Do you think divorce laws favor women and seriously need to be changed?

Question

I think in some cases where the man is more financially better off than the woman a decision should be made to allow women to get off her feet. However, I believe that sometimes the courts overdo when they give a woman who had little earning power before marriage a good chunk of the man assets and money in some cases half or more.

The main excuse used by women for compensation is the sacrifice she made of staying at home in those that did to raise the kids. But if you look at it if you look at the potential earnings they may have make and deduct the amount of money that those men spent on food, health insurance, and clothing for wife and children (because in these type of relationships the woman spent virtually nothing), expensive gifts and trips given to the wife that she enjoyed, you would find that ballpark range is alot less than what at times these women are awarded. Also the last time I checked alot of times the women are as happy or more to have kids so this excuse should not be made.

The second excuse is that the women were accustomed to living this lifestyle but if you look at it if the woman made the decision to divorce the man then basically she has to give this up as well. It basically is conflicting to say that you could do without the man but at the same time expect money that does not relate to child custody as a source of entitlement.

Answer 1

Child support is for the CHILD...



Alimony is for gold diggers...



You're not the only person to believe that fair divorce requires BOTH parties to stand up on their own two feet and move on if they so desire to divorce...



Further, I do NOT believe in divorce except in the cases of infidelity or abuse. In which case it would make sense to accomodate the adjustment for "some women" (or men) on a very SHORT TERM basis.

Answer 2

I think the marriage laws should be changed.



It's completely to easy to marry someone then decide that you hate them. In the meantime the kids have to suffer. They don't understand what's happening they end up being moved to different cities or states then shipped back and forth like cargo.



Both the man and woman should be responsible and sane enough to work out whatever problems there are and remain civil even if the marriage ends in divorce. Rarely do either consider how it effects the children.



If a man can't trust the woman he is marrying not to try to take him through the cleaners there is always the prenuptial agreement. If people stopped getting married 6 months into a relationship and started using their brain then maybe the lawyers and judges couldn't make divorce proceedings be so long and drawn out. The American court system likes divorces they make a great deal of money from making them last as long as they can.

Answer 3

Every single last law is sexist.



We do not need to debate the theoretics of it, the statistical facts are women are better off after divorce.

Vastly more women receive custody, child-support, etc...

In *any other* aspect of our laws Affirmative Action would apply and say if the law creates such an imbalance, 95% to 5% women/men custody, then the "law of big numbers" tells us unequivocally that it is obviously and overtly sexist.

70% of all divorces are filed by women; obviously sexist.



Statistics also tell us that children raised by single fathers fair better in life than those raised by single mothers. The "tender years" doctrine is not merely sexist it also appears to be incorrect.



The arguments you are giving are anachronisms from before women's suffrage when a man could leave his wife of forty years who never worked a day in her life and /someone/ needed to take care of her and the State didn't want to pay. Or more to the point, she had to choose between a life of destitute or accept a philandering husband.

"Spousal support" has supplanted alimony and is generally limited.



Today both men and women are (suppose to be) responsible for themselves but the message every step of the way is men are too incompetent to have custody yet women are too incompetent to raise their own children without help.



The default judgment ought to be:

Joint legal custody.

Shared physical custody.

Shared responsibility for child-support; both pay 50% into a trust for the child.

Both parents are responsible for maintaining residence for their kids; no support is paid for this.



Circumstances can then alter it from there; e.g. if one parent decides to move 'too far' away they have to give up physical custody and an adjustment to support payments made (not flip from 0 to 100% or 50% to 100%)



The cost of raising the children should be the determining factor for support payments, not a cash-cow based on income. People who make little money would not "get off easy" and people who make a lot of money would no longer be taken advantage of.



If the man works and has a decent job and mother does not, physical custody should be awarded to him, even /pressed/ upon him.

Then the mother will have the time necessary to finish her studies and get herself on her feet and she should have 'right of first refusal' to spend as much time with her children as she desires.







Child-support is NOT for the child; child-support is for the mother on behalf of State.

She receives the money.

She has total freedom on how it is spent.

If he dies, she is still responsible for raising her children and if that happened then the State would pay her from welfare programs.

Child-support is, in reality, in fact, for the mother.