermined conclusion.

Analemma_ 3y ago

When people actually do the accounting and add up the expenses incurred by raising a child, the conclusion is invariably that child support payments are not enough and, if anything, should be higher. The problem here is that divorce, by its nature, destroys a tremendous amount of wealth. Because there are a bunch of assets which can no longer be shared, the total amount of cash needed to raise a child goes way up after a divorce happens. This, not anti-male bias, is the reason why both parties feel screwed by child support: the men feel like they're getting bled dry (because they are) while the women feel like they're still not being made whole (because they're not). It's a thorny problem but it's not made easier by griping about bias. When thinking about child support payments, take as your foundational axiom "divorce destroys a bunch of wealth and makes both parties poorer on average; there is probably no solution that doesn't make both people feel fucked over."

trealira 3y ago

> Divorce courts are very anti-men. Why do you say that they're anti-men? > Many men get lifes destroyed due to insane "child support" payments which are totaly out of bounds for what "child support" should be. Why are they out of bounds? What would make a reasonable child support payment service?