No fault divorce, the man vs bear argument, child support laws, alimony laws, lack of support for abuse against men, etc. There’s plenty to show we don’t value men as much as women.
I personally think that marriage is a scam in the first place. I’ve witness 20 years sweethearts split after 2-3 years of marriage. Dunno what could’ve have changed after.
So I’m staying away of that shit although I’m well aware that is something important for my sweetheart. We’ll have to find a middle term someday. Maybe throw a party with the fam and call it a marriage, I dunno, something like that.
No fault divorce? Just that women initiate 70% of divorces, and they can divorce for any reason, including boredom. And then those other things I mentioned generally come into play next.
A lot of men are staying away from marriage now, and the sentiment I keep hearing is “why would I enter into a legal contract where one party is rewarded for breaking it?”
Wouldn’t it be worse to trap someone in a relationship that they aren’t enjoying? And isn’t it a sign that many women aren’t enjoying their marriage if they initiate 70% of divorces? We should look into why they aren’t happy, not force them to stay when they aren’t.
That’s a problem solving mentality. Some women are not interested in solving problems, they are interested in being excited. The high divorce rate increases with gay female couples and decreases with gay male couples.
Wouldn’t it be worse to trap someone in a relationship that they aren’t enjoying?
What you call trapped, I call commitment. We may as well just not get married then, to do the women the great honor of not trapping them. Especially if there is no upside for men.
I don’t define love by feelings in my tummy, I define it by the actions you take to put someone’s needs ahead of your own. Feelings change by the year, by the week, by the day, by the moment. No stable family will survive if it simply operates based on the whims of emotions.
Well personally, I think the vows you make when you marry should be treated as a contract. I mean it sounds as much like a verbal contract as can possibly exist. Which would make the person who breaks the contract the person at fault.
You may as well say we should get rid of all contracts in general instead of trying to find someone to blame in the event of breach. A noble sentiment, but not particularly practical.
So… just to be clear, if a woman really did not want to be in a marriage with you, you are saying that you would do everything in your power to force her to stay?
So you are saying that if you turn out to be such a bad spouse that you make your partner so miserable that they absolutely have to leave the marriage, then you should get to keep everything and they should get nothing?
It just seems like a lot of work for courts to try and find out which partner made the personal relationship such that it ended, how much of it was from which partner, what was the real personal life of a couple and so on. Just seems a bit ludicrous for a court to be dealing with.
Not all contracts are made equal. But I guess a simple fix would be to have “until one side wants to end the partnership” in there. Though I think isn’t that what the law already says?
It’s all comes down to money and assets. The way it works in the US is, broadly, they get half of your shit unless you signed a prenup.
This is ironically a callback to old school patriarchal structures where a woman divorcing her husband often did not have any marketable skill sets because they were housewives. The courts saw fit to have the husband continue providing for them until they are self supporting- conceptually.
It’s all comes down to money and assets. The way it works in the US is, broadly, they get half of your shit unless you signed a prenup.
That is a weird way of putting it. In a marriage, it is both of your stuff, which is why it is not so unreasonable to divide it equally. Obviously if you have only been married for a day then this is not so just, but I think for this reason that in some localities not everything you own immediately transitions to being co-owned.
This is ironically a callback to old school patriarchal structures where a woman divorcing her husband often did not have any marketable skill sets because they were housewives. The courts saw fit to have the husband continue providing for them until they are self supporting- conceptually.
That is alimony, which is a separate thing that only applies I’m this specific case.
I guess in the sense that men are the default for people sent into war while women very rare are. Dunno what other examples there are
No fault divorce, the man vs bear argument, child support laws, alimony laws, lack of support for abuse against men, etc. There’s plenty to show we don’t value men as much as women.
I personally think that marriage is a scam in the first place. I’ve witness 20 years sweethearts split after 2-3 years of marriage. Dunno what could’ve have changed after.
So I’m staying away of that shit although I’m well aware that is something important for my sweetheart. We’ll have to find a middle term someday. Maybe throw a party with the fam and call it a marriage, I dunno, something like that.
I don’t understand the significance of the first one
No fault divorce? Just that women initiate 70% of divorces, and they can divorce for any reason, including boredom. And then those other things I mentioned generally come into play next.
A lot of men are staying away from marriage now, and the sentiment I keep hearing is “why would I enter into a legal contract where one party is rewarded for breaking it?”
Wouldn’t it be worse to trap someone in a relationship that they aren’t enjoying? And isn’t it a sign that many women aren’t enjoying their marriage if they initiate 70% of divorces? We should look into why they aren’t happy, not force them to stay when they aren’t.
That’s a problem solving mentality. Some women are not interested in solving problems, they are interested in being excited. The high divorce rate increases with gay female couples and decreases with gay male couples.
What you call trapped, I call commitment. We may as well just not get married then, to do the women the great honor of not trapping them. Especially if there is no upside for men.
I don’t define love by feelings in my tummy, I define it by the actions you take to put someone’s needs ahead of your own. Feelings change by the year, by the week, by the day, by the moment. No stable family will survive if it simply operates based on the whims of emotions.
This just sounds like those other things should be fixed instead of trying to find one person to assign blame to in a divorce.
Well personally, I think the vows you make when you marry should be treated as a contract. I mean it sounds as much like a verbal contract as can possibly exist. Which would make the person who breaks the contract the person at fault.
You may as well say we should get rid of all contracts in general instead of trying to find someone to blame in the event of breach. A noble sentiment, but not particularly practical.
So… just to be clear, if a woman really did not want to be in a marriage with you, you are saying that you would do everything in your power to force her to stay?
No I’m saying the person who ends the marriage shouldn’t get anything. And I’m saying you shouldn’t marry someone you would leave.
So you are saying that if you turn out to be such a bad spouse that you make your partner so miserable that they absolutely have to leave the marriage, then you should get to keep everything and they should get nothing?
It just seems like a lot of work for courts to try and find out which partner made the personal relationship such that it ended, how much of it was from which partner, what was the real personal life of a couple and so on. Just seems a bit ludicrous for a court to be dealing with.
Not all contracts are made equal. But I guess a simple fix would be to have “until one side wants to end the partnership” in there. Though I think isn’t that what the law already says?
It’s all comes down to money and assets. The way it works in the US is, broadly, they get half of your shit unless you signed a prenup.
This is ironically a callback to old school patriarchal structures where a woman divorcing her husband often did not have any marketable skill sets because they were housewives. The courts saw fit to have the husband continue providing for them until they are self supporting- conceptually.
That is a weird way of putting it. In a marriage, it is both of your stuff, which is why it is not so unreasonable to divide it equally. Obviously if you have only been married for a day then this is not so just, but I think for this reason that in some localities not everything you own immediately transitions to being co-owned.
That is alimony, which is a separate thing that only applies I’m this specific case.
Are those generally gender-specific?
I think women and children first would be a similar thing