5 ms·

> You'll notice that the child custody/support and alimony system are grotesquely biased against men This is probably the exact reason why so many of my male A

> You'll notice that the child custody/support and alimony system are grotesquely biased against men This is probably the exact reason why so many of my male American friends in the tech industry seem unhappy and depressed in their marriages. I'm guessing they want to leave, but don't want to get sued by their lower-earning spouse for half of everything they have earned so far. There really should be a "Do this, not that" guide for people entering marriage in the US to protect their wealth from possible divorce theft by spouses who have "become accustomed to" a certain lifestyle and want to try and coast on your money for as long as possible. (In fact, if people here have gone through such experiences, I would love to hear their suggestions). Chris Rock puts it crudely but truly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAmeW8bq08k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAmeW8bq08k This is when women have a similar experience (notice the resulting sympathy from the audience): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xCXuvdAywg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xCXuvdAywg

mg1982 12y ago
Perhaps Bill Burr was more succinct? Gold digging whores are wife beaters to men. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gaYyNk7QA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gaYyNk7QA
- parennoob 12y ago
  Could you indicate somewhere that it is comedy (although there are some good points about stereotyping buried in the crudities)? Otherwise this looks like you're angrily using crude and offensive language.
  - stefantalpalaru 12y ago
    It's social critique under the guise of comedy. Get used to it. The more the society moves towards authoritarianism, the more subjects will be limited to this form of benign public discourse.
rustynails 12y ago
According to Wikipedia, for high income earners, the divorce rate after 10 years is 23%... Or about 1 in 4. If I understand correctly, the idea is that the separation should be equitable (which makes sense as you were building a life together). However, this varies if there are kids involved. I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender. You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%), or You are suffering confirmation bias. None of my friends have divorced - but that's luck more than anything else.
- parennoob 12y ago
  > I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender. This will not be equitable both ways, since women elect to marry men who make more than them more often than the reverse. This NPR program (http://www.npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wives-earn-more-than-husbands http://www.npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wi...) says that the percentage of wives who earn more than husbands is ~38%, which I guess is an encouraging trend though. > You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%) I specifically said that they stay in their marriages, (albeit unhappy), which is exactly the point. Low income marriages are easier to dissolve, it's harder when you have half a million in the bank.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > since women elect to marry men who make more than them more often than the reverse That's mostly a function of income disparity, not of personal choice.
    - parennoob 12y ago
      Should individuals be punished for income disparity that is a larger function of society? Imagine this in the context of a business relationship. You put $200k into the business every year, your (female) partner puts in $60k. If for some reason after 10 years the business goes south, will the fairest way to distribute the resulting assets and liabilities be in a 50:50 ratio because there is an income disparity in the broader society? [Admittedly my analogy is imperfect, but hopefully there's a point in there.]
bayesianhorse 12y ago
That perspective sounds a bit male. Women do give up most of their career perspectives up when deciding to raise children. And part of that even applies to women who don't ever want children, just because employers assume they COULD get pregnant at some point. At least some bias in favor of mothers should be "fair". And keep in mind, it should not be male singles who decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law...
- NotableAlamode 12y ago
  (1) Why are you criticising a perspective for being male? (2) The majority of women do not give up on their career. They voluntarily choose to escape the rat race that and lead a life mostly of leisure. There is nothing in biology that prevents women from going back to work the day after delivery and letting the father look after the children. Some even do ... bless them. Looking after children is not work, it's quite pleasant, much more pleasant than slaving away in the modern american corporation: no deadlines, no bosses threatening to fire, no backstabbing colleagues. If you don't enjoy hanging out with your children, then probably you should not have any and would not be a good parent. Modern technology (hoovers, microwave, washing machines etc) has automated away everything that was unpleasant about running a household, leaving what is essentially a form of long-term holiday, paid for by hubby. This is the primary reason for alimony: allowing women to stay on paid-for long-term holiday, and it's also the reason why men work so much more then women, because they have to. Look at alimony more progressive countries, e.g. Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_in_Sweden#Maintenance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_in_Sweden#Maintena.... (3) Why should there be "some bias in favor of mothers"? That sounds pretty sexist. (4) Why should not "male singles [...] decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law"? After all they are forced to foot the bill. Is there some metaphysical law in place that grants women exclusive rights to decide in matters of family and sexuality?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    (4) Why should not "male singles [...] decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law"? After all they are forced to foot the bill. Is there some metaphysical law in place that grants women exclusive rights to decide in matters of family and sexuality? I agree, but that's already the case, since virtually all legislators are men.
NotableAlamode 12y ago
> here really should be a "Do this, not that" guide ... There should be, but this would only be doctoring the symptoms. The real solution is to abolish the ridiculous, sexist/misandric alimony laws. In the past there was some good point to them, but they have all been made obsolete by technological development (contraception, pregnancy loosing its medical dangers, societal changes). The only acceptable (default) rule is no alimony, and 50/50 shared custody of children. In order for such a long-overdue legal change to happen, men must use their vote. The majority of women will be against such a change since the current legal arrangement benefits them so disproportionally, so men will face stiff opposition.
- moe 12y ago
  If you're so scared of women and the laws protecting them, why don't you just stick to gay marriage or refrain from marrying at all?
  - onnoonno 12y ago
    Did he say anywhere that he is gay? If he is neither gay nor bisexual, gay marriage is obviously not an option for him. And heterosexual marriage looks more and more like a really stupid idea for guys, with no visible benefit. I guess that is his point?
onnoonno 12y ago
Why marry at all? I mean, seriously, what is the advantage?
- DanBC 12y ago
  In England: There's no such thing as "common law wife" or "common law husband", so marriage gives the spouse important legal rights that are trickier to get if the couple remain unmarried.

mg1982 12y ago

Perhaps Bill Burr was more succinct? Gold digging whores are wife beaters to men. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gaYyNk7QA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0gaYyNk7QA

parennoob 12y ago
Could you indicate somewhere that it is comedy (although there are some good points about stereotyping buried in the crudities)? Otherwise this looks like you're angrily using crude and offensive language.
- stefantalpalaru 12y ago
  It's social critique under the guise of comedy. Get used to it. The more the society moves towards authoritarianism, the more subjects will be limited to this form of benign public discourse.

rustynails 12y ago

According to Wikipedia, for high income earners, the divorce rate after 10 years is 23%... Or about 1 in 4. If I understand correctly, the idea is that the separation should be equitable (which makes sense as you were building a life together). However, this varies if there are kids involved. I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender. You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%), or You are suffering confirmation bias. None of my friends have divorced - but that's luck more than anything else.

parennoob 12y ago
> I fully support this if it works both ways, ie. Regardless of gender. This will not be equitable both ways, since women elect to marry men who make more than them more often than the reverse. This NPR program (http://www.npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wives-earn-more-than-husbands http://www.npr.org/2015/02/08/384695833/what-happens-when-wi...) says that the percentage of wives who earn more than husbands is ~38%, which I guess is an encouraging trend though. > You are either surrounded by friends with low income (who divorce at 44%) I specifically said that they stay in their marriages, (albeit unhappy), which is exactly the point. Low income marriages are easier to dissolve, it's harder when you have half a million in the bank.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > since women elect to marry men who make more than them more often than the reverse That's mostly a function of income disparity, not of personal choice.
  - parennoob 12y ago
    Should individuals be punished for income disparity that is a larger function of society? Imagine this in the context of a business relationship. You put $200k into the business every year, your (female) partner puts in $60k. If for some reason after 10 years the business goes south, will the fairest way to distribute the resulting assets and liabilities be in a 50:50 ratio because there is an income disparity in the broader society? [Admittedly my analogy is imperfect, but hopefully there's a point in there.]

bayesianhorse 12y ago

That perspective sounds a bit male. Women do give up most of their career perspectives up when deciding to raise children. And part of that even applies to women who don't ever want children, just because employers assume they COULD get pregnant at some point. At least some bias in favor of mothers should be "fair". And keep in mind, it should not be male singles who decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law...

NotableAlamode 12y ago
(1) Why are you criticising a perspective for being male? (2) The majority of women do not give up on their career. They voluntarily choose to escape the rat race that and lead a life mostly of leisure. There is nothing in biology that prevents women from going back to work the day after delivery and letting the father look after the children. Some even do ... bless them. Looking after children is not work, it's quite pleasant, much more pleasant than slaving away in the modern american corporation: no deadlines, no bosses threatening to fire, no backstabbing colleagues. If you don't enjoy hanging out with your children, then probably you should not have any and would not be a good parent. Modern technology (hoovers, microwave, washing machines etc) has automated away everything that was unpleasant about running a household, leaving what is essentially a form of long-term holiday, paid for by hubby. This is the primary reason for alimony: allowing women to stay on paid-for long-term holiday, and it's also the reason why men work so much more then women, because they have to. Look at alimony more progressive countries, e.g. Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_in_Sweden#Maintenance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_in_Sweden#Maintena.... (3) Why should there be "some bias in favor of mothers"? That sounds pretty sexist. (4) Why should not "male singles [...] decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law"? After all they are forced to foot the bill. Is there some metaphysical law in place that grants women exclusive rights to decide in matters of family and sexuality?
- icebraining 12y ago
  (4) Why should not "male singles [...] decide what is and isn't fair in divorce law"? After all they are forced to foot the bill. Is there some metaphysical law in place that grants women exclusive rights to decide in matters of family and sexuality? I agree, but that's already the case, since virtually all legislators are men.

NotableAlamode 12y ago

> here really should be a "Do this, not that" guide ... There should be, but this would only be doctoring the symptoms. The real solution is to abolish the ridiculous, sexist/misandric alimony laws. In the past there was some good point to them, but they have all been made obsolete by technological development (contraception, pregnancy loosing its medical dangers, societal changes). The only acceptable (default) rule is no alimony, and 50/50 shared custody of children. In order for such a long-overdue legal change to happen, men must use their vote. The majority of women will be against such a change since the current legal arrangement benefits them so disproportionally, so men will face stiff opposition.

moe 12y ago
If you're so scared of women and the laws protecting them, why don't you just stick to gay marriage or refrain from marrying at all?
- onnoonno 12y ago
  Did he say anywhere that he is gay? If he is neither gay nor bisexual, gay marriage is obviously not an option for him. And heterosexual marriage looks more and more like a really stupid idea for guys, with no visible benefit. I guess that is his point?

onnoonno 12y ago

Why marry at all? I mean, seriously, what is the advantage?

DanBC 12y ago
In England: There's no such thing as "common law wife" or "common law husband", so marriage gives the spouse important legal rights that are trickier to get if the couple remain unmarried.