Women more likely to ask for divorce

hatrickpatrick · 23-08-2015 2:44pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

If you don't have kids, who cares, do what you want.

But with kids involved, extended families etc, your marriage is not just about you, it's about a lot of other people too.... It's the space between public and private.

So no I don't agree, I would not by default think an infidelity is a reason to break up a family and all that entails. The consequences are long lasting for a lot of people, are transgenerational....so for me...it would be very contextual.

Fair enough, that's your view. And I don't oppose child maintenance from the person who doesn't get custody, by the way. But personally if a woman cheats on me, I'm gone. And I don't intend to spend the rest of my life funding her "to the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed" or whatever the phrase is. She chose to betray me, I reserve my right to cut her out of my life. And I'd expect the same response from a woman if I was low enough to cheat on her.

Also, your post is a little non-sensical because "if you don't have kids, do what you want" isn't how the courts see things.

anothernight · 23-08-2015 2:48pm

ThinkProgress wrote: »

If it's a practical decision purely based on the fact the woman's job doesn't pay enough... that's not really the man's fault.

Should he be punished because the woman's career is not financially rewarding enough.

Most of the time it's not purely a pragmatic decision... it's usually something the woman actively choose to do.

In the case of financial decisions, both parties should be equally culpable for poor financial planning with regards to raising their children - not just the man.

I never said it was anyone's fault. I was just stating a fact. Take it or leave it.

Among the people I know, very few actually chose to stay at home to look after the children. It's probably different between different sections of society though.

However, I do need to point out that planning to have one spouse (and it's not always the woman) in the home to look after the children doesn't necessarily constitute poor financial planning. It's just planning.

I'm not too sure why you thought I was trying to blame men but I find it a little bizarre tbh.

ThinkProgress · 23-08-2015 2:55pm

anothernight wrote: »

Afaik maintenance payments are done by the person with the higher salary. That this is often the man is a different issue altogether.

My father never gave my mum a cent in maintenance, after he repeatedly cheated and tried his best to block the divorce. If you think the woman wasn't punished in that case, you're very wrong.

It's not really a different issue. It's a big part of the issue... women have no barriers to earning potential.

So men should not be punished just because they earn more money.

99% of the time it's the woman that comes out of divorce with the better deal. The man is unfairly punished for the failed relationship, while the woman often gets rewarded for her part in that failed union.

It's almost one of the smartest financial investments any woman could make... forget stocks and bonds.... just get married.

daisybelle2008 · 23-08-2015 3:01pm

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Where is the punishment for the woman? She might be the one who made the mistake by marrying an unsuitable person, but she comes out of it with a big juicy reward??

'punishments' 'juicy rewards'??

There seems to be a lot of people going through courts to get any kind of maintenance for their kids, I know a few who struggle especially when the ex is in a new relationship and the new partner resents the outgoings. I am not sure how accurate this view of women sitting on fat juicy alimony cash piles while the poor husband rots in a bedsit and if the numbers stack up. But then I don't know many very very wealthy people. I think there is definitely some cases but not as many as you'd be led to believe. My friend works in family law and speaking to her there is more struggle to get the most basic family responsibility paid and other posters have said that was their case growing up. Contributing to kids maintenance and selling the family home when kids are left seems to be common and fair.

anothernight · 23-08-2015 3:03pm

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It's not really a different issue. It's a big part of the issue... women have no barriers to earning potential.

So men should not be punished just because they earn more money.

99% of the time it's the woman that comes out of divorce with the better deal. The man is unfairly punished for the failed relationship, while the woman often gets rewarded for her part in that failed union.

It's almost one of the smartest financial investments any woman could make... forget stocks and bonds.... just get married.

Right so, feel free to believe whatever you want. I'm out.

If you think women are out to screw you though, remember to move out before the 5 year limit (or 2 years if you have children). Or better yet, just don't get into a serious relationship. :rolleyes:

daisybelle2008 · 23-08-2015 3:08pm

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It's not really a different issue. It's a big part of the issue... women have no barriers to earning potential.

So men should not be punished just because they earn more money.

99% of the time it's the woman that comes out of divorce with the better deal. The man is unfairly punished for the failed relationship, while the woman often gets rewarded for her part in that failed union.

It's almost one of the smartest financial investments any woman could make... forget stocks and bonds.... just get married.

There is a gender inequality with pay rates, it is changing but not there yet.

The rest of your post is not accurate.

ceadaoin. · 23-08-2015 4:44pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Relax chicken, listen personally I'm not a big fan of marriage, I enjoy a quiet life and I don't really like the idea of spending the rest of my life with the same person, but again that's purely my opinion, not saying I'm right.

But say if 2 people are getting a divorce would the following not be much fairer?

a) whatever each partner took into the marriage (ie land, a business, property etc etc) they retain in full after the divorce.

b) whatever the 2 of them bought or invested in together as a couple gets evenly split, with the amount invested by each party taken into consideration.

c) equal custody of the children, this is a no brainer wherever it's remotely possible, no normal parent should be denied the right to equal custody.

Do you think that would be a fair way of conducting a divorce for both men and women?

Shared custody is the default. If you mean that the kids should split their time evenly between both parents residences then this is not what is best for them, especially when they are young. The less upheaval they go through, the better. So that means staying in their primary residence with their primary carer (who most often happens to be their mother).

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well generally speaking women choose to have children and hence often choose to give up work (not every woman does) and rear their children, it's not inflicted upon them and they get support from the state as well.

They certainly shouldn't walk away from a relationship with nothing, they should walk away with whatever they brought in plus whatever half of what they invested in as a couple.

No some men probably don't want equal custody and therefore it shouldn't be the default position, but if a man requests equal custody and there's no reason not to give it to him then he should get it.

Is what I've said not fair and equal?

It's most often not a choice to give up work in my experience. Childcare is expensive and having to accommodate drop off and pick ups as well as any sick days etc can be detrimental to a job.

What support do they get from the state to stay at home? I wasn't aware there was any.

ThinkProgress · 23-08-2015 5:52pm

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

There is a gender inequality with pay rates, it is changing but not there yet.

The rest of your post is not accurate.

No there isn't. That's a myth perpetuated mostly by feminist groups... the gender pay gap simply does not exist anymore!

If men earn more in individual circumstances, that's just law of averages. He should not be punished for the rest of his working life because he was involved in a marriage that failed.

That's exactly what the current system does. Women get a golden handshake and smile/wink from the judge... congratulations on a job well done. Another man with his b*lls in a jar on the mantle piece! lol

Tbh, any man who's aware of these biases and willing signs up for this fcuked up agreement, gets zero sympathy from me...

Know your rights - or live with the consequences.

Medusa22 · 24-08-2015 12:17pm

I'm in a civil partnership with a woman, soon to be a marriage once the legislation comes through. So am I doubling my chances of getting divorced then since we're both women? I suppose we'll both try to screw each other over then financially if we do get divorced. :rolleyes:

daisybelle2008 · 24-08-2015 12:36pm

Medusa22 wrote: »

I'm in a civil partnership with a woman, soon to be a marriage once the legislation comes through. So am I doubling my chances of getting divorced then since we're both women? I suppose we'll both try to screw each other over then financially if we do get divorced. :rolleyes:

No, you are increasing your chances of becoming cash rich,..Getting married as a woman is better than investing in stocks and bonds and 99% of women make out like a bandit, houses, cars, as many kids as you want. With those odds you both will be loaded and are free to do it again and again. It's the way to go if you have a vagina. :;)

ThinkProgress · 24-08-2015 12:37pm

Medusa22 wrote: »

I'm in a civil partnership with a woman, soon to be a marriage once the legislation comes through. So am I doubling my chances of getting divorced then since we're both women? I suppose we'll both try to screw each other over then financially if we do get divorced. :rolleyes:

Hard to say. The dynamic in a same sex relationship might be different.(shock/horror/outrage... did he say same sex marriage is different to hetro marriage?? How dare he?) lol

I don't necessarily blame all women for screwing men over. It's the system that's fcuked up... some women might use it to their advantage, others might just accept the judgement of the courts as the reality of life without questioning it's fairness.

Colser · 24-08-2015 12:40pm

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

No, you are increasing your chances of becoming cash rich,..Getting married as a woman is better than investing in stocks and bonds and 99% of women make out like a bandit, houses, cars, as many kids as you want. With those odds you both will be loaded and are free to do it again and again. It's the way to go if you have a vagina. :;)

:D...Think I will head into work and hand in my notice,probably stop buying lotto tickets also..I always said that there must be an easier way to get rich;)

B0jangles · 24-08-2015 12:42pm

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

No, you are increasing your chances of becoming cash rich,..Getting married as a woman is better than investing in stocks and bonds and 99% of women make out like a bandit, houses, cars, as many kids as you want. With those odds you both will be loaded and are free to do it again and again. It's the way to go if you have a vagina. :;)

If Medusa22 and her partner get married and divorced then remarry repeatedly will they just keep getting richer and richer??? :eek:

Of course this will be balanced out by the unfortunate male couples who will just get poorer and poorer if they try the same thing

hatrickpatrick · 24-08-2015 1:22pm

Pupzep wrote: »

I think women often marry men that they don't, fancy, I think this contributes to the divorce as it's hardly ideal to be with someone who doesn't make you wet.

Generally speaking, women don't like it when there boyfriends/husbands are sexually attractive to women in general as it it reduces how much they can control their boyfriends/husbands. They will want to have sex with him though as he has options with women and that is in essence sexy.

Monogamy has to be one of the funniest pranks on society, it makes life difficult for men and women.

There certainly are complete w@nkers like those you describe, but the majority of women aren't like that at all. Referring to those who object to their boyfriends being attractive because it means less control. If someone, male or female, is showing that kind of mindset, then any potential partner would be well advised to run a thousand miles.

I've seen it happen with both genders and it's just insanely creepy. One of the first signs is objecting to their partner working out in the gym, under the pretence that "it's too time consuming / boring / you can't hang out with me as much" when in actuality it's "I don't want every lad/lass on the street chasing after you"

There was an article in the Daily Fail a few years ago about women objecting to their husbands having cosmetic surgery specifically because it meant they couldn't manipulate them as easily into staying in what were obviously unhappy relationships. And given that the Daily Fail has always been a sexist rag, I have absolutely no doubt that there are plenty of men who share the exact same mindset.

It sort of ties into what I'm saying about divorce though. It should be easier to leave that kind of toxic or abusive relationship unscathed. The fact is that removing the threat of an easy breakup doesn't turn good people into bad people, but it allows the bad people to let their "good" mask slip. That's really the only difference. Someone who was never manipulative in the first place won't turn into a monster once they have that security, but since it can be incredibly difficult to tell when someone's persona is an act, I don't blame people for avoiding the risk altogether. Male OR female.

Old Jakey · 24-08-2015 1:23pm

I like how it's sexist and hateful for men to point out the fact that men get screwed during the divorce process.

Cold War Kid · 24-08-2015 1:25pm

Old Jakey wrote: »

I like how it's sexist and hateful for men to point out the fact that men get screwed during the divorce process.

It's not at all when it actually happens. It is though when this is used as an excuse to have a go at women.

ThinkProgress · 24-08-2015 1:31pm

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It's not at all when it actually happens. It is though when this is used as an excuse to have a go at women.

And it happens on an alarmingly frequent basis... so it's perfectly fair to highlight it.

I think some ladies just want to have their vagina and eat it too! :pac:

Cold War Kid · 24-08-2015 1:34pm

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And it happens on an alarmingly frequent basis

It does?

hatrickpatrick · 24-08-2015 1:48pm

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I think some ladies just want to have their vagina and eat it too! :pac:

How strangely erotic :pac:

Medusa22 · 24-08-2015 1:52pm

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Hard to say. The dynamic in a same sex relationship might be different.(shock/horror/outrage... did he say same sex marriage is different to hetro marriage?? How dare he?) lol

I don't necessarily blame all women for screwing men over. It's the system that's fcuked up... some women might use it to their advantage, others might just accept the judgement of the courts as the reality of life without questioning it's fairness.

Well I have no objection to you thinking that the dynamic in a same sex relationship is different, it is different. Maybe you think that two women won't screw each other over though because you think that women only like to screw men over?

daisybelle2008 · 24-08-2015 1:55pm

Cold War Kid wrote: »

It does?

Just look around you at all the separated parents, they are all loaded. Every woman I know is getting tonnes of cash and none are struggling to make ends meet. I have plenty of friends in that position and all (99%) are living the high life, flash cars, holidays. :rolleyes:

I am divorced myself, my first hand experience is this is not happening with 'alarming frequency' or anything close. Have the people posting this been through the courts themselves?

My experience is people struggling for a rare night out with back to school expense, and desperately trying to get a better paying job (even the qualified ones) to make ends meet and balance childcare. meet ups are where's the cheapest food/early birds because everyone is on a budget. Especially where the man was in the building trade etc. and now unemployed and house in negative equity. They are not able to provide even half what it takes to raise a child never mind pay the mortgage.

I'd really love to know where all these cash rich divorced mums are, because I have honestly never met a single one and I'd be fairly sociable with a wide group of friends.

The Corinthian · 24-08-2015 2:12pm

Modern marriage is in need of some major reform, TBH. It's become a temporary institution, masquerading as a permanent one.

Think about it, once divorced, the marriage is over. Finished. You are no longer joined. Yet, if you have a breadwinner and a homemaker, the former still have to act as breadwinner for the latter and, last I checked, the latter does not have to act as homemaker for the former.

Assets, even those that long predate the marriage and potentially those that come long after it, have to be divided up? Why? It's no longer a unit? What did the spouse who gains from this division do to earn assets that were already earned long before he or she appeared on the scene - or years after they left it?

The whole concept is broken, TBH - that one may marry at 25, divorce at 40 and still be paying for them at 70. Does that make sense?

How it works out is who is poorer will profit from a divorce. They may not be as well off as they were during the marriage, but they'll still be a lot better off than had they remained single.

This does not make everyone who is financially less well off than their husband or wife a potential golddigger, but the option for abuse is all too readily available.

And this can be a man or a woman - just happens for various reasons (most notably because we still assign certain roles to genders) that it'll be a woman the vast majority of the time who will gain from a divorce. There's nothing sexist about pointing that out, neither does it mean that anyone is loaded at the end of it. It's just the statistics.

But even if in the minority, women will get burnt too, if they're unfortunate enough to be earning much more than their husbands (classic case I've come across, the husband was an 'artist', while she worked for a living). Or their husband has a disability.

So to those men, or women, who want to avoid ending up on the short end of the stick in divorce, be careful who you marry. Don't marry someone who already earns 20% of what you do before marriage. Choose someone who isn't going to decide that staying at home is the pinnacle of their ambitions in life. Avoid people with histories of mental health or debt problems. Or both.

Won't cover everything and things can change along the way, but you'd be surprised how many weddings I've seen over the years that were like car crashes in slow motion because one spouse decided to ignore such red flags.

It's common sense really. Not very romantic, but neither is losing half or more than you own and being in indentured servitude to bankroll someone you divorced 20 years ago for the rest of your life.

zeffabelli · 24-08-2015 2:19pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Modern marriage is in need of some major reform, TBH. It's become a temporary institution, masquerading as a permanent one.

Think about it, once divorced, the marriage is over. Finished. You are no longer joined. Yet, if you have a breadwinner and a homemaker, the former still have to act as breadwinner for the latter and, last I checked, the latter does not have to act as homemaker for the former.

Assets, even those that long predate the marriage and potentially those that come long after it, have to be divided up? Why? It's no longer a unit? What did the spouse who gains from this division do to earn assets that were already earned long before he or she appeared on the scene - or years after they left it?

The whole concept is broken, TBH - that one may marry at 25, divorce at 40 and still be paying for them at 70. Does that make sense?

How it works out is who is poorer will profit from a divorce. They may not be as well off as they were during the marriage, but they'll still be a lot better off than had they remained single.

This does not make everyone who is financially less well off than their husband or wife a potential golddigger, but the option for abuse is all too readily available.

And this can be a man or a woman - just happens for various reasons (most notably because we still assign certain roles to genders) that it'll be a woman the vast majority of the time who will gain from a divorce. There's nothing sexist about pointing that out, neither does it mean that anyone is loaded at the end of it. It's just the statistics.

But even if in the minority, women will get burnt too, if they're unfortunate enough to be earning much more than their husbands (classic case I've come across, the husband was an 'artist', while she worked for a living). Or their husband has a disability.

So to those men, or women, who want to avoid ending up on the short end of the stick in divorce, be careful who you marry. Don't marry someone who already earns 20% of what you do before marriage. Choose someone who isn't going to decide that staying at home is the pinnacle of their ambitions in life. Avoid people with histories of mental health or debt problems. Or both.

Won't cover everything and things can change along the way, but you'd be surprised how many weddings I've seen over the years that were like car crashes in slow motion because one spouse decided to ignore such red flags.

It's common sense really. Not very romantic, but neither is losing half or more than you own and being in indentured servitude to bankroll someone you divorced 20 years ago for the rest of your life.

Marriage can be either permanent or temporary. There is no masquerade, it's pretty evident.

Marriage is that space between public and private, and liminality is always hard to pin down, maybe impossible.

Friends are elective, family is not. Marriage is or was the way to legally establish , that is to say publicly establish that someone is your family, and at one stage changing this was not elective, now it is.

At least the relational parts became elective, but the financial ones did not, they remain permanent.

Divorce is an industry in and of itself. Lots of money to be made off conflict.

The Corinthian · 24-08-2015 2:27pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Marriage can be either permanent or temporary. There is no masquerade, it's pretty evident.

I'm afraid it is. Division of assets that pre or post date the marriage or maintenance for life for your ex spouse are not temporary. They are permanent measures of an institution that was once permanent and for life.

With, especially, no-fault divorce, it stopped being permanent. It because something that two people could enter and leave whenever either one of them wanted to. Or got bored. Or fell out of love. Or met someone else. Or whatever. When that happens it's finished. Done. Whatever family still exists, no longer exists in any legal sense.

Just because one does not avail oft his exit, doesn't make the institution any less temporary.

Medusa22 · 24-08-2015 2:29pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Modern marriage is in need of some major reform, TBH. It's become a temporary institution, masquerading as a permanent one.

Think about it, once divorced, the marriage is over. Finished. You are no longer joined. Yet, if you have a breadwinner and a homemaker, the former still have to act as breadwinner for the latter and, last I checked, the latter does not have to act as homemaker for the former.

Assets, even those that long predate the marriage and potentially those that come long after it, have to be divided up? Why? It's no longer a unit? What did the spouse who gains from this division do to earn assets that were already earned long before he or she appeared on the scene - or years after they left it?

The whole concept is broken, TBH - that one may marry at 25, divorce at 40 and still be paying for them at 70. Does that make sense?

How it works out is who is poorer will profit from a divorce. They may not be as well off as they were during the marriage, but they'll still be a lot better off than had they remained single.

This does not make everyone who is financially less well off than their husband or wife a potential golddigger, but the option for abuse is all too readily available.

And this can be a man or a woman - just happens for various reasons (most notably because we still assign certain roles to genders) that it'll be a woman the vast majority of the time who will gain from a divorce. There's nothing sexist about pointing that out, neither does it mean that anyone is loaded at the end of it. It's just the statistics.

But even if in the minority, women will get burnt too, if they're unfortunate enough to be earning much more than their husbands (classic case I've come across, the husband was an 'artist', while she worked for a living). Or their husband has a disability.

So to those men, or women, who want to avoid ending up on the short end of the stick in divorce, be careful who you marry. Don't marry someone who already earns 20% of what you do before marriage. Choose someone who isn't going to decide that staying at home is the pinnacle of their ambitions in life. Avoid people with histories of mental health or debt problems. Or both.

Won't cover everything and things can change along the way, but you'd be surprised how many weddings I've seen over the years that were like car crashes in slow motion because one spouse decided to ignore such red flags.

It's common sense really. Not very romantic, but neither is losing half or more than you own and being in indentured servitude to bankroll someone you divorced 20 years ago for the rest of your life.

I agree with you in the sense that marriage needs to be reformed, especially in relation to having to support an ex-spouse for the rest of their life. Like you said, women tend to be the ones who are given maintenance after divorce because they tend to be the primary carers and therefore give up their careers and are financially dependent on their spouse. I am aware that the system works the same for men who are stay at home fathers but like you said, that's a more rare occurrence and to do with traditional roles in society.

However the bit that I bolded is the part that I disagree with. In many instances when a couple has children they make a decision for the wife to stay at home to look after them because it is not financially sensible for the wife to work as the cost of childcare would be prohibitive.

If the wife decides to put her career on hold, or indeed to give it up entirely, in order to look after the children that she shares with her husband and to allow him to continue to work, that is a financial saving for the couple. Also, if they divorce, the wife may find it difficult to return to the work force after years of unemployment or she may not be able to progress in a career. In this instance I do believe that the main wage earner should support the ex-spouse who sacrificed their career to stay at home and look after the children. I agree that it should not have to be forever, perhaps until the ex-partner is financially stable or in gainful employment.

ThinkProgress · 24-08-2015 2:35pm

Medusa22 wrote: »

Well I have no objection to you thinking that the dynamic in a same sex relationship is different, it is different. Maybe you think that two women won't screw each other over though because you think that women only like to screw men over?

Actually, I meant exactly what I said - the dynamic is different. I don't know how the courts treat two women in a custody/asset dispute during divorce!

Perhaps the judge favors whichever partner puts on the best waterworks show, or gives them the best sob story? I really don't have a clue... I imagine there's not too many examples to choose from.

Like I've said numerous times (you seem to be ignoring this point), it's the system that's broken. Many women abuse the system, but it has to be flawed in the first place before you can manipulate it in your favor!

Triceratops Ballet · 24-08-2015 2:40pm

Forgive my ignorance but in instances where there are no kids do courts still award maintenance settlements to the lesser earning spouse? Or is it a case that both just walk away with what they brought to the table and 50% of the assets accumulated in the marraige?

That is surely the fairest way to handle the dissolution of a marraige where there are no children. As both parties are capable of walking away and providing for themselves and are arguable no worse off than if they had never married.

However in cases where there are kids I think that changes things hugely. Whoever leaves the marraige as the primary care giver to the kids is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to earning potential. I remember watching a documentary and have seen examples in real life where one partner opted to become the primary care giver and homemaker in order to allow their partner to persue their dream career working all hours, and yes, earning plenty for the family but those in that position said that they had only achieved the pinnacle of their careers because their partner had sacrificed their chance at a career. Their partners sacrifice had effectively allowed them to "have it all" reaching the top of their field and having a doting family. In instances where this is the case surely the party who gave up their career is entitled to some recognition for that?

In particular I know of an accountant and a surgeon in this situation the accountant gave up a very promising career when the kids came along so that the surgeon could pursue theirs. The family could have ended up as well off should either of them reached the top of their fields but neither of them could have managed it without some sacrifice from the other. What is the fairest settlement in a situation like that

daisybelle2008 · 24-08-2015 2:42pm

Corinthian, you are working off an assumption (and for alarming frequency to be the default)
that most women stayed at home 'not working' (raising kids isn't work?) and rode their rich husbands coattail with a cushy life maintained after divorce and tonnes of their husbands hard earned cash thrown at them.

Most women I know work especially separated ones, the ones who didn't did so because childcare was too expensive and with tax credits it made sense to do it that way as a couple. Raising children in the home is work and the decision was always made as a couple because there wasn't much to be gained financially.

Now separated and struggling to cover costs, their income potential is lower (if the were off the career ladder) Negative equity and loss of jobs (construction) don't help. I do not know a single separated mother who is not working or desparately looking for more hours/pay.

'Losing half you own' ??? 50/50 is fair. You are one financial unit in a marriage.

Every woman I know is as willing to work as men. Are you saying women are lazier and don't want to earn there fair share in a marriage or divorce?

Also are the majority of stay at home mums doing it against their husbands better judgement? Tax and childcare costs seem to tip the desision.

Honestly looking at all the broken marriages around me I have yet to see anyone on the pigs back financially. One of my closest friends, much older lady who had never worked went back to work as kids had left home and she had to buy the husband out on the property. It was the only way she could do it. He was in construction.

The Corinthian · 24-08-2015 2:50pm

Medusa22 wrote: »

However the bit that I bolded is the part that I disagree with. In many instances when a couple has children they make a decision for the wife to stay at home to look after them because it is not financially sensible for the wife to work as the cost of childcare would be prohibitive.

TBH, I wasn't really taking about this. I was referring to those who have probably spent their twenties either largely unemployed or as students or in low-paying dead end jobs with little or no ambition to improve their lot. They're the one's who'll tend to find the first excuse to give up whatever job they had as singles and settle into a comfortable existence as a kept man or woman.

My point is you can generally spot such people long before you marry or there are any children present, if you bother to do so.

The Corinthian · 24-08-2015 2:55pm

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Corinthian, you are working off an assumption (and for alarming frequency to be the default)
that most women stayed at home 'not working' (raising kids isn't work?) and rode their rich husbands coattail with a cushy life maintained after divorce and tonnes of their husbands hard earned cash thrown at them.

Where did I say any of that? I think you're presuming I was talking about women, but what I wrote can apply to either gender.

The only time I even addressed gender is only that it's probably more likely to be a woman than a man, because of how gender roles are still seen, but beyond that it can happen regardless of gender.

Honestly looking at all the broken marriages around me I have yet to see anyone on the pigs back financially.

I also never claimed anyone was and even said that this is not necessarily going to be the case. Lot of misreading going on here.

Women more likely to ask for divorce

Comments