Again... you get to choose who you want to be in a relationship with. So don't settle on a woman who will be financially dependent on you. Problem solved. It's not like this is a lottery!
And then say we want to start a family. One has to look after the child, and the man in the situation works. Then what? You can make assumptions on people you meet when you are on good terms with them, that doesn't mean they are incapable and won't do things for personal gain when the happiness fades, and then comes the divorce.
Daycare. Split the cost. And, it's not like the husband can't be the one to stay home with the child. Stay-at-home dads are more and more common these days. I get the feeling you're the type who feels the need to always have the last word, am I right?
So the child has to be raised half the time by childcare instead of a stable family unit?
I agree, it's not like the husband can't, although that isn't the topic. Even in situations in which he has stayed at home, and a divorce does happen, the female is likely to get custody, and the man will not get anything out of the divorce, where as in reverse, the woman gets everything he earned, and so on.
If a man stays at home, he risks far more than a female that stays at home.
He leaves his job to stay at home and look after the child and do housework, then what happens when they get divorced? What does he have? Even when he cared for the child the most, the child will be given to the mother for primary custody, and he's still have to pay child support.
Where as if a woman is a stay at home mother and a divorce happens, she gets the child, benefits to support her child (which end up being able to make a living on), single mother refuges, and so on.
You're blaming the victim. Relationships aren't made out of finance, they just end with them. You're implying that if someone went out with a financially dependent person, then it is part their fault for getting their belongings taken from them after divorce?...Well, same logic, if someone goes in to an abusive relationship, it is their fault for the abuse, because they should of chosen someone that isn't abusive. See? There are so many areas you have to consider.
Point being, just like someone stays with the person that is abusive because they have feelings for them, not because of the abuse, someone will stay with the person because they have feelings for them, not the financial gain. When the feelings fun out, then the financial part comes in.
You must not have been here for very long. This is IsItNormal. Everybody wants the last word. I am not going to lie in saying I don't prefer the last word, but I don't "need" the last word. Most of the time I reply is because I don't want to be rude.
Your lack of knowledge of the law is your downfall. No offense, you are young and probably never studied it one bit, but still...perhaps you should before making such ludicrous statements.
I could get into an argument with you about the way divorce laws work, at least in the United States, but I think I'll pass. You can look them up if you so wish. Granted they are biased in favor of the woman, but only because women are more often the caretaker (without a backup plan prepared either, since she she has been taught this is a perfectly valid role for her to settle into). If a female caretaker is divorced, she is more or less homeless and penniless unless she has help from somewhere to get back on her feet. And since she has presumably taking care of the man full time previously in favor of working, it only makes sense he be the one to do this. If gender roles were reversed, who the law benefitted and who could take advantage of it would be as well. But, let me just say that if you are in a relationship with a woman and you have a child, and she gets custody, not getting married isn't going to keep her from getting benefits from you. Mwa ha ha! So there's no point really in considering your answer to this question from that angle.
Women being the caretaker is their choice though, even if it is reinforced by society's standards. And you are right the laws were put into place because of the traditional role that women took as a housewife/home maker. But that has changed drastically from the 1950s. As the gender roles have been reversing, or lets say finding a new "equilibrium" who the laws benefit have NOT been. That seems to be ItDuz's point more to me, as its my own point.
Sure we can make the easy argument that it all comes down to who we choose to marry or spend our lives with, but its never as cut and dry as that. Many times women choose not to go back to work at all, under the pretense that they are now a "housewife". As a man I would have a very hard time being convinced of this if my spouse decided to take this angle with me. Especially if the kids are in school. And given the almost certain need that households should be two income households to make ends meet today. But given the law and how it is applied today, many, many, MANY women can and do take this stance and if push comes to shove the law is overwhelmingly on their side should divorce be considered.
And also while not getting married doesnt prevent support benefits from being given to the woman should a child come into the picture, it still has a very appealing attraction in avoiding Alimony.
Do you want to marry? (for guys)
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Again... you get to choose who you want to be in a relationship with. So don't settle on a woman who will be financially dependent on you. Problem solved. It's not like this is a lottery!
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
And then say we want to start a family. One has to look after the child, and the man in the situation works. Then what? You can make assumptions on people you meet when you are on good terms with them, that doesn't mean they are incapable and won't do things for personal gain when the happiness fades, and then comes the divorce.
--
tigerkid92
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Daycare. Split the cost. And, it's not like the husband can't be the one to stay home with the child. Stay-at-home dads are more and more common these days. I get the feeling you're the type who feels the need to always have the last word, am I right?
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
So the child has to be raised half the time by childcare instead of a stable family unit?
I agree, it's not like the husband can't, although that isn't the topic. Even in situations in which he has stayed at home, and a divorce does happen, the female is likely to get custody, and the man will not get anything out of the divorce, where as in reverse, the woman gets everything he earned, and so on.
If a man stays at home, he risks far more than a female that stays at home.
He leaves his job to stay at home and look after the child and do housework, then what happens when they get divorced? What does he have? Even when he cared for the child the most, the child will be given to the mother for primary custody, and he's still have to pay child support.
Where as if a woman is a stay at home mother and a divorce happens, she gets the child, benefits to support her child (which end up being able to make a living on), single mother refuges, and so on.
You're blaming the victim. Relationships aren't made out of finance, they just end with them. You're implying that if someone went out with a financially dependent person, then it is part their fault for getting their belongings taken from them after divorce?...Well, same logic, if someone goes in to an abusive relationship, it is their fault for the abuse, because they should of chosen someone that isn't abusive. See? There are so many areas you have to consider.
Point being, just like someone stays with the person that is abusive because they have feelings for them, not because of the abuse, someone will stay with the person because they have feelings for them, not the financial gain. When the feelings fun out, then the financial part comes in.
You must not have been here for very long. This is IsItNormal. Everybody wants the last word. I am not going to lie in saying I don't prefer the last word, but I don't "need" the last word. Most of the time I reply is because I don't want to be rude.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
-
tigerkid92
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Your lack of knowledge of the law is your downfall. No offense, you are young and probably never studied it one bit, but still...perhaps you should before making such ludicrous statements.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
BTW, men can be and are more vindictive than women just the same.
I could get into an argument with you about the way divorce laws work, at least in the United States, but I think I'll pass. You can look them up if you so wish. Granted they are biased in favor of the woman, but only because women are more often the caretaker (without a backup plan prepared either, since she she has been taught this is a perfectly valid role for her to settle into). If a female caretaker is divorced, she is more or less homeless and penniless unless she has help from somewhere to get back on her feet. And since she has presumably taking care of the man full time previously in favor of working, it only makes sense he be the one to do this. If gender roles were reversed, who the law benefitted and who could take advantage of it would be as well. But, let me just say that if you are in a relationship with a woman and you have a child, and she gets custody, not getting married isn't going to keep her from getting benefits from you. Mwa ha ha! So there's no point really in considering your answer to this question from that angle.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Women being the caretaker is their choice though, even if it is reinforced by society's standards. And you are right the laws were put into place because of the traditional role that women took as a housewife/home maker. But that has changed drastically from the 1950s. As the gender roles have been reversing, or lets say finding a new "equilibrium" who the laws benefit have NOT been. That seems to be ItDuz's point more to me, as its my own point.
Sure we can make the easy argument that it all comes down to who we choose to marry or spend our lives with, but its never as cut and dry as that. Many times women choose not to go back to work at all, under the pretense that they are now a "housewife". As a man I would have a very hard time being convinced of this if my spouse decided to take this angle with me. Especially if the kids are in school. And given the almost certain need that households should be two income households to make ends meet today. But given the law and how it is applied today, many, many, MANY women can and do take this stance and if push comes to shove the law is overwhelmingly on their side should divorce be considered.
And also while not getting married doesnt prevent support benefits from being given to the woman should a child come into the picture, it still has a very appealing attraction in avoiding Alimony.