Got it Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 90%+ of alimony and child support is paid by men to women - because the law is not written for gender. No. Because it is usually the female that has taken a career hit to raise children. Child support goes to the primary caregiver. If you and your wife agree that she will stay home to raise the kids, then you are responsible for her lack of earning potential. So if more men pushed to stay at home, you would see a change in spousal awards. 4
Got it Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 90%+ of alimony and child support is paid by men to women - because the law is not written for gender. Since facts are messy things, are to cite your 90%? Child Support Statistics and Trends - FindLaw https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22499.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf Dispelling The Myth Of Gender Bias In The Family Court System | Cathy Meyer
Iron Bubba Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Why should I want to get married when there is absolutely no benefit to me? In America women are just more valued than men. Sorry, but I will not be married. It is entirely a one way relationship, both legally and personally, and I want something better.
Iron Bubba Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Why should I want to get married when there is absolutely no benefit to me? In America women are just more valued than men. Sorry, but I will not be married. It is entirely a one way relationship, both legally and personally, and I want something better. You might want to check out this website. RealSexism.com - Sexism against men is Real Sexism. But I'm sure some can't be bothered because women are more important than men. I'm tired of this never ending argument and want real equality and respect.
Shining One Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The law as written is not gender biased. The results may not seem that way, but that's due to our current societal norms. Many women tend to date up (financially) while men tend to date down (again, financially). The end result is that men will end up paying more often. Many of my close friends have been married and divorced. In all but one of the cases, the higher earner is paying alimony. One of the female VP's at work has full custody and is paying alimony to her ex-husband due to the very significant differences in their incomes. The logical conclusion: If you don't want to take the financial risk, make sure you're not the higher earner in your marriage. To answer the original question, I would not cohabitate (to avoid common law) or marry a woman who earns significantly less than me. We can have a perpetual, committed relationship, but nothing legally binding. If she came into money, marriage would be on the table. It's not that I want to get my hands on her money (and I would be okay with a pre-nup to that affect), I just don't want to get screwed on alimony. 2
Iron Bubba Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 At the risk of spam, I think nobody wants to check out the Real Sexism Project website. This is my last post to avoid being a spammer. I apologize if this comes across as spam, it truly is not meant to.
Got it Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Yes - you greatly caution women about financial dependence on men but pity men for their views on being financially dependent on women. Umm, no I didn't. I think you really need to reread. I wrote that I support it.
Iron Bubba Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 In truth nobody should be financially dependent upon ANYBODY. They should be able to have a financial means for themselves. For example, what happens if that person leaves the dependent or dies? Sorry, but leaving people out in the cold like that is just not fair.
Got it Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 You know what's funny? A woman can decide to terminate the life of the child and the man has zero say in the matter. Her body, her choice. But if she decides to have the child - even if the man doesn't want it - he's forced by law to pay for it. Funny how that works - is it not? Then it becomes "Her body - his lack of choice and all his money". What if the wife decides to just stop working or suddenly and mysteriously can't find a job? Can the husband then just divorce her - free from any further financial burden to her if she wins custody of the kids? See - that's not a choice. That's called legal extortion - which is how my mother and both of my sisters destroyed their husband's lives. How about joint custody so that neither party has to pay child support? How about a new rule that says if you quit working and later divorce your husband - your husband isn't going to be held legally responsible for supporting you financially - unless you can show he forced you to quit working? Betcha lots of women would decide not to quit working at that point - wouldn't you agree? 1. Yes if we carry it we do get to decide, up to the state laws, on if we abort, how late, etc. I guess that is a "perk" for us. Lucky women. 2. Yes, if a wife quits her job a man can divorce for that. Depending on the state you can divorce for almost any reason. And yes, her financial earnings will of course be taken into consideration. Now if you are asking about child support, well that depends on who is primary caregiver. If the wife is decided to be then you have to pay for your kids. This is not monies that are going to the spouse but for the care of the kids. I struggle to see why this is a bad thing? My husband pays about 5K a month, which he agreed in mediation, to pay as well as alimony until the youngest is 22. We both support this as it is for the betterment of the kids as well as supporting his ex wife due to her lack of earning capability due to raising the kids. 3. How would you show this? What is the time period? How would this make sense if we are taking 10+ years later. Why, again, would he not have to financially pay if both agreed to her not working and then he or she later wants to divorce? So you think handicapping women in staying in a marriage because they can't start divorce if they want alimony due to their lack of working? Makes as much sense as other conservative beliefs. No, if you do not want a financial concern then you should clearly lay out the need for both parties to work, or even more, you/male be the primary caregiver. Then this won't be a concern at all for you. You will get to have the joy of being the day to day person to raise your kids and your wife can be the breadwinner. If you are in a marriage, and your wife quits, and you do nothing if that is not what you want, then you are considered tacitly agreeing. Don't tacitly agree if this is a dealbreaker.
Got it Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 In truth nobody should be financially dependent upon ANYBODY. They should be able to have a financial means for themselves. For example, what happens if that person leaves the dependent or dies? Sorry, but leaving people out in the cold like that is just not fair. Sure but many couples agree that one person raising the kids, and being home with them, is a better ROI than having both work. Due to the salary potential of both, childcare, concerns about who is raising the kids, then it is better to have one home. It becomes a problem when suddenly the worker is no longer seeing a union and wanting to severe all ties without accountability for their agreement. Personally, I agree. I think not working is a major liability for anyone, male and female. With the divorce rate, increase over the last decade of corporate reorganization, downsizing, etc. it is very easy for someone to suddenly be out of a job. So what does the family do? What if the breadwinner becomes injuried and needs to be cared for? How does someone jump into the work force and keep the family afloat? It is very hard to do and so personally as a woman the idea leaves me shaking in my boots. I saw lack of options my mother had for wanting/being a stay at home mother. I saw her stuck in a miserable marriage in large part due to financials. I saw how much poor finances impacted my parents marriage. And that left me with life time lessons I don't care to ever emulate. I think alternating "sabbaticals" is in both best interest so that they share equal vulnerability with their resumes as well as an equal share of parental duties so it isn't impact one career more than the other. Realistically this is hard to do and women still carry most of the weight in this area. Each couple needs to make the best decisions for them and that is their personal choice. But, if as a man one is concerned about divorce rulings, this should be discussed in great detail prior to marriage, and during the childbearing period.
Got it Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Though women are now 40% of breadwinners, they represent 97% of alimony recipients. What gives? Why are only 3 percent of alimony recipients men? | Schoenberg Family Law Group, P.C. More men get alimony from their ex-wives | Reuters And here is the shift that it is increasing. Cherry picking articles . . . nice.
Got it Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Yes indeed, facts are messy things. Updated U.S. Custody and Child Support Data (2009) https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/updated-u-s-custody-and-child-support-data-2009/ Sorry but go to the source, not a blogger with an agenda. The actual census both 2009 and 2011 do not support this.
Got it Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Why should I want to get married when there is absolutely no benefit to me? In America women are just more valued than men. Sorry, but I will not be married. It is entirely a one way relationship, both legally and personally, and I want something better. You might want to check out this website. RealSexism.com - Sexism against men is Real Sexism. But I'm sure some can't be bothered because women are more important than men. I'm tired of this never ending argument and want real equality and respect. While I don't agree with this and do not see women being viewed more important. I think that is extremely clear with the impact on women's reproductive rights, and other backlash on women's rights. But absolutely no one is forced to marry. You are free to choose what you want to do. Marriage isn't for everyone and it is absolutely a personal choice. It is far better that someone is clear on that from the get go than not articulating it until after they are married. 1
Author sandylee1 Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 Yes - you greatly caution women about financial dependence on men but pity men for their views on being financially dependent on women. Having more money , does not make someone financially dependant on you. My H earns more than me, but I'm not financially dependant on him and many people with a salary similar to or less than mine are the only earners in the home with kids. I could be wrong, but I think Gotit was saying that the men on this thread are threatened and insecure by women with more money than them. I would never be dependent on a man. I like to buy what I want without answering to anyone and I couldn't do that as a SAHM. What I've found is that if a man was the sole or higher earner and tells his wife not to spend too much, it's okay, but if it's reversed, then the woman is seen as being cheeky and trying to make the man feel small. 1
Got it Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Having more money , does not make someone financially dependant on you. My H earns more than me, but I'm not financially dependant on him and many people with a salary similar to or less than mine are the only earners in the home with kids. I could be wrong, but I think Gotit was saying that the men on this thread are threatened and insecure by women with more money than them. I would never be dependent on a man. I like to buy what I want without answering to anyone and I couldn't do that as a SAHM. What I've found is that if a man was the sole or higher earner and tells his wife not to spend too much, it's okay, but if it's reversed, then the woman is seen as being cheeky and trying to make the man feel small. Thank you, yes. What I don't understand is the same men who are bashing the legal system and the "unfairness" to men in it are some of the same who are saying they could not have a wife earning more than them. How does that make any sense? Get a sugar momma! You don't have to worry about paying alimony, you get treated well and the financial pressure is off of you. Just be eye candy. How is that not a win/win? And I do NOT have anything but respect for men who want to stay at home and raise their kids. My husband is an amazing father, we will see when our baby is born this year, but I suspect probably a better parent than me (he should he has helped raise his kids already). I hope I can give him the ability to stay home and actually relax for the first time since he started working at 14. I know how hard he has worked, the long hours he has put in, the miles he has traveled, and he deserves some time to stop and smell the roses. And I know our child couldn't be in better hands than the privilege of him raising her. And this in no way impacts my respect for his business acumen. He is brilliant in the workforce and his greatest strength is his ability to build teams and motivate people. So industry doesn't matter because the people piece is always there and that makes him a super star. I know whatever he puts his mind to he succeeds at. I aspire every day to be like him. 1
Author sandylee1 Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 Sorry, but I will not be married. But I'm sure some can't be bothered because women are more important than men. I'm tired of this never ending argument and want real equality and respect. The question was only if being fleeced in a divorce was your ONLY reason for not getting married. If you don't like marriage altogether that's different. Marriage isn't for everyone at all. I know some guys who only date women who earn a similar amount to them. They do it to be sure they aren't being 'used' for their cash and so the woman can bring an equal share to everything. If they marry and divorce , they are no worse off financially. Of course there are lawyers fees. Let's not forget why alimony first came about. Where mothers who stayed at home to raise the kids, ended up getting divorced they left the marriage like a pauper and the man had the benefit of grown up kids that the woman sacrificed her career to stay home and look after. Then with no skills she winds up waiting on tables making little money in a poxy little apartment. No gender is more important than the other at all. Even in the countries that prefer male children , how could they have sons without women. It's ludicrous.
RoseVille Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't common law marriage apply in most states now? Most states? Nope. Only a handful.
Iron Bubba Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Alimony came from the case of Lee Marvin's live in girlfriend. I just hate marriage because there is a lot of abusive crap and usually one person dominating the other, and there is no benefit to it for men. So I will not get married
preraph Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 If I won the lottery, I wouldn't marry anyone. I'd get on a plane and travel. I sure wouldn't risk losing it to someone else spending it or getting it upon divorce.
Popsicle Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Real life example: Giada De Laurentiis. She and her guy were together (living together) for 10 years before she became famous. 10 years! He never proposed in that time. Then she becomes famous and he proposes, wants to get married then. 1
Arieswoman Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I think that indeed, no man should date or marry a woman that's more successful than he is, unless he's 200% comfortable with it. I agree 100% ^^^^ I know a girl who is a solicitor. She's in work at 8.00.am each morning and not back until 7.00.pm Her husband who is a joiner(carpenter) get the kids their breakfast, and takes them to school. He picks them up from school later that day and gives them a meal. Then he baths them and gets them ready for bed. When she gets back she reads them a story and they go to bed. They have a big house, 2 cars, 2 holidays abroad a year, gardener, cleaner etc etc. Whatever floats your boat I suppose Works for them. 1
Got it Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 If I won the lottery, I wouldn't marry anyone. I'd get on a plane and travel. I sure wouldn't risk losing it to someone else spending it or getting it upon divorce. I guess I am surprised by this. I don't see what the big deal is with money. I mean, I like it, I like what I can do with it but I also know what it is like to not have it and know it doesn't define my life. This is interesting to me because in my family's estate planning I will be coming into an extremely large sum of monies. I will be able to decide what my blood descendants will get, and whether or not (and to what degree) my stepkids and husband would get especially in regards to divorce. And I am struggling to see why I would want it to differ. Shoot I am considering having in my will some monies go to my ex husband. We spent a long time together, he was there when my family was just making their money and he deserves a share even if it is decades away. It isn't something I think much about or let it impact my life. But will need to do my estate planning shortly so it has come up. Money is there for security and fun. Outside of that I don't care. Most of my life has been spent without it so not having it isn't some unknown. I guess I far more expect to not have money than to have it.
Author sandylee1 Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 If I won the lottery, I wouldn't marry anyone. I'd get on a plane and travel. I sure wouldn't risk losing it to someone else spending it or getting it upon divorce. If I had all the money in the world, with no man (husband) and children/family to share it with, I wouldn't be happy Money on it's own won't make you happy. 3
Got it Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I have to give props to that guy. If he could look at that cleavage every day and not be inspired to propose he is a better man than I. Or a much dumber man . . .
Popsicle Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Or a much dumber man . . . She should have dumped him back in year 2 or 3 when he wouldn't marry her. 1
Recommended Posts