Tiberius Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 I noticed more men seem to be filing for divorce. While the wife usually files after a good while, 10 years +, men file after under 10 years mostly. What is behind that? Is it truly men whom are unhappy in the marriage, or are men so biased towards marriage and divorce, that they feel a divorce is not an if but an when and that the ideal time to divorce is after they built a good relationship to their children, but not to drag out the marriage so long that the ex wife is entitled to a lot in the divorce.
carhill Posted October 16, 2012 Posted October 16, 2012 I tried to find some credible statistics to support that premise, but was unsuccessful. In our jurisdiction, who files first only matters if the action is uncontested, since the person who files can submit motions to the court for ruling and the respondent has no standing once the period to answer has run. Otherwise, the process is by agreement or adjudication, generally following gender-neutral statutes. If the man and woman are 'equals' and, increasingly, they are, in terms of assets, income and custody, then who files first would progress to being merely an expression of ego. We're not there quite yet, here anyway, but getting there. I would feel more confident about filing for divorce in the future, having been through the process, something I wouldn't have said prior to going through that process. Our filing was by agreement but I will admit to some trepidation over making the choice, had it swung to my direction. What is behind it, if true? Equality. Ownership. Responsibility. Making a choice and moving forward. Men see value in those aspects of relationships, increasingly, and are less fearful/anxious/anticipative of the outcome, IMO. The mating dance has evolved, much like other aspects of societal relations, and people don't see things as a 'forever' investment anymore. It is what it is. If it doesn't work out, proactively move on to the next iteration.
trippi1432 Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 If you read Askmen.com and Redbook for women, you can get a good laugh out of what the media circus says men and women under 30 should be demanding..a selfish world they live in...divorce stats flourish. So anyone would wonder why children are raised in a divorce world..why daughters go without a father, why sons go without a mother in their lives to raise them. Some parents think that their child is done being raised at about age 12, then it is safe for them to debark on their own selfish endeavors..some children go on hoping that the world is not like that, that there are people who would walk through the flames of life to keep their family together..but that is just Hollywood anymore. Ownership, responsibility and accountability is typically left to the parent who doesn't leave the kid(s) in the pile of the aftermath....by the age of 12, being left is a lesson learned hard. 2
carhill Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 It would be instructive to collate initial filings by male parents to the final outcomes regarding custody, visitation and support. Those aspects could be quantified. More nebulous is the 'quality' of parenting, relevant to who files first, along with the children's QOL, resultant education and career and family life. My anecdotes are all over the place; a smattering of men who filed first and received primary custody, to more 'traditional' divorces with the mother receiving primary and the father only brief visitations, to those with joint custody, either by court order or agreement. I've seen no clear pattern in those samples, and most of the kids are now adults, many married with children of their own. Some are basket cases; some married many years, some divorced, some criminals, some pillars of the community. Mixed bag.
trippi1432 Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 Wouldn't know Carhill, I was in court with my daddy when he claimed custody......anyone want to be claimed chattle? Especially when you have parents going through their own ****?
trippi1432 Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 It still amazes me how parents fight who is the most fit parent and the whole "he said, she said" crap when custody was determined by where the kid live as far back to the 80's. Tib ~ get over it. Most of the time, kids at the age of 12 know their parents are screwed up to be honest...they are just out to take what they know and leave you adults to your crap.
riverratt Posted October 17, 2012 Posted October 17, 2012 The divorces I know seem to be about 50/50 on who files. I filed because I felt it would be the best thing for me after she left. To many things have come to light and still are. Like starting rumors to remove attention from her own situation. I don't respond to them. I will not play that game. I am an adult, not some high school kid. Our son is 12 and he is doing ok. He is very mature for his age and he does notice things. We have a very close relationship. I have made it a point not to blame his mom for leaving. I see no need to say negative things about her to or in front of him. I actually don't to anyone anyway. We have joint custody. No support paid by either of us. The visitation is informal. Meaning that we don't keep score on how many days he is at any one persons house. He does spend more time with me because we do so much together. He would rather be home because the things he likes to do are at home. Riding four wheelers, shooting etc. Not because he doesn't love his mom but because he is a kid and his interests are hard to do at an apartment complex. 1
Author Tiberius Posted October 18, 2012 Author Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I just noticed that some men already have it all planned out. Get married, get her preggers and divorce after 5 or 6 years, so she does not get access to my best earning years and I still get to have children. Apparently there are people entering marriages already planing a divorce with the woman looking for a resourcefull hookup being the more traditional setup, but as a reaction to that, many men seem to be looking on cheap ways to reproduce, by getting out of a marriage with children before they earned significant assets for example. Edited October 18, 2012 by Tiberius
carhill Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Perhaps such examples are considered reactions to the current political and judiciary climate relevant to men and divorce. If one can't change the laws/interpretation/implementation, one uses other methodologies to achieve one's goals. For myself, contracts and trusts would be my primary vehicles of adaptation, along with remaining 'poor' on paper. I did see some evidence of what you're speaking of, regarding 'resourceful', when my exW suggested we remain married longer so she could collect on my social security earnings. It wasn't until I showed her, in numbers, why that would be an unprofitable pursuit that she gave it up and pushed forward for immediate divorce. It works
Woggle Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 If true I am glad to see it evening out like that. I don't condone walkway spouses of either gender but if men and women are equally doing it things might be more equal in divorce court. I would rather see this than a man caught off guard by a woman who plans it for years then drops the bomb on him.
Author Tiberius Posted October 18, 2012 Author Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Perhaps such examples are considered reactions to the current political and judiciary climate relevant to men and divorce. If one can't change the laws/interpretation/implementation, one uses other methodologies to achieve one's goals. For myself, contracts and trusts would be my primary vehicles of adaptation, along with remaining 'poor' on paper. I did see some evidence of what you're speaking of, regarding 'resourceful', when my exW suggested we remain married longer so she could collect on my social security earnings. It wasn't until I showed her, in numbers, why that would be an unprofitable pursuit that she gave it up and pushed forward for immediate divorce. It works Yeah its a snowball effect. Marriages break down, then the next generation of men realizes, okay, she is the best I can do. This woman has a mother whom took daddy to the cleaners, she does earn far less than I and the laws are what they are. What is the best I can do for me, to have children and stay in toutch with them, but not end up penniless over it Edited October 18, 2012 by Tiberius
Kelemvor Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 The answer is because marriage, in a legal context, largely favors and benefits the woman. The longer the marriage lasts, the more the wife benefits, especially if children are involved. Some states will provide lifelong alimony for marriages lasting 10 years or longer. As much as women like to paint a picture of equality and equal numbers of women who earn a man's salary, I would doubt the true validity of that statement. Even if the wife has a professional career, many choose and even desire to live at home while their children are young and if they choose to work, do it part time. That's not a bad thing and certainly a full time job, but it is logical that they wouldn't want to inject divorce into that scenario which would provide economic uncertainty and familial instability. As someone going through divorce, I can tell you that people change dramatically once those papers are served. They will do and say things you would have never dreamed and extort you in ways you couldn't comprehend beforehand. I fully encourage people to think long and hard about your marriage situation and if there are enough red flags, get out early rather than later. Especially if you are a man. Unfortunately, I live in a state that is not a true "no fault" state and am being extorted until I can force a divorce in a true "no fault" state which involves moving and changing jobs, etc.. This is after a short marriage and with NO children. Who would have thought? My advice to everyone is to imagine your worst case scenario and always be prepared for it. If you are happy, that's great, but if you are unhappy, get out early. For myself, I'll more than likely never marry again, but if I do... I would refuse to do it without an ironclad prenuptial.
Author Tiberius Posted October 19, 2012 Author Posted October 19, 2012 What is the point of a prenuptial in a situation where you are the primary earner by a long shot, when it is even better to cohabit?
carhill Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 The respective income/asset mixes are quantified and wishes of the parties are respected at the inception, subject to periodic update, so that aspect of the divorce process is out in the open, clarified, and in compliance with legal statute. People marry for a myriad of social, religious and legal reasons, some of which are not addressed by cohabiting without signing a marriage license. Although a lawsuit does not need to be prosecuted to end a cohabiting unmarried relationship, such a relationship can be vulnerable to lawsuit if entered into without proper contracts to mitigate that risk. I would hazard a guess that most guys don't like arms-length business negotiations with their girlfriend/fiance, as such can often be a brutal process, with the girlfriend/fiance potentially as an adversary, counter to how men traditionally view women, but IMO this is a process respecting the evolution of women, their roles, their responsibilities, their choices and the consequences of those choices in modern society. If more men are indeed filing for divorce, that's evolution as well, for them.
Author Tiberius Posted October 20, 2012 Author Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) No its just a reaction to the changes laws and them whitnessing more and more women taking advantage of them. Getting divorced while its less bad, after a shorter period of time instead of getting divorced when she is entitled to 50% plus. If men bother with marriage at all that is. More and more skip it and just get the girlfriend preggers and pay their child support and do visitation if they want children. At the same time it is women whom reject men when the marriage is not good for them from a financial point of view, when they are the one with more assets or more income. They dont do this, because they calculate coldly, but because such a man does not make them feel all warm and fuzzy, just like shorter men does not trigger all the good feelings in some women. The result is still the same, less men get married, either because they see it as bad buisness decision, or because they are rejected because they are seen as "lesser" by women whom outearn and/or outown them. Edited October 20, 2012 by Tiberius
Kelemvor Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 What is the point of a prenuptial in a situation where you are the primary earner by a long shot, when it is even better to cohabit? Well, there is no point..really. However, most women will push for a legal and binding marriage contract for all the benefits that it brings to them. They stand to lose much by simply cohabitating, but stand to gain much more by pressuring you for marriage. It is all too easy to do given societal expectations, the ability to manipulate you in a myriad of ways, and from an evolutionary perspective...makes sense when a woman wants maximum security in a situation where she is taking on risk of becoming pregnant and caring for a family and children. The more I think about it... the more it's a quandary for both sexes. Women are much more empowered these days through the feminism movement and women's liberation and are much more on an equal "earning power" playing field with a man. They are taught that they can compete in business and be equal in a man's world, yet they are also taught that they can be perfect mothers and wives and have the best of everything. This is usually not a very realistic picture. They have become sexually liberated through the use of OCPs and are taught that it is acceptable to seek promiscuous behavior in their relationships. The dilemma is that they are frustrated that it takes great efforts to tie a man down and convince him to go forward into a legal arrangement where the woman primarily benefits and he stands to lose much more than she does. The man's dilemma is that he can have his cake and eat it to. He doesn't have to marry if he doesn't want to and if one woman pressures him for marriage and demands it in exchange for sexual relations and affections, he simply ends the relationship and seeks another from the myriad of other women out there. He can essentially delay marriage as long as he wants unless he has an overwhelming desire not to lose a particular woman/relationship and wants to start a family or gives in to pressure from society and family. The problem is that the older he gets and the more relationships he enters, he quickly learns that there is no such thing as the "perfect soul mate" and that one can find very meaningful and loving relationships with a myriad of different women that are all unique in their own way but one doesn't overwhelmingly outshine the others in any large way whatsoever. At least, that's been my experience. I could put you in the middle of virtually any city and you would find someone that you could have a very meaningful and fulfilling relationship with for your entire life. I'm fully in favor of pre nuptials. It allows the best of both worlds for both parties. You can provide the safety and societal expectation of a legal marriage contract and the psychological security and legal benefits that it provides, yet the man can be protected from the gender biased divorce courts. It doesn't even have to be unfair. You can come up with whatever fair arrangement that you imagine and place it in the agreement. Some aren't perfect though and you probably need an attorney very familiar with crafting them. I knew a physician who got screwed on 2 out of 3 but by the 3rd one, he had found the right attorney. Lawyers aren't cheap, but I find them more than worth their weight in gold when you need them.
Author Tiberius Posted October 30, 2012 Author Posted October 30, 2012 The more I think about it... the more it's a quandary for both sexes. Women are much more empowered these days through the feminism movement and women's liberation and are much more on an equal "earning power" playing field with a man. Thats another thing, if women feel they dont have access to a partner whom is socially and financially at the very least their equal, they do not enter a marriage with such a man to begin with. Very smart considering the divorce laws... More often than not it isnt just purely cold calculation, but many women are unable to develope intimate feelings in such a setup. So rather than having more marriages where "the shoe is on the other foot" you simply get more women waiting for "Mr. Right", while the marriages that do occour are a rather traditional setup most of the time.
Recommended Posts