"Cheaper to keep her" also comes to mind.

I have seen not just on here but out in society, folks fuss about the way they have been taken advantage of financially when it comes to divorce.

What are your thoughts when you hear people complain about this?

women allways get it all,kids,house etc,the mans balls.. everything allways...

I have yet to hear any story of a woman that lost her stuff by court order in a divorce. I do know plenty of men that had to start over, with only the cloths he could stuff into a suit case.

I have seen not just on here but out in society, folks fuss about the way they have been taken advantage of financially when it comes to divorce.

What are your thoughts when you hear people complain about this?

It shouldn't be a horrible thing being vulnerable to someone. I think if you take advantage of someone's vulnerability- you're the one with the real problem.

true..and I'm not saying it's fair now. as I said in my other post, it's not fair, lots of inequities exist for both genders but it's going to be a while before we find balance...if ever.

Some people will never be satisfied. Some people enjoy complaining for the sake of complaining.
Some people are incapable of acknowledging it ALWAYS takes two to tango.
Some people would rather point fingers than clean their own house.

it's not fair when any one group is consistantly treated better or worse than another on nothing more than a social "habit" that is continually evolving.

I didn't change my position or contradict anthing I have ever said

I was agreeing with your statement..that the tables have turned...and you turn around and question my stance?...what's up with that? perhaps you misunderstand my meaning or vice versa

@Nyt, pre nups do not always protect you.

And the reverse can be said for the woman. Would have been cheaper for her to keep him.

My stand is to encourage rational discussion, to move conversations away from sweeping judgements of one gender or the other. I will not pick a side

Picking a side, pointing fingers...that's easy to do in an environment like this where that is the game of the day more often than not. I'm not interested in playing. It's never productive.

I'm interested in discussions about options, ways it can be changed, efforts that can hammer out a plan for progress..not simply attacking how one speaks or placing blame and trading insults.

*shrug* There used to be more of that on DH.

You have a knack for repeating what I say and still getting it wrong.

I said..I'm not interested in pointing fingers, I prefer rational discussion.

CNN is news but I don't have discussions with CNN...unless you have photographic proof of me talking/yelling at my tv.....which is still not a "discussion"

Maybe a dictionary would help you but in the interest of education I will give you a hint. When confronted with an opposing sentiment, consensus holds that a dialog is warranted. In plain English the two parties need to discuss and present their arguments to support their position ergo the term discussion.

I have seen not just on here but out in society, folks fuss about the way they have been taken advantage of financially when it comes to divorce.

What are your thoughts when you hear people complain about this?

Should've gotten a prenup.

@Nyythawk, Prenups have been in the last few years challenged in court. If you can show that one party did not fully disclose their finances, etc as the time it was signed it can be thrown out. Also, there is the question of financial support of children, etc.

It is the judges discretion to honor these agreements. They usually are because they are singned contracts, but just like other contracts with the right circumstances they can be broken.

@Soul, you made some excellent points. I think it is intersting to note that it is mostly men that complain about the divorce settlements. They have lawyers just like the ladies do. They are both fairly represented.

Just a little history background: Most laws we have come from English common law. There we laws that were enacted back then to protect women. This was done because the men had all the control over the women. If a wife left her husband, the husband got the children. If the husband died, the next male heir inheritied the property, title, etc. The widow got nothing and was often thrown out on the streets in poverty.

So dower rights were passed where the woman would be able to recieve 1/3 of the estate.

Now come to the US. Until the last few years women had very little money even if they worked compared to the man. The court favored the women so they would not be left in poverty, etc.

Here is the thing: Times have changed. Women work, earn salaries, retirment, etc. Laws and courts are slowly changing where there is a balance.

The tender years doctrine is not used as a guideline where only mothers are considered the only ones that can raise children. Now the courts view that men are equally able to .

When a divorce occurs, the marriage is looked at as a contract. It is looked at who put what into the marriage. But also, a judge is not going to leave either one on the streets with a settlement. Usually, the person that gets more is the one that has the children. Obviously, they need the house, child support, etc to care for children.

Adultery is still a crime, in 23 states. And it was a crime, years ago, in Ohio.

Many states are repealing those laws, because they are never used. Pisses me off. As much as women cheat, I would gladly thrown them in jail and had them fined, instead of divorcing them. It is way cheaper, and I would get 30 days of peace and quiet with no nagging.