TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

42

I just got my confirmation documents from my ex-wife's pension administrator. Her pension was the only real asset to divide. I'm entitled to a portion of her pension and if I start collecting today and live another 30 years the payout will be $167,400 ($465 per month). Basically like collecting rent on a modest house for the rest of my life.

Wondering if women consider the guy getting more than the woman in a divorce settlement unfair? Do they consider it sort of reverse divorce rape?


[–]yaseedog will hunt46 points47 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

no more or less unfair than the other way around

[–]Nodoxxintoxin13 points14 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn’t like it, especially I was divorcing my husband because he cheated on me. It’s not unfair, it’s something that I knew could happen when I got married. I would accept it and move on.

I don’t think most people like giving up money for any reason. I don’t like paying taxes, I don’t like paying insurance, etc. It wouldn’t stop me from getting remarried to someone with less assets.

[–]GridReXXit be like that5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much this.

I’m annoyed whenever I have to give up anything. Even if I signed up to do just that lol.

Although I imagine if I didn’t have this generational anxiety of financial insecurity, I’d be more laissez-faire about the whole thing.

[–]chubby_leenock_hugsanti relationships / anti gender4 points5 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

There is a difference between "not liking" and "this is bullshit and shouldn't exist"; I realize taxes exist for the common good and all; I might not like it but I don't think it shou;dn't exist altogether.

I think marriage and shared property like that is a ridiculous construct that dates from a time long gone and should be abolished altogether. if people want to somehow share property I think they should create a third legal person in some way which they both have shared ownership of and move whatever property they want to share under the possession of that legal person. A "company" is one case of it but I think household possessions could be done in a similar way and this person should have some legal rights to represent itself in court and stuff

[–]Nodoxxintoxin6 points7 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

You’ve clearly never lived with anyone for a few decades. It’s impossible to keep money separate. My husband and I kept up a thin facade of keeping our money separate for a couple of years, but it gets kind of ridiculous. I can’t even imagine how hard it is with kids.

[–]chubby_leenock_hugsanti relationships / anti gender0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy Link

And you can move whatever you use for common households into the third legal person so I don't see the problem there.

But the idea that everything automatically even stuff that were one person's before the marriage are shared property is ridiculous.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

How about a situation where a woman buys a house a year before her marriage, has a child, takes a few years off, meanwhile her husband pays the mortgage. Who’s house is it?

[–]Salty-Bastard4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The house buyer comes to the marriage with a basis in the equity of the house. Any appreciation and payments are community property and split evenly. At least in California that's the way it works.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That makes sense, but probably not to the person I was responding to, lol.

[–]chubby_leenock_hugsanti relationships / anti gender0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

If the house is registered to one individual and another individual "pays the mortgage" the only way to do that is for one individual to gift the money to the other who then pays the mortgage because obviously the bank checks where the money comes from and they won't just let a random account "pay the mortgage" without sounding some bells.

So in that case the second individual has gifted the first one money; if that is for the purpose of paying the mortgage I would obviously say "I'm not going to help pay for this house unless we make it our shared property first" and if you don't do that and are just gifting someone money expecting to get half a house of it is about as foolish as gifting your friend a sum of money each month to pay mortgage and then being surprised that you don't own half the house without having legally arranged this at some point.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

If the house is registered to one individual and another individual "pays the mortgage"

For the purposes of divorce it doesn't matter who's on the title or who's paying the mortgage.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I get it if one person comes into a marriage with significant assets. But most assets are accumulated during marriage, not inherited these days and most household expenses are paid from joint accounts. And yes, the mortgage company takes checks from joint accounts to pay for a mortgage in one persons name

I would obviously say "I'm not going to help pay for this house unless we make it our shared property first

No one has to say anything, this is how marriage works

[–]chubby_leenock_hugsanti relationships / anti gender-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I get it if one person comes into a marriage with significant assets. But most assets are accumulated during marriage, not inherited these days and most household expenses are paid from joint accounts. And yes, the mortgage company takes checks from joint accounts to pay for a mortgage in one persons name

And I'm saying you should independently arrange that for all assets you want shared rather than this binary deal of "every asset is shared or none of them are"

If you want to make your house shared you should do so but I see no reason why that should automatically mean personal items also become shared. Like you do realize this means that clothing people individually buy for themselves within a marriage are also shared right? That's silly.

Apart from that inheritance does happen and it's kind of silly if you're married and inherit a prized family heirloom of incalculable sentimental value that this now belongs to both; it shouldn't.

No one has to say anything, this is how marriage works

Yeah and I've made it pretty clear that I think how marriage works is stupid and that you see so many people complaining about a very unreasonable and unfavourable result at divorce shows the problems.

I'm saying that you should say things and that joint possession should be an active move. If you want to share certain posessions you should do so for those things actively and explicitly.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You see no reason why personal items should be shared in a marriage? Sure, do it like roommates and label your yogurt.

Pretty sure inheritances are not usually community property anyway

Generally, inheritances are not subject to equitable distribution because, by law, inheritances are not considered marital property. Instead, inheritances are treated as separate property belonging to the person who received the inheritance, and therefore may not be divided between the parties in a divorce.

[–]chubby_leenock_hugsanti relationships / anti gender0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You see no reason why personal items should be shared in a marriage? Sure, do it like roommates and label your yogurt.

No, I said I see no reason why every single item you possess should be shared in a marriage.

As I said the things you want to share should be actively put up for it but the current system is that every single item is.

Generally, inheritances are not subject to equitable distribution because, by law, inheritances are not considered marital property. Instead, inheritances are treated as separate property belonging to the person who received the inheritance, and therefore may not be divided between the parties in a divorce.

I would assume that depends on the jurisdiction; it isn't this case in mine.

[–]MGTOWtoday10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Christ, yes. Women hate it when their get-rich quick scams end up biting them on the ass.

[–]sternje11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Men: What's mine is yours, baby.

Women: What's mine is mine, baby.

[–]xKalistoSAHM of Yurop0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We say what's yours is mine but what's mine is none of your business.

[–]shonenhikada10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know if this is in any of your links, but there are articles about women who get screwed over similar to how men usually get screwed over, and they think we need to fix it pretty much the same way that men think we need to fix it.

[–]solorathain0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

they think we need to fix it pretty much the same way that men think we need to fix it.

Those women acquired that perspective post-divorce, after the alimony ruling. Women and feminists on a whole aren't protesting alimony. There is no such thing as an annual Protest Against Alimony march. Women and feminists won't start truly creating a ruckus until almost every divorced man starts demanding and getting alimony.

[–]CakeDay--Bot0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey just noticed.. it's your 4th Cakeday solorathain! hug

[–]GridReXXit be like that22 points23 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Mo’Nique the comedian joked about being annoyed she had to pay her ex husband alimony in her stand up.

I’m sure whenever there’s an acrimonious split, the person who earned more or had more assets that matured during the marriage will have a bitter taste.

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I can see splitting post marital property / money. But pre-marital assets, including the "marital home", should remain with the person who owned it before the marriage (or if pre-marital assets are used to buy something, it should still remains with that person).

Likewise alimony should be abolished.

Pretty much everything that's usually spelled out by a pre-nup, should be the default for a marriage. People could just agree that that's fair and put it into law.

But because the current system was put in place by women to benefit other women, and because women pretty control / run everything in the country, that will never happen.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I can see splitting post marital property / money. But pre-marital assets, including the "marital home", should remain with the person who owned it before the marriage (or if pre-marital assets are used to buy something, it should still remains with that person).

right. this is exactly how it works. lol.

why do you beleive men own homes BEFORE marriage? if you purchased the home before marriage and dont put your wifes name on it and dont "commingle" nonmarital assets and marital assets it all stays yours

the problem comes when you use marital assets to maintain and finance the home, commingling creates a marital asset

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

right. this is exactly how it works. lol.

In some states, sure, but there are also a lot of "gotchas" involved.

In particular, the marital home is usually considered marital property regardless of who payed for it.

A lot of these states also leave questions of "fair and equitable" up to the judge, which creates a lot of variability in the actual outcome, and studies show that there's a pretty heavy anti-male bias in the court system.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In particular, the marital home is usually considered marital property regardless of who payed for it.

this is because ownership of the home is determined by TITLE, not by "who pays". husbands and wives almost always take a form of joint title, either joint tenancy with right of survivorship or tenancy by the entireties. tenancy by the entireties is a special title only marrie dcouples can get that protects the family home from creditors if one or the other or both spouses end up in debt. who "pays" for anything jointly titled has exactly zero bearing on ownership, ever. im not sure where you all got that idea, its not true anywhere at law. if you and i have a piece of paper sayign we co-own a race horse 50-50 that i paid 100% for and pay all the upkeep on, you own 50% of the value because the piece of paper says so

there is no law that says you HAVE to take joint title. you are not required to do so. married couples do it for economic reasons--inheritance, creditors like i mentioned etc. it also provides security for the couple, one party cant just sell the house out from the other

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I do think it’s fair that if kids aren’t involved then in divorce, all assets owned before the marriage don’t need to be split.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Why should having kids change any of this?

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A personal thing for me. Not really speaking legally.

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer10 points11 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I always considered it the cost of my freedom.

[–]Salty-Bastard1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Manumission ain't cheap...

[–]RedPill-BlackLotusRed Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You can make more money, you cant get more time.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Or in my ex-wife's case a transaction cost that facilitated her merger with a bigger beta. Kind of like the last big civil case I worked on where General Motors had to settled their antitrust dispute with Diamler Chrysler before it could sell its Allison Transmission division.

[–]Mattcwu 1 points [recovered]  (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, i know of two women whoare very irrate abput how their divorce went. They got "almost nothing" in the divorce proceedings because their husbands found a legal loophole using trusts that keeps left the husband with 100% control of the funds in the trust. I didn't get the excat details, but it was in the State of California.

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good for them. If the law isn't going to respect your rights as a human being just because you happen to have a penis between your legs, then you should be able to find a way to protect yourself as best as you can otherwise.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

If it was never marital property she never had any claim to it. Nothing stopping one or both spouses from being trustees controlling non-marital assets. A common scenario is when grandparents put their assets in a trust for their grandchildren and designate their child trustee thereby taking control away from their son or daughter in law.

The frozen out party may have been expecting the money but it was never his or hers.

[–]Mattcwu 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

That's not what the situation they described to me. They described as income that was earned during the marriage that was later placed in a trust. But, you're right, they could be lying.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Trusts aren't my thing but I'm thinking that if marital property was transferred to an irrevocable trust for the benefit of a third party (e.g. kids or grandkids) during the marriage with the consent of the both parties to the marriage it ceased to be marital property (like money spent on whatever) and become the property of the trust.

If the trust were to be revocable the possibility of reversion would mean the trust was at least quasi-marital property and subject to division by the family court in a divorce.

[–]Mattcwu 1 points [recovered]  (1 child) | Copy Link

Hmm, she claimed that he did it without her consent, but his story might be different. Is trust different by state?

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's always some state to state variation. But judges pretty much universally frown on spouses hiding assets -- so you're probably right that there's more to the story.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew34 points35 points  (59 children) | Copy Link

its not divorce rape in either case. divorce rape is an idiotic concept. i married my h specifically so he could own and inherit everything i own as easily (legally and logistically) as possible. that he could divorce me and take half is not a consideration, if it happens it happens. that was the risk i took in marrying him. i was under no assumptions otherwise and frankly, i dont beleive any man who marries is either i think its a manosphere fiction

[–]CainPrice26 points27 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. I wish guys would stop it with the "Men don't know what marriage and divorce is really like" position. It's silly. Everybody knows that divorce could happen and that it's bad for the richer partner, and especially bad if the richer partner happens to be male.

Where guys get stupid isn't that they don't know this. It's that they don't think it could happen to them.

Which is just more of the same misconceptions they've always had: not understanding women or relationships or how to remain interesting and valuable and attractive.

Manosphere anger about divorce is just a different spin on the same old manosphere anger: not knowing how shit actually works between men and women and buying into the fantasy that someone will love you forever just because you're you and that's special. Divorce is just one extra barb where that mistake costs the man lots of money instead of just giving him a broken heart.

[–]Bestprofilename3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

I have an issue with divorce unfairness against men, in general, that you would claim is an example of manosphere anger and yet I've no intention of getting married and tell girls this. You don't have to drink the kool aid to realise something is wrong.

[–]CainPrice6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Oh yeah. Divorce is totally unfair against men. I'm not claiming otherwise.

All I'm saying is that men getting indignant about how guys are being duped into marriage not knowing what they could lose is a manosphere myth.

Guys who get married know exactly what's at stake. They just think they're special snowflakes, their women are special snowflakes, and it'll never happen to them.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They just think ... their women are special snowflakes,

Yeah -- us guys can be pretty fucking stupid about this.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Well then you could argue that any form of discrimination or persecution is alright so long so the individual knows that they're going to be persecuted or discriminated against. I would argue that a man shouldn't have to take disproportional risk in a marriage and that the problem is that he was put in that position to begin with. Whether or not they're ignorant or trying to play mental games to justify it shouldn't matter.

You could even make the same argument about rape victims. "You shouldn't have worn those clothes. You knew what was going to happen. You knew the risks. Don't pretend that you didn't."

[–]CainPrice0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I make those arguments against rape victims all the time. What the fuck is some girl doing out at 3AM getting staggeringly drunk and being alone with guys she doesn't know that well? Sure, it's the guys' fault for being criminals, not the girl's fault for doing that, but come on. No good can possibly come from her being in that situation.

And I give similar advice to men about the marriage situation: Don't get married. If you don't want to get raped, don't put yourself in a position where a bad person could take advantage of you.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's fair enough if you're talking about the real world and giving people general advice.

But at the end of the day, the law shouldn't be like that. We've changed plenty of other laws that were biased, but when they effect men we tend to ignore them. That would be like if rape wasn't a crime and women didn't have any kind of legal protection against it. You might tell them to dress and behave accordingly, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't also work to pass better laws and otherwise try to discourage the practice, either.

[–]CainPrice0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah. There's a lot I'd change about divorce law if I were in charge of the universe. But the people in charge of the universe are pretty content with the system how it is.

Given the choice of grabbing a gun and mobilizing with my fellow men to fight the system or just learning to work within it, get laid, and make money, I'm okay with the latter. When you get down to it, we have the same system we had in the stone ages, just covered with a lot of smoke, mirrors, and other drama.

[–]Bestprofilename0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed

[–]sophii10 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

You could get a prenup

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Or marriage could work like there was a prenup to begin with.

Why should you have to jump through hoops just to be treated fairly?

[–]sophii10 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

What do you think a fair system would be? How should everything be worked out financially post marriage?

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most prenups have a few things in common but it basically boils down to, what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. This includes things like alimony (my income, not yours).

[–]Khabibcos 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Well, even Brad Pitt couldn't maintain his marriage, and some women will leave you no matter how attractive, and how much money you make.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

lollllllllllllllllllllll thats why you think they got divorced?

youre all so insane

[–]Khabibcos 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

I am just giving an example moron.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

an example of what? a fake interpretation of a rich famous couples divorce that fits your retarded MGTOW narrative lol

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

You are a lawyer your mentality about marriage is different than the proles

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew2 points3 points  (21 children) | Copy Link

no its not because i am a lawyer, its because of my character. i give to my h freely with both hands and everything is for him.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points  (20 children) | Copy Link

No the fact that you understood the legal repercussions is because you are a lawyer. Most proles really don’t get this and think it’s about “love”

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Most proles really don’t get this and think it’s about “love”

I'm a lawyer too but was as still stupid enough to believe that it was all about love. Endorphins can really fuck a guy up!

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

See!

It’s ridiculous to believe men know they are risking half of their assets on a romantic relationship

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point  (17 children) | Copy Link

I dont believe that. It being "about love" is not exclusive of understanding what marriage entsils

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Idk, I guess I can’t convince you then. You aren’t the only lawyer on here to have lawyer projection problems.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew3 points4 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

You dont have to be a lawyer to know "when we get married, all our stuff we get together belongs to both of us and if we get divorced it will be split". Poor people watch movies and television

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

What kind of movies and television detail divorce proceedings, especially the kinds poors watch

[–]Texastentialismshe's got a tattoo and two pet snakes3 points4 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

On Friends, Rachel's wealthy parents get divorced and there's a big to-do about whether her mom will get her dad's boat. Janice is also divorced and frequently talks about getting alimony and child support from her ex.

On ER, Dr. Green and his wife get divorced and go through a big custody battle.

There were like, a shit ton of divorced women on the show Desperate Housewives living off their rich ex husbands' money (I'll give men a pass for not having seen this show tho)

Frasier and his brother are both divorced on Frasier. Frasier deals with custody issues throughout the series and it's frequently alluded to that Niles' ex wife cleaned him out and gets alimony.

There's literally a show called Divorce Court!!!

Not to mention, proles listen to country music, a genre where approximately every other song is about divorce. This one, this one and this one come to mind.

Plus...most people know someone who's gone through a divorce. My cousin and her husband are divorcing right now, and they're not wealthy by any means, but they're battling it out over what little they have and fighting over who gets the kids. My aunt and uncle divorced when I was in middle school and I watched them go through the same thing. My BFF is stuck paying off some debt accrued by her ex husband. My mom is a child of divorce.

I just don't buy that only lawyers know how this stuff works. I'm not a lawyer or anything like it and I have always known that a marriage was an economic partnership, this just seems like common knowledge to me.

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I honestly didn't know that all of that Hollywood stuff was real and applied to regular people with regular jobs.

Like I had heard of celebrities getting divorced and things like that but I guess I thought that them being celebrities made their marriage "complicated" and that two people with regular jobs and regular lives didn't have to deal with stuff like that.

If it's my money, if it's my properly, and it's my name on it, then it's obviously mine and I should keep it in a divorce... Maybe we'll argue over who gets the coffee table or who gets the pets, but the house, my savings, etc, should be off the table.

And honestly that's how it should actually work in the real world. I guess I just had too much trust in what is inherently and obviously fare / not fare. After all, if divorce wasn't fare, wouldn't they fix it?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Very strong argument, well done. I understand the custody battles may be more publicized but I’m just not convinced the true financial ramifications sunk in for like 80-100% of men.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Who os talking about every minute detail of divorce proceedings?

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled-1 points0 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

that was the risk i took in marrying him. i was under no assumptions otherwise and frankly, i dont beleive any man who marries is either i think its a manosphere fiction

Men tend to take a problem solving approach to this by "vetting" women, trying to create legal techniques (discussions of prenups) or through their own ego (I'm so good she'll never leave me).

That's why foundation concepts at TRP are AWALT (vetting), "she's not yours" (ego) and discussions about divorce rape (legal).

Fundamentally, these men are entering marriages with a true intention of going long and are planning for it. It's only once they're confronted with the idea of trying to negotiate attraction that issues become a lot more complex.

So yeah, you could look at it as men are entering a covert contract with a woman's true being (hypergamous) and an overt contract with a woman as she presents herself (non-hypergamous).

That's why these guys get so bent out of shape and call it divorce rape. They usually had some mechanism they felt helped in the risk, found out that was bunk, and then ultimately realize the whole agreement was fundamentally a sham, if they believed in negotiated attraction. And if guys think they can "work it out" then they believe in negotiated attraction.

The guys who see through all of this and it just being a risk, like you, are rare. You basically have a 5% male mindset that few men have. Easily 80% of men basically can not imagine their wife being hypergamous. So you're left with fractions of the remaining 20% that have some sort of true risk assessment in marriage.

I think you vastly underestimate the number of men are who stereotypically blue pill, and not red pill aware in the least.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew12 points13 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

vetting is a joke. wishful thinking by neurotics

nice job makign up a new 80/20 stat out of whole cloth

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled-1 points0 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

I agree with your concept of the person being someone else 7 years later. Regardless, you have to at least look at what is being subcommunicated. They are committed to the long haul. Because of the wide arousal window men have.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew12 points13 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

they think theyre committed in the long haul, and then their wife gets old.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] -1 points0 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

and then their wife gets old.

Or the wife decides she's tried of being with a guy who was only making $75K.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

that has nothign to do with the MANS level of commitment, which is what this part of the comment chain is about

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

This is an example of what I mentioned the other day, how your comments sound more and more incel-y. You have interjected yourself into a conversation with a comment that does not pertain to the topic, purely for the purpose of making a bitter comment about women. You do this a lot and you didn't use to.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] -2 points-1 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Being bitter (which I'll readily admit to) and being an Incel are not the same thing.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but the incels are the most exhibitionistly bitter participants on PPD, so it is not unreasonable to make a connection.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

My GF is the fifth woman I've been with since my divorce (we separated 2.5 years ago). Not Chad territory but not incel either.

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

How old is old? A woman who stays in shape can pass the boner test for quite a while. If she's sufficiently motivated in pleasing her husband, that goes a long fucking way.

And frankly we're off the path anyways. Most of these guys are marrying women in their 20s and divorced by 30s, and few of these guys are thinking "eww gross, old." Maybe some top 5% type guys, but certainly zero of guys in the bottom 80%.

I mean the wall is real in the early 30s, it's a "hit" but you gotta be sex starved from a frigid wife to feel like you need to divorce to scoop a 19 year old.

I'm definitely on the "dickhead" side of the dickhead niceguy continuum and concede a woman who goes the extra mile to make a man happy closes a lot of ground on youth.

But so far she's still in the high fertility window, if that matches the fertilization to live birth trend, then 35 would be when guys start to really diverge in terms of partner attraction strictly on age, and by 45 flatline.

But I see lots of women in their 40s if they're still in shape that are attractive. But maybe because I haven't mentalized their lack of fertility.

School me on men with old women.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I honestly didn't know until I researched it and spoke to a lawyer about getting a prenup.

I had heard about "ugly divorces" so I kind of had an idea that maybe you could get yourself into trouble with a marriage, but that was about it.

I thought you basically got married because you loved someone and wanted to make it official. And I think there are legitimately a lot of men out there who have been duped into thinking the same thing (I think most women know what all it entails, just not most men, especially younger men who haven't been told all of this yet).

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

that he could divorce me and take half is not a consideration, if it happens it happens. that was the risk i took in marrying him.

So marriage is basically like playing the slots in Vegas?

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

life is like that, everything you do

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's an awful fatalistic view.

[–]darla102 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I got mad because I was stupidly under the impression my ex wouldn’t ask for alimony or child support since he was the one who unilaterally decided to ‘not work’; a decision that in part led to the divorce. I believed we would both walk away and go out separate ways. Unfortunately my assumptions were dead wrong.

[–]goldmedalflower3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

'Welcome to the club', sincerely Men

[–]goldmedalflower1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes they think this way, no they won't admit it.

[–]downvotesanimalsCertified not responsible for the oppression of women1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Same reason men do: because it sucks.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I’m an RN and have known several female RNs pretty pissed about divorce and CS issues, and rightfully so imo. They are burning out on the floor for that 110k a year and can’t quit due to retarded ideas of “fairness.” Can’t say it’s good for the patients either

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

burning out on the floor for that 110k a year and can’t quit

The downside of equality,

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

What would be fair?

[–]RibenaFae 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Where I'm from there is no alimony. We have no fault divorce and whatevee an individual puts into the marriage is what they get out of it.

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

That's about the best way to do it.

Inheritance is also usually considered separate in those states, even if you were already married.

Do you know if your marital home become marital property, even if only one person bought it?

There are a few "gotchas" to look out for, even in those kinds of states, especially if you have children or property.

See:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/my-husband-inherited-money-could-i-divorce-him-after-he-pays-off-our-mortgage-2018-03-21

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not at all. It's why I'm getting married. I want him to have access to my assets, and I want him to have a stake in the home I'm buying.

It's why I'm in favor of a prenup, because I know that I'm a giant asshole and if my relationship fails, I'd be liable to try to screw my wonderful SO over. So my rational self is going to prevent me from being the bitch I know I can be, to protect my SO and ensure his entitlement to my assests.

[–]Young_Oryx 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's why I'm in favor of a prenup, because I know that I'm a giant asshole and if my relationship fails, I'd be liable to try to screw my wonderful SO over.

We don't have a prenup, but I think this reasoning makes a lot of sense. A friend described a prenup to me in a way that made a lot of sense once, "A prenup is deciding the outcome of the worst fight you'll ever have at a point in your relationship when you still have each other's best interests at heart."

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. I love and adore my fiance, and I can't really fathom us breaking up, but the possibility exists. I'd rather make sure future me can't scorched earth our breakup, and a prenup is the best way to go for that.

Plus, it'll help us structure his inheritance, which is going to be ridiculously large.

[–]ayeayefitlikeBlueish-Purple Pill Woman0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Completely agree. My OH doesn’t want a prenup, but I think it’s the best thing for us both - he currently has more assets than me that I think should be protected, but equally we both have well-off families and are likely to get big inheritances that I think should be kept out of any divorce proceeding that might happen.

I hope it never happens, obviously, and will work hard to make sure it doesn’t, but it makes me feel better knowing that each of us is protected to a degree. However, my OH wants to go part time and work from home to look after the kids, and I don’t want him to suffer for that choice that will enable me to keep a demanding career going, so even if I begrudge it later, right now I want to protect him from that.

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 0 points1 point  (45 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]GridReXXit be like that5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Please let your ex wife go.

[–]LittleknownfactsAutomod is my husband8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Reverse divorce rape

This is getting ridiculous now.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I never liked the term but since its used so often her I figured I'd use it too.

[–]Wandos7naproxen sodium11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not 'reverse' if you simply define it as one losing assets in a divorce. The fact that men perceive this to be a men's issue doesn't change the law.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's like the terms reverse discrimination and benevolent sexism (aka sexism against men).

I don't know how many times I've seen feminists and people like that try to brush things like that off by using those sorts of terms.

[–]oftheinfinite 1 points [recovered]  (15 children) | Copy Link

My older sister is a rad fem paying child support to her ex which has made her life miserable. In the past, she would bust my balls about men and child support but since it was decided that she pay child support, she has been against it ever since. Kind of like the popular 'against the draft for all' opinions women have these days when it is a real possibility that women fight on the front lines or when you craft it in a good argument that shows that women will not benefit from the draft while also highlighting the 'unfairness' of it.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

paying child support to her ex which has made her life miserable.

As guys are always told its her paramount responsibility and the best interest of the child trump her feelings on the matter. To mix some metaphors this princess needs to man-up.

[–]the_calibre_cat4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Child support is the one thing in divorce I get and accept, I'm just annoyed that, in the United States, you can request more. A friend of mine just got a job that nearly doubled his income, and... about four months in, his ex-wife filed to have her payments increased. He was paying her $700/month before, she's asking for another $1,000. I hope she doesn't get that, but she will undoubtedly get something, because that's how it works here.

You can split off from your partner and, apparently, just keep requesting their money. Neat.

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

What's worse is if he loses the job or decided to quit and do something easier with less pay, the courts can continue imputing his higher income, making him pay that much money even if he can't afford it.

[–]the_calibre_cat0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh yeah, him getting them to reduce payments in the event of a significant life change will be like pulling teeth, she asking for a higher payment is gonna be like eating cheesecake.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

In the past, she would slam men who were against child support but since it was decided that she pay child support, she has been against it ever since

How surprising...

[–]oftheinfinite 1 points [recovered]  (4 children) | Copy Link

Women don't like the negative aspects that affect men (child support, alimony, equality in death or injury in war or work, etc). If I am not mistaken, workplace safety was made a priority when women became injured or killed. Contrary to the popular belief on PPD that women are interested in equality, that will change when it will affect them negatively. Most women hate to be put in a position to take responsibility for their own mistakes and failures whereas men naturally shut the fuck or are told to shut the fuck up. A lot of men just man up and take a bullet.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

workplace safety was made a priority when women became injured or killed

Yup -- young men had been dying in mines, factories, and on construction sites since their inception but it took the very public death of over a hundred unfortunate young women in the Triangle fire in 1911 to get the public's attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

[–]oftheinfinite 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

Gruesome deaths.

[–]PORTMANTEAU-BOT2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Grueaths.


Bleep-bloop, I'm a bot. This portmanteau was created from the phrase 'Gruesome deaths.'. To learn more about me, check out this FAQ.

[–]BirdManBrrrr7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Just think of the collective horror of "deadbeat mom" becoming a label.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Whether or not it's a label, it is a real thing.

I've mentioned this before around here but I actually know a guy who has a deadbeat babby momma. All she does is party, drink, fuck, etc, and doesn't want anything to do with the kid that she had with him.

What's kind of shitty though is that he still pays her child support and she apparently gets welfare, WIC (food stamps for kids) and things like that, even though she has the kid barely once a month.

[–]Female_urinary_mazeWOMEN LIKE SEX.2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

You really don't have to mention women at all to make it obvious that the draft is bad, you just have to be talking to someone who isn't the jingoistic version of a patriot. I'll never have to worry about being drafted, but of course I appose it because it's a really obvious human rights violation.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think if women were being fair with the whole gender thing they'd be like, "yeah, go ahead, sign us up for the draft".

Like I don't agree with the draft either but equality is equality, and a lot of women don't seem to get that.

[–]Female_urinary_mazeWOMEN LIKE SEX.0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You'd be surprised by how many of the more jingoistic women do say that. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e1p6D9iIyUk But I think they miss the point because they trust the government with that power in the first place. To me it doesn't matter who is forced to sign up, it'll be just as unjust either way and we'll still have to get rid of the damned thing. If all blue eyed people had to go into a lottery where a random selection of them were sentenced to death, including brown eyed people wouldn't improve the situation.

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing10 points11 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

I wish people would stop using PPD as their emotional support pillow I have heard enough about red's ex, that weird Romanian chick's dusty loser rich husband blah blah and a few others.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

that weird Romanian chick's dusty loser rich husband

LMAO

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

D U S T Y

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

HE HAS RENTAL PROPERTY HOW DARE YOU?

[–]Nodoxxintoxin2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

^ All you all makin me laff😂

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Men are using ppd women for emotional labour.

[–]goatismycopilotJohnI'monlydancing7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If people are going to do that they need to have interesting problems then.

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Savage. 10/10

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Its always the same thing... ‘gf cheated’, ‘divorce raped’, ‘accused of harassment’

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Apparently they (breadwinning women) generally hate it so much they are driving alimony reform!

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/money/4116161/alimony-reform-spousal-support

It's amazing how on a daily basis there is no shortage of hypocritical, self-serving garbage to swallow from women's rights folks

[–]allweknowisD6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Interesting that the stats show 8-10% of people receiving alimony when they article was written over 3 years ago.

Surprising statistic with the way PPD goes on about women divorce raping everyone

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not just limited to alimony though, the divorce tapings

[–]kragshotDon't mind me...I'm just studying all of you talking monkeys....7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Part of this is being driven by the "Second Wives Club." I'm pretty cool with that idea...

"Me and my man can't start our new life because that skanky bitch of an ex keeps stickin' him for his paper! I'm going to cut that ho, the next time I see her ass...."

True quote from my buddy's current wife of two years. Her attitude keeps me laughing (she's actually a very sweet lady and fun to be around) but they are having a hard time getting back on solid footing because every time they manage to climb out of the hole with him getting some sort of a project bonus or raise, his ex-wife drags his ass back to court for more money and kicks them both back down.

Side note; the ex-wife has a girlfriend that works in the payroll department of where he is working. Every time he came into more money, the gal-pal would rat him out to the ex. He found this out and has filed a complaint with HR. He makes enough money for the company that they took it seriously. After the investigation, they suspended her and it might end with the woman getting fired.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

After the investigation, they suspended her and it might end with the woman getting fired.

Lmao....serves her right

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

it's not the first wife's problem that the second wife decided to marry her benefactor lol

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

where is the hypocrisy in this? i see no evidence that these women paying alimony were previously feminists in favor of it, or that they're only seeking alimony reform for women

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

There's a clear pattern here though.

Like someone else said, how many women have put their cards on the table and volunteered for the draft? If nothing else, just as a symbolic gesture to show that they really care about equality and not just getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie.

Or how about abortion rights? You want to be able to make that choice separate from the wish of the father? What if he wants you to keep it? Or what if you want to keep it and he doesn't? True, honest equality would give men the option of a financial abortion up until whatever trimester you have to abort it. You can do what you want with your body so long as I can do what I want with my wallet. Women love talking about the former but hate talking about the later.

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Like someone else said, how many women have put their cards on the table and volunteered for the draft? If nothing else, just as a symbolic gesture to show that they really care about equality and not just getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie.

probably zero because that's not a thing?

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

And?

You understood my point, right?

I've never heard a woman say, "you know what? Women should have to sign up for the draft. After all it's only fair."

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zippo-Cat1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hue hue hue... "assets"

Now I can't stop imagining man taking half of his wife's breasts/buttocks in a divorce

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Like women would really pay for their exes. Huh. Thats funny.

[–]jax006Wants to bang ~20% of PPD chicks0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesnt happen enough for anyone to care

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wondering if women consider the guy getting more than the woman in a divorce settlement unfair?

Why would not they? When justice is truly blind regarding gender and is less gynocentric, that will sure reverse the camp of discontentment.

Next step would be to get rid of the Duluth model.

[–]boomcheese440 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Whoever was jilted would have the bitter taste on their mouth about it. But women dont stew over these things...they realize thats a reality if they ever divorce.

[–]classylassy280 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course they get mad, just like men who get that end of the stick get angry too...then they mgotw lol.

[–]chubby_leenock_hugsanti relationships / anti gender0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

"mad"? I don't get mad at anything that's not my parent but I think marriage is bullshit and property that is not liquid should not be shared. The only time it makes sense for multiple individuals to share property is when they are joint owners of a company whose assets are liquid and can thus be evenly distributed amongst them. You can easily say you both own half of the company in terms of shares but half of a TV? How does that even work; the problem with a TV is if you cut it in half both parts become worthless.

Which is why I wouldn't ever get a manus marriage and where I live marriage by default is usus as in you retain your own independent property and only the biggest weirdos go for manus.

Regarding divorce alimony it should be handed by contract law I feel; it should apply when people agreed to prior in a legally binding agreement to do so.

With regards to tax free inheritance: I am opposed to gift and inheritance tax. Inheritance tax is inherently problematic because you often inherit things that aren't liquid so how do you pay 15% of an antique clock to the state? Someone is going to have to subjectively decide how much that clock is "worth" and those people are paid for by the government and thus have an incentive to up the value in favour of their client. I however do believe in property tax but that shouldn't be based on the worth of your property but the amount of effort the police and other services need to put in to protect it and keep it in good condition.

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The only time it makes sense for multiple individuals to share property is when they are joint owners of a company whose assets are liquid and can thus be evenly distributed amongst them. You can easily say you both own half of the company in terms of shares but half of a TV? How does that even work; the problem with a TV is if you cut it in half both parts become worthless.

The same way you handle the house - asses it's liquid asset value and divide by who gets the tv and who gets liquid assets.

[–]wereallcrazyson0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

rent from 1 room of a modest house

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

In California -- In Texas it would be the whole house and the one next door (my son bought his mom a nice little house for $47K in Lubbock).

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you ever been to Dallas?

Look at housing prices inside the "beltway".

It's all about location (proximity to good jobs, mainly).

[–]nemma8831/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I think if you want to generalize women care less about money. But the divide probably isn't that big.

But more importantly, it's only 10% about the money anyway for anyone. It's being abandoned by the person you thought would be there for you. If your the one to leave and pay for it don't tend to get so bitter about it. It's far more about who left / caused the break.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

women care less about money

Lots say that -- but as usual their actions often belie their words.

[–]nemma8831/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I include actions like generally choosing to have more free time over more money (or lower paid working) etc as a major contributor to gender pay difference. But there may be more gendered social issues causing it like chance of homelessness etc.

[–]Oncefa2SJW1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot women care less about money and more about what money can buy.

I actually had a girlfriend who used to tell me she didn't care about money, which was a huge plus to me because I'm always trying to weed out gold diggers, but it eventually became apparent that she was incredibly materialistic and just as greedy as anybody else. The fact that she lived paycheck to paycheck pretty much proved it. She didn't care about money when it came to savings and investments, but she sure did like buying expensive food, staying at expensive hotels, buying things off Amazon, etc etc.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

If you live in a community property state they aren’t “your” assets. This is a reality people need to come to terms with or not get married.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Or just fix the laws.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Or don’t get married.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe a practical solution but it's a bit like telling a woman to wear a burka to not get raped, or a black man in the early 1900s to not visit the South if he wants to be treated fairly.

Sure it's a smart reaction to otherwise unfair situation, but that doesn't mean that things are ok the way they are today and that they shouldn't be changed.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe a practical solution but it's a bit like telling a woman to wear a burka to not get raped, or a black man in the early 1900s to not visit the South if he wants to be treated fairly.

🙄

Marriage is the combining of two households into one. And that includes assets and finances. Just as if two businesses merged. I’m really at a loss as to what you guys think marriage is.

If you have premarital assets you want to protect, you get s prenup (and no they don’t get tossed out all the time). That’s fair and I would be in favor of an across the board law exempting pre martial assets from the divorce settlement. But anything that happens once you marry is part of the partnership.

If I married a man who earned significantly less than me, I’d say the same thing. When we split, our marriage assets are 50/50. You’re the one making it a gender issue.

I’m curious: what is your solution to the dissolution of shared assets and property when a marriage ends? If it’s so unjust you must have an idea for what it should look like to you.

Cue crickets.

[–]we-are-men-with-ven0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Eh, no one likes losing money. Whether or not it's justified.

[–]throwawaygoodwood0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We were young and there weren't a huge amount of assets when I divorced so I wasn't ever going to be bothered by the amounts. I think what annoyed me were the little things. I'd done a lot of hunting really cool things down cheap (furniture, light fittings, curtains etc) in the days before the internet made this easy, and he didn't give a shit about style but I knew I couldn't take all that labor away with me because there would be too many gaps left in the fit-out of the household if i did that. Just annoying. Threw pearls before swine, left the swine to wallow around in pearls.

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

In other words, do women act like people?

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼-2 points-1 points  (30 children) | Copy Link

No. I don’t think divorce rape is a thing and I don’t really care the gender of the person paying their ex-spouse. My husband likes to tease me that I’ll have to pay him alimony if I ever leave him. He’s kept me sane while I work like crazy and is entitled to half of what we built together if hell freezes over and we part ways.

[–]goldmedalflower9 points10 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

No. I don’t think divorce rape is a thing

Women are breadwinners in ~ 37% of house holds, you would think that would also mean they pay a similar number in alimony... yet women only pay 1% of all alimony. In other words, you're wrong

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

It’s actually 3% and very few men actually seek alimony or lawyer up to get it.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Damn those nice guys for being considerate in ways women refuse to be.

They should go for the jugular and be as vindictive as women, amirite?

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼6 points7 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Oh Jesus Christ. If men want alimony they’ll have to fight for it just like women do. Call the whambulance.

[–]goldmedalflower5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Do you notice the "men (and boys) just need to do better" argument never applies in reverse to any gap where women are less represented? No one ever says, " If women want to be in STEM, they'll have to fight for it like the way men do. Stop whining already". Instead it's always "systemic oppression", right? Followed by endless well funded campaigns to address the imbalance?

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

No- I notice men IRL not pursuing the things manosphereans claim men want. Unsurprising as the men here seem painfully out of touch and only operating with other humans in theory.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Ah, the ad hominem flail as you're out of substantive rebuttals. It's like you guys are running a script.

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

That everyone notices that manosphereans are out of touch is an indicator of manosphereans not everyone else.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Pot, meet kettle.

[–]kandyapplezincel larping as a thot2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No one ever says, " If women want to be in STEM, they'll have to fight for it like the way men do".

Um lots of people say that. Do you believe that there is universal consensus on the wage gap?

[–]CakeDay--Bot0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey just noticed.. it's your 2nd Cakeday goldmedalflower! hug

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

s, " If women want to be in STEM, they'll have to fight for it like the way men do.

.. And what do you think Women in stem creating support groups and fighting for change are trying to do?

[–]goldmedalflower1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Quotas, lower standards, hundreds of millions in government and corporate outreach, equality of outcome, shaming anyone who disagrees with these principles, constant demonizing of their 'predatory, sexists' male counterparts.

[–]aznphenix0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Okay I can give you quotas for like one place over in california, where do you see them arguing for lower standards, or having the government or corporations spend hundreds of millions in outreach.corportations spend money on things that give them positive returns. Define shaming, and define where this constant shaming happens beyond some talk pieces on the internet.

[–]goldmedalflower1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Examples: Intel donates $300,000,000 to get more women in STEM. $300 million. Read that again.

And a constant stream of articles like this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/10/26/sexism-in-stem-fields-runs-even-deeper-than-most-people-think/#21532953486b

Women are given overwhelming advantages in hiring, promotions, scholarships, much more difficult to fire. All solely based on gender. Not once does anyone, ever, suggest holding them to the same standards.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Call the whambulance.

Can't. The feminists got it first.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

They should go for the jugular and be as vindictive as women, amirite?

Exactly -- if my ex hadn't settled on favorable terms I was going to fight her every inch of the way.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

is entitled to half of what we built together if hell freezes over and we part ways.

We'll see if you feel the same way if he steals from you, cheats on you, and leaves you for a richer woman.

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Did you steal from your wife, cheat on her and leave her for a richer woman? Or are you role reversing this to suit your victim hood narrative?

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

She's the one who did all of the above.

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes I know this BECAUSE YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR EXES LIKE PPD IS FREE THERAPY. You’re positing a situation where one party is both paying and cheated on which isn’t even what happened to you.

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

She cheated. I managed to get a decent divorce settlement (in part because she realized I was going to play hardball and there was shit she didn't want public).

And I thought Blue Pill folks wanted guys to express themselves and not hold their emotions in?

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The hypothetical situation where my husband both cheats and gets a pay out is not what happened to you, not applicable and simply an attempt to continue a victimhood narrative.

PPD is obviously not the place to work out your emotions, dude, quit fucking trolling.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Haven't you heard about the story of Emmanuel Eboue?

He is also about to lose his home. A messy divorce has seen his ex-wife Aurelie awarded all of their assets, and he has been ordered to transfer their Enfield home to her by a judge – although the deadline to do so past three weeks ago and the judge will do so if he fails to.

The former Ivory Coast international is now expecting to be thrown out in the near future, and admitted that he lives “scared” at the thought of police showing up to evict him.

“I can’t afford the money to continue to have any lawyer or barrister.

That's one example among many divorce rapes. Before you object with "but he was rich", that also happen to average joes.

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Are you claiming that many average Joe’s have the same outcomes as suddenly unemployed pro athletes? Are you claiming a significant number of men are forced to hand over all their assets? Come on, dude.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you claiming a significant number of men are forced to hand over all their assets?

Are you claiming that a significant number of men who could not afford the same lawyers as Eboue could weren't as proportionally divorce raped?

Why are you doing this? Deflecting and shifting the point to non-equivalence and rarity? While your initial comment was that you did not think divorce rape was a thing? I just had to give one example to prove you wrong. And that's checkmate.

Significant number or non significant number, aka frequency is irrelevant to your initial point. Even if it was extremely rare, which is not, divorce rape would still be a thing.

Come on, dudette. Just because you put fingers in your ears and sing out loud to cover the reality you don't want to see does not mean that it does not exist. How can one issue be tackled on if it keeps being denied.

[–]PennnyLameMY VAGINA IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!! ✊🏼0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Stop strawmanning. “Not a thing” doesn’t mean “has never in the history of the world happened.” This guy is an outlier whose situation is very influenced by being a now unemployed pro athlete. Most men don’t go from very, very high earning to broke and unemployable. Further, these one sided settlements are incredibly rarely it’s explained repeatedly by lawyers here. That men do not seek alimony is those men’s issues. If you think men are or have historically just been handing out alimony, you’re insane.

[–]Oncefa2SJW0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Apparently this is pretty common in Britain.

It was surprising to me too and I'm already fairly cynical about divorce laws (I just don't happen to live in Britain).

It has nothing to do with being wealthy or famous though.

A lot of men actually end up making that assumption only to be blindsided later in life when they realize the same laws apply to them as well.

[–]SilentLurker6660 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Five_DecadesKnows what women want. Knows he doesn't have it5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

“It’s unfair for men to pay it, and unfair for women to pay it. But women are much more outraged by it,” said Ken Neumann, a founder of the Academy of Professional Family Mediators.

That matches what I've read in other articles. Women make up a tiny % of alimony payers, but they get more angry about it when they do have to pay.

Because it violates gender roles (the woman financially supporting the man) obviously.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I wouldn’t

[–]it_was_awiens-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wondering if women consider the guy getting more than the woman in a divorce settlement unfair?

I don't think there is enough instances of this happening to come to a reasonable conclusion. In general, women don't marry people who are less wealthy than themselves.

($465 per month)

Better than nothing I guess.. but far from what real divorce rape is like

[–]reluctantly_red[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

but far from what real divorce rape is like

But at the mediation you would have thought she was being left homeless under some bridge.

[–]dudenotrightnowfrogs rights activist-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

men fuck over women financially more often than you would realize. this is why a women shouldn't date guys poorer than them!

[–]red__aaron-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this a thing you’ve seen lots of women complaining about? I sure haven’t

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter