Is there a Misandry bubble?

[professor_frink]

I think you're misunderstanding me, Frinky, or I expressed what I meant badly.
Doesn't my comment above pretty much make the same point you're making re women almost always being advantaged over the bloke?

What I was referring to when I said that no fault divorce is more sensible is a comparison with times that you're probably too young to remember. Back then one party had to be deemed to be "at fault" usually on the basis of adultery. So private investigators would make like Dick Tracy and follow the so called adulterous partner around until they could acquire incriminating evidence which was then submitted to the court.

Often, if a couple had amicably agreed to part, in the absence of any other grounds than a lengthy three year separation, they agreed to a jacked up adultery case where one of them admitted being unfaithful in order to have the divorce through quickly.

It was all very unsavoury and unnecessarily painful all round.
By comparison, today's no fault divorce is way more civilised.
That is quite distinct from the financial arrangements involved.

No misunderstanding Julia(at least I hope). I just can't make a distinction between the divorce and the end result for men afterwards. If the end result didn't leave divorced men broke and suicidal, I'd most likely have a different view on the concept of a no fault divorce.

 

[gooner]

I can't say I agree with this Julia. A no fault divorce can't be even considered anything close to a good thing when the result is so consistently lopsided when the divorce happens. What we have today is a system where if the man leaves the marriage and breaks the "contract", he is punished. Under any other contract entered into in society today, this is a fair outcome. But if a woman decides to break the contract and file for a divorce, the man is still punished. Can't see how this is sensible at all

Not sure how the man is punished. If there are children involved, if they stay with the man, the woman has to pay maintenance and vice versa. If no children involved, there may be a division of assets based on mutual support over the period the couple were married, irrespective of who has the most assets (man or woman). Sounds reasonable to me.

I'm male, married 3 kids, but if I ever divorced (v.unlikely), I would quite happily agree to a 50:50 split of assets, even though 90% of them have come my salary rather than my wife's. She has supported by career and brought up our kids. That seems reasonable to me.

 

[nunthewiser]

I'm male, married 3 kids, but if I ever divorced (v.unlikely), I would quite happily agree to a 50:50 split of assets, .

LOL your dreaming mate ......... A divorce in this situation is more likely to see you with 30% split IF there are children involved and she gets to keep them.

 

[Julia]

No misunderstanding Julia(at least I hope). I just can't make a distinction between the divorce and the end result for men afterwards. If the end result didn't leave divorced men broke and suicidal, I'd most likely have a different view on the concept of a no fault divorce.

It's the method of obtaining the divorce that I'm trying to explain, and which was the basis of my comment that getting a divorce these days is much better/fairer/easier than it used to be.

The custodial arrangements and the financial support are independent of the decision to part. My point was that these days a couple simply has to decide the relationship isn't working, and voila, they can get a divorce. No one has to be overtly 'at fault'.

And let's remember that the law is only there for instances where couples can't come to a private agreement. viz Gooner's contention that in the unlikely event of a split of his family, they would be able to agree on division of assets and custodial arrangements for the children

 

[gooner]

LOL your dreaming mate ......... A divorce in this situation is more likely to see you with 30% split IF there are children involved and she gets to keep them.

NTW. Would have a 50:50 split of the children as well - can't imagine doing anything else.

It is not something I have looked into - just a view that after 16 years, 50:50 is the right thing to do. I can understand the viewpoint of someone who comes into a relationship with lots of assets, but that was not the case for us. I had a bit of cash but not that much. I earnt most of the money that represents our combined assets now. But my wife left work to bring up our children, so IMHO she has made an equal contribution (she would probably argue a bigger one, having gone through childbirth without pain relief, LOL).

 

[Soft Dough]

meh, more power to them I say.

Except for 2 things

1. The loss of the LADY. Women now belch, fart, drink beer by the jug, scratch, swear, lose their temper, punch, demand, dress poorly etc. This is a shame, I thought that it was something to be proud of to be a woman, I guess they do not see it that way.

2. I have no problem with equal pay if:
a) They work the same hours
b) They get paid the same for the same level of experience, not age ( ie at 40 most men are much more experienced than the same age woman )
c) They perform the same etc.
d) They get no more fringe benefits eg maternity pay.
e) They get no special work concessions.


If they do the same ( and in many cases they do ) then they deserve the same pay.. I don't care if it is a man or woman who I am working with

IN FACT

I prefer to work with a LADY, as they add an extra dimension... unfortunately they are few and far between.