6 ms·

Partially related to having a family becoming more risky for men. If you are not protected in case of a separation, you are less likely to want to commit to a f

by M8 11y ago

Partially related to having a family becoming more risky for men. If you are not protected in case of a separation, you are less likely to want to commit to a family. If there is no family, there is less motivation to earn more.

andreyf 11y ago
What do you mean by "not protected in case of a separation"?
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  He's referring to the fact that men lose a significant portion (usually half, sometimes more) of their financial assets during divorce. Protection in this case refers to signing certain agreements before or during marriage.
  - mrybczyn 11y ago
    Also, they always lose custody of their children, one of the main points of marriage...
    - huxley 11y ago
      No, in fact it's becoming less common as time goes on. In the US by 2008, maternal sole-custody had declined to 42% of custodial arrangements (from 80% in 1986), while equal shared custody rose to 27% (from 5%). http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/05/22/joint-custody-becoming-the-norm/70199.html http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/05/22/joint-custody-becomi...
      - tomjen3 11y ago
        That is still a huge risk though. I mean fair enough if the guy is abusive but if she simply runs of and finds somebody else that is not something I want to risk my children over. And I have seen too many people at work struggling with ugly divorces.
    - kidsthesedays 11y ago
      Complete BS. I've known many men who have sole or primary custody of their children including my sister in law's former husband. I also grew up with some kids who lived with the dads most of the time. This meme has to end because it isn't true. Sure, maybe most of the time the woman gets it but always is a complete lie.
      - enraged_camel 11y ago
        You missed the point entirely. The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father. That's why women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time, and the only time they don't is when there's seriously wrong with them (e.g. abusive, mentally ill, etc.).
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father. That's why women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time Or, the vast majority of the time, men use custody of the children as a bargaining chip to secure a better financial settlement, which is why they mostly don't end up with custody. In contested divorces, there may be a presumption operating that the person who acted as the primary caregiver is most suitable custodial parent, and traditional gender roles means that that will often be the mother. But that's not a gender-based assumption, that's a gender-neutral assumption applied to facts that happen to be influenced by traditional gender roles. Now, if men who were the primary caregiver during marriage were generally losing custody in contested custody proceedings, that would be a different story.
        kidsthesedays 11y ago
        I do wonder sometimes if men give up primary custody on purpose because they are afraid society won't think they are manly enough or something like that? I mean, pure hypothesis on my part.
        11y ago
  - andreyf 11y ago
    Assets in a marriage belong to the legal union of two people, so it's not surprising that everyone loses roughly half of what they co-owned. Is there a law somewhere which is preferential for one gender over another in divorce? The separation of assets depends on a lot of factors, but gender is not one of them, afaik.
    - atomicUpdate 11y ago
      That's assuming both sides brought an equal amount of equity to the union in the first place. However, if the man brings more to the union (which I suppose is typically the case, based on this fear existing in the first place), he stands to lose more when it dissolves. The obvious solution is to separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place, though I'm sure that's much easier said than done (and a bit of an oversimplification of most situations).
      - andreyf 11y ago
        separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place The convincing argument I've heard against that is that it gives someone leverage to keep their partner in a relationship against their will, once they are used to a certain standard of living they can't have on their own. If someone with significant assets marries someone living paycheck to paycheck, for example. If you don't want to merge your equity with someone, either don't marry them or sign a prenup. I don't think people with significant net worth go into marriages without understanding what they're doing. Also, the original logic that any of this will have anything to do with a man's willingness to work seems really quite over-stretched.
jkyle 11y ago
I think unicorns are also playing a role. Unicorns are monopolizing rainbows and without rainbows men cannot find the will to work. Both of our comments are completely random, uncited, and not even mentioned in the article.
- A_COMPUTER 11y ago
  Some men will get stable work so they can sustain a family. If they don't think it's worth it to have a family, maybe they don't care as much about having a stable job. And more men are deciding it's not worth it. I don't know if it's true, but I can see the connection. I would be doing things a lot differently if I didn't have people I needed to take care of.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
I find that a pretty suspect statement, and I'm not sure I've ever encountered any man who's decided to avoid starting a family for that reason.
- throwawayaway 11y ago
  nice to meet you, might not tell you in person though. that sort of info can wreak havoc - i hope you understand.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  The numbers are there to support it. I don't believe it's getting widespread coverage because it's considered anti-feminist to believe that women want to find a man to marry or have kids. Look at how Joss Whedon was thrashed for having Black Widow even suggest that. Check out "Men on Strike" by Helen Smith. She highlights the trends and proposed a number of theories to explain it.
  - bruceb 11y ago
    "...it's considered anti-feminist to believe that women want to find a man to marry or have kids." Where is this said? Straw man runs wild.
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      Let's test this. Tweet something like: "I believe most women want to find a man to marry and have kids" and please share your responses.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - bruceb 11y ago
        If you say it like it is the ONLY thing women want but saying part of most women's life plan is to find a man to marry and have kids, very few people will disagree.
brc 11y ago
I know you're getting marked down for this, but I have read other articles talking about the withdrawal of men from the dating/marriage marketplace. I think it is a growing phenomonen for men to drop out like that.
- mrev19 11y ago
  True. See the 'MWGTOW' (Men Who Go Their Own Way) movement, as well as 'the red pill' community. Also search 'sexodus'.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 11y ago
That is a concern for me, but I don't know if that is widespread (enough for people to not start a family over it) but I am concerned that it is one of those memes that could hit a tresshold and spread very rapidly, (don't date robots comes to mind). That said my treckrecord of predicting the future isn't very good.

by M8 11y ago

andreyf 11y ago

What do you mean by "not protected in case of a separation"?

enraged_camel 11y ago
He's referring to the fact that men lose a significant portion (usually half, sometimes more) of their financial assets during divorce. Protection in this case refers to signing certain agreements before or during marriage.
- mrybczyn 11y ago
  Also, they always lose custody of their children, one of the main points of marriage...
  - huxley 11y ago
    No, in fact it's becoming less common as time goes on. In the US by 2008, maternal sole-custody had declined to 42% of custodial arrangements (from 80% in 1986), while equal shared custody rose to 27% (from 5%). http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/05/22/joint-custody-becoming-the-norm/70199.html http://psychcentral.com/news/2014/05/22/joint-custody-becomi...
    - tomjen3 11y ago
      That is still a huge risk though. I mean fair enough if the guy is abusive but if she simply runs of and finds somebody else that is not something I want to risk my children over. And I have seen too many people at work struggling with ugly divorces.
  - kidsthesedays 11y ago
    Complete BS. I've known many men who have sole or primary custody of their children including my sister in law's former husband. I also grew up with some kids who lived with the dads most of the time. This meme has to end because it isn't true. Sure, maybe most of the time the woman gets it but always is a complete lie.
    - enraged_camel 11y ago
      You missed the point entirely. The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father. That's why women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time, and the only time they don't is when there's seriously wrong with them (e.g. abusive, mentally ill, etc.).
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > The contention is society's automatic assumption that it's better to give custody of children to the mother, as opposed to the father. That's why women end up with the kids the vast majority of the time Or, the vast majority of the time, men use custody of the children as a bargaining chip to secure a better financial settlement, which is why they mostly don't end up with custody. In contested divorces, there may be a presumption operating that the person who acted as the primary caregiver is most suitable custodial parent, and traditional gender roles means that that will often be the mother. But that's not a gender-based assumption, that's a gender-neutral assumption applied to facts that happen to be influenced by traditional gender roles. Now, if men who were the primary caregiver during marriage were generally losing custody in contested custody proceedings, that would be a different story.
        kidsthesedays 11y ago
        I do wonder sometimes if men give up primary custody on purpose because they are afraid society won't think they are manly enough or something like that? I mean, pure hypothesis on my part.
      - 11y ago
- andreyf 11y ago
  Assets in a marriage belong to the legal union of two people, so it's not surprising that everyone loses roughly half of what they co-owned. Is there a law somewhere which is preferential for one gender over another in divorce? The separation of assets depends on a lot of factors, but gender is not one of them, afaik.
  - atomicUpdate 11y ago
    That's assuming both sides brought an equal amount of equity to the union in the first place. However, if the man brings more to the union (which I suppose is typically the case, based on this fear existing in the first place), he stands to lose more when it dissolves. The obvious solution is to separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place, though I'm sure that's much easier said than done (and a bit of an oversimplification of most situations).
    - andreyf 11y ago
      separate the assets proportionally based on how much was put into it in the first place The convincing argument I've heard against that is that it gives someone leverage to keep their partner in a relationship against their will, once they are used to a certain standard of living they can't have on their own. If someone with significant assets marries someone living paycheck to paycheck, for example. If you don't want to merge your equity with someone, either don't marry them or sign a prenup. I don't think people with significant net worth go into marriages without understanding what they're doing. Also, the original logic that any of this will have anything to do with a man's willingness to work seems really quite over-stretched.

jkyle 11y ago

I think unicorns are also playing a role. Unicorns are monopolizing rainbows and without rainbows men cannot find the will to work. Both of our comments are completely random, uncited, and not even mentioned in the article.

A_COMPUTER 11y ago
Some men will get stable work so they can sustain a family. If they don't think it's worth it to have a family, maybe they don't care as much about having a stable job. And more men are deciding it's not worth it. I don't know if it's true, but I can see the connection. I would be doing things a lot differently if I didn't have people I needed to take care of.

matthewmacleod 11y ago

I find that a pretty suspect statement, and I'm not sure I've ever encountered any man who's decided to avoid starting a family for that reason.

throwawayaway 11y ago
nice to meet you, might not tell you in person though. that sort of info can wreak havoc - i hope you understand.
caseysoftware 11y ago
The numbers are there to support it. I don't believe it's getting widespread coverage because it's considered anti-feminist to believe that women want to find a man to marry or have kids. Look at how Joss Whedon was thrashed for having Black Widow even suggest that. Check out "Men on Strike" by Helen Smith. She highlights the trends and proposed a number of theories to explain it.
- bruceb 11y ago
  "...it's considered anti-feminist to believe that women want to find a man to marry or have kids." Where is this said? Straw man runs wild.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    Let's test this. Tweet something like: "I believe most women want to find a man to marry and have kids" and please share your responses.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - bruceb 11y ago
      If you say it like it is the ONLY thing women want but saying part of most women's life plan is to find a man to marry and have kids, very few people will disagree.

brc 11y ago

I know you're getting marked down for this, but I have read other articles talking about the withdrawal of men from the dating/marriage marketplace. I think it is a growing phenomonen for men to drop out like that.

mrev19 11y ago
True. See the 'MWGTOW' (Men Who Go Their Own Way) movement, as well as 'the red pill' community. Also search 'sexodus'.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tomjen3 11y ago

That is a concern for me, but I don't know if that is widespread (enough for people to not start a family over it) but I am concerned that it is one of those memes that could hit a tresshold and spread very rapidly, (don't date robots comes to mind). That said my treckrecord of predicting the future isn't very good.