Random Impertinent Question
A female friend of mine has just broken up with her husband of seven years. She's wealthy, successful, has loads of female friends and soon to sell her small business after working hard for more than a decade.
He's none of the above and hasn't contributed a cent to the relationship property for the best part of his last well-paying job which was some five years ago.
In the jurisdiction where they live, a 50/50 split is a standard.
Question - Why is it just still so pathetic when a man thinks he has a claim to half of a woman's financial assets?
He's none of the above and hasn't contributed a cent to the relationship property for the best part of his last well-paying job which was some five years ago.
In the jurisdiction where they live, a 50/50 split is a standard.
Question - Why is it just still so pathetic when a man thinks he has a claim to half of a woman's financial assets?
posted by Cactus Kate at 3:31 AM
30 Comments:
Perhaps because his contributions to the relationship were not in money?
Maybe because he stayed home and looked after kids? Maybe he provided emotional support.
Maybe because if women rightly demand the ability for their non-monetary contributions to a relationship to be counted then exactly the same thing is available for men.
Speaking completely rhetorically, if you, Kate, disagree with my previous statement then I suggest that you are not as feminist as you claim and should give up the privileged position feminism has allowed you.
I see there are no comments - that does not surprise me
Answer:
Because women have argued for equal rights and equal splits, plus more, for decades, and decades. This is simply payback.
Why different to a women claiming 50% of a husbands & then having the audacity to try & get alimony, though the alimony was shot down pretty quick :).
Personally I think 50% of post marriage income/assets is fair, it's getting 50% of what was there pre marriage that makes me gag.
Ask Hearther Mill
No more so than it is pathetic for a woman in the same situation to claim half the matrimonal assets. In other words - incredibly pathetic. :-)
What good for the goose is good for the gander
what good for the goose is good for the gander
Weelll ... kind of cuts both ways.
1st wife walked into a newly renovated home - in which I had about 70% equity. (She had literally not a cent). I supported her through her MA and teacher training. She taught secondary school for five years. 7years later - we split - no kids. She gets 50%.
2nd wife - I had bought another home - again medium mortgage. She had minor equity in a home unit. (She was also $12K in credit card debt). My dad died, I paid off the mortgage with some money left to invest.(She sold her place so we had some extra cash savings.)
12 years later we spilt - she gets 50% and demands $10K or she go me for half my business.
Probably for the same reason that women still feel they have a claim on men's financial assets. mara
Answer - female double standards...
Biology.
Emily
Because it is?
I'm not sure I could date a woman that was earning more than me, let alone try and take half of it. Tragic.
It is just as bad when the roles are reversed *if* there are no kids.
If there are kids, I accept there needs to be some recognition of whoever the primary caregiver is.
In this day and age of the 'emancipated female', equal rights and all that carry-on, it's no more pathetic than the woman claiming half of the man's assets where the roles in this example have been reversed.
Either women want to be treated as complete equals, or not. Time they made up their minds..
Well, d'uh - it's because of your adherence to social conventions in which the man is expected to provide for the woman - like, obviously!
Sometimes you ask simply the most banal questions. It's like it's a blog in here, or something.
Because in 99.9% of divorces it her taking his hard earned money.
About time he got a piece of her (financial) pie.
Gender bending here. Swap the roles. It works both ways and is equally inexplicable.
But that's what you're getting at, right?
It's completely pathetic.
But it's equally as pathetic when a woman thinks she should get 50% of a man's assets when the situation is reversed.
He contributed and his own way and she knows what she got into through marriage. Buyer beware?
Edward
A cat provides emotional support. It won't claim half your assets.
8.58am - because I am at work and don't moderate them until I get home. So no that is not surprising - I have a job.
Rest - constant theme is payback. That's nice and yet another reason to pour scorn on greedy women of the past who have taken 50%. Fucked if the new working women should have to pay back her sins.
Fucked if the new working women should have to pay back her sins.
You wanted equality?
Here it is.
No give me half your money and get the fuck out of my house.
Been there, she spend most of my cash savings and income while it lasted & I supported her through Varsity papers. Losing 50% at the divorce was just the icing on the cake.
The sad thing is that it screws things up for a lot of people.
Risking something over half our assets is a huge incentive to not have a relationship lasting more than a year or two.
Because that is your view on sexual stereotyping. I am yet to find a firmly held opinion or rigorous argument in this blog. But you're quite amusing.
I had to pay out around $60k to my ex-husband after several years of marriage from an employer's provident scheme I had contributed to for 16 years. I just looked at it like the cost of liposuction ...a $60k expense to remove 100kgs for ugly useless fat ;-).
And hes still bitchy about paying child support 14 years later
Your 11.38pm CK
Hmm sounds like the treaty claims..
But more seriously, it is not payback, perhaps it is because that is have the application of the law has evolved.
Plus you have to really apply teh equal rights model.
Love to hear another womens POV.
Think that he deserves all he can squeeze out of the woman. She has so obviously sacrificed the marriage by working all hours, and then going out drinking with her mates.
Women are so selfish and lacking in empathy. I bet she never listened properly either.
in the words of Ford fairlane, "who did all the work in bed"
Phil at 10.52 a.m. on Thursday;
If it flies, floats or fucks; rent it, don't buy it.
Tu-O-Mo
11.33am - here is a firmly held opinion "you are a blind fuckwit".
Marital law is GENDER LAW, and GENDER LAW, (breeding law) doesn't have anything to do with logic, sense or civil law.It is simply based on gender based assumptions which presume breeding is going to happen when a couple marries. Because of this, it doesnt account in any way for childless couples. Its simply assumes we will follow the standard breeding role pattern inside the nests we usually breed in, having nothing to do with right,wrong and most importantly any civil law presumption. 50:50 is standard gender law (breeding law) as it assumes two parents are involved and you of all people should know that Cactus. You should also know that the law is the law and it applies equally (civil or marital)to all humans whether they be penis's, vagina's, rich or poor. Shame on you, your tampon string is showing.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home