Should women be entitled to a man’s money in divorce?

[Anonymous]

Men are valued on how much money they have (how successful they are).
Most would argue women don’t owe men anything. Women are empowered to leave men

Once a guy gets married a woman has that hold on his financial assets and everything that man has had to go through hell to acquire.

Is that fair?

In a divorce no woman is fighting for half his love, just his money.

Women shouldn’t be entitled to a man’s money after divorce

Women should be entitled to a man’s money after divorce

[Smart_Monk]

Just what nonsense is it to plan to have a divorce. If it's that awful then don't marry. It's like imagining how many hours per day you'll be in pain for when you get sick. ㅤ

[DishLady]

Should a man be entitled to a woman's money in a divorce? (It's the same question and BOTH people need to answer.)

If the answer is NO there should have been a freaking prenup... That's what those are there for.

If the answer is YES, then split everything 1/2 way and be done with it... The investment of time and effort (exp for folks married for the formative DECADES of a person's career and wealth management, family-building etc) is extremely significant. For either party to be left high and dry after all that is wrong.

THIRD AND FINAL CATEGORY: If the person with the money makes married life IMPOSSIBLE (e. g., extra marital affairs, etc.) then there are rules in place for the spouse to seek financial (and possibly medical) compensation. This is particular to specific cases -- like a person I know who contracted HIV from her spouse who was cheating on her... She can NEVER have a normal life again... she's panicked about her children being at risk and now has a particular care giver for the youngest one (age 3) and has a massive last-will-and-testament to protect her kids and make sure they're taken care of. That means MOST of the guy's fortune was put in trust for their five kids. (And what would THAT guy's excuse be? Ruin the woman's body with the 5 kids... then with HIV... and run off scotfree to the next person? Come on.)

[LazerBean]

If she was caring for the house and raising children, then yes she is entitled to her share of the income.

If they both worked the same amount of hours, but she did more child and home care, also yes.

If everything was even, then no she is not.

All only if the reason for divorce is valid.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

The only part I agree with is the last sentence. A SAHM is only capable of that lifestyle because of the man she married. Which means it's a perk of being married to him. Whether you realize it or not, but the "entitlement" you advocate for, is precisely the reason men are running from traditional marriage. We feel punished for doing our jobs.

[LazerBean]

People run from traditional marriage because they are degenerate, both men and women. Yes, I am able to have my children not be raised by the government and live a lifestyle as clean as I can because it's a perk of being married to my husband. My husband also gets to have children not raised by the state and live a lifestyle as clean as he does because it's a perk of being married to me. It's not "entitlement", it's just how marriage is supposed to work and it would not work if one of us were not doing our parts. I would probably feel punished for doing my job too if I picked a loser spouse, but my parents raised me better than that.

If a man or woman divorces their spouse for a valid reason, then they should get their share of possessions. I don't know why that upsets you.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

It upsets me because the only duty that can be enforced is that of the husband. Regardless of reason for divorce. Until no fault divorce is abolished at a national level, a wife claiming she's entitled to half is showing she's just in it for the money.

Calling people degenerate for not espousing to "cheaper to keep her" is below the belt. And frankly, if that's what wives need to keep their husbands at home, then the state of women is sad.

[LazerBean]

That is why I specified only if the divorce is for a valid reason. I agree that no fault divorce should be abolished. But a worker is entitled to their pay, and housework is still work. I never said "half of the money", just her share. Studies show that married women who work full time on average spend five or six hours more per week on housework and caregiving than men. She should be compensated for that much.

And no, it is a simple fact that only degenerates are against marriage. In fact, aversion to marriage is a side effect of degeneracy. Just look at the demographics of who is against marriage. It's not the high quality people. It's not the nice church kids who are saving themselves for marriage. It's the people who slept around, the people with no daddy, the people with one useless parent, the people who keep getting into relationships that will obviously never work because they use their genitals to pick their partner instead of their brain, it's the washed up divorcees who never saw the divorce coming even though it was obviously inevitable. Divorce is not random and unpredictable. Someone with a body count of two or three is literally exponentially More likely to go through divorce as a post to someone with a body count of one. And the rates just go up as the body count goes up. Marital satisfaction is also predictable by body count. So yes, aversion to marriage and also divorce is very much a degenerate quality.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

I agree, if she's paying half the bills, then she's entitled to half the assets accumulated during the marriage. And it's easy for you to say, since you married when both of you probably had no assets.

I would caution you though on going tit for Tat on workload. I had an ex that did precisely that, and was quickly reminded of the quiet value men bring to relationships that many women fail to recognize.

As to the argument about high body count, while I agree that high body count negatively affects women, a man's high body count is exactly what allows him to learn to vet a potential wife without "thinking" with his dick. But I'll grant you that experience does make people leary of the pitfalls.

Ultimately, both spouses are responsible for their duties within the marriage. Unfortunately, the state sponsored prenup for some reason absolves a wife of hers for no apparent reason other than

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

As to aversion of marriage, the men in the U. S. aren't adverse to the principle of marriage. If anything we're adverse to the potential of marrying the wrong woman. Especially in a justice system that simply looks at earnings to determine who is to pay. That's not degeneracy, that's intelligence mixed with self preservation.

All men are asking for is for women not be incentivized to break a contract and be rewarded for it. If women want out of a marriage, fine, but y'all give up the benefits the marriage affords you.

[LazerBean]

My husband owned a house and a decent vehicle before we were married, so that is incorrect. Also your view that she's only entitled to assets if she is paying half the bills only applies to people whose children are raised by the government and men who want to take on half of the workload in the come.

I have in no way discounted what men bring two relationships. I am simply pointing out that YOU are, in fact, discrediting what women do in the home.

And you are incorrect about men's body count. Stats show that the relationship between divorce and degeneracy is virtually the same between men and women. Stats also show that men's satisfaction within their marriage drops as their body count increases.

I somewhat agree with your opinion about men not being adverse to the principle of marriage, but rather the potential of marrying the wrong woman. Women largely feel the same way, and studies show that as far as wanting to get married, not being sure, and not wanting to be married, men and women share about the same perceptions. And I don't think they are wrong to feel so, very few men and women are worth marrying today. But regardless of why, aversion to marriage is still a symptom of degeneracy. Men, and women for that matter, can protect themselves from divorce simply by not being a degenerate.

Again, I agree that no fault divorce should be abolished and that my opinion was specific to people going through a valid divorce and regardless of who is divorcing who, so your last statement is irrelevant. In a valid divorce, each spouse should get their fair share of the assets.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

This all goes back to the initial premise of the question. Does a woman have a RIGHT to a man's finances in divorce?

We both agree that if both spouses are doing their DUTIES, then divorce isn't even a topic of discussion. So all of it is a moot point really.

And no, I'm not discrediting the value women bring. I'm simply suggesting that it doesn't warrant financial compensation. Being completely honest, I'm saying it's what she is required to do to be provided for within the marriage.

The rest of it is just noise really. You can call it degeneracy or experience. The truth of the matter is that men with experience don't put up with bullshit. Naive men do.

[LazerBean]

And the answer is, it depends. If the roles were reversed, is the husband entitled to a share of the money the wife made? In the same cases I stated for women, yes. Does your opinion stay the same regardless of gender, too?

For the minority of men today who are actually providers, providing for their family is also what is required for him to be able to have a wife that can stay home and provide and superior lifestyle for him and their children. It balances out, so that point is moot.

Facts and statistics are not just noise. Your opinions that have exclusively been based on opinions and refuted by the stats, however, are just noise. And if that's all you are going to continue to bring to this discussion table then I don't know what the point of continuing is.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

Again, you'd have to define the terms of the marriage. If 50/50 is what you're striving for, then yes, fairness goes both ways. The reality is, marriages are never 50/50, financially speaking. As for the SAHM, there is no equity the husband receives post divorce. The courts can't/won't force her to clean the exhusbands home. But the courts can definitely force the husband to split his income and assets. Which is why I stated my prenup.

in my opinion there are 3 types of men that get married in the U. S.
1. The man that doesn't know the risk (thinking with his dick)
2. The man that knows the risk but doesn't care (thinking with his dick)
3. The man that knows the risk and offers his own prenup agreement (experienced)

And there are two types of women.
1. The woman who sees marriage as a financial endeavor.
2. The woman who sees marriage as purpose and duty.

[LazerBean]

Sorry, you've already admitted that you aren't interested in facts, so I'm not going to continue throwing pearls to swine. This has been no different than had I been arguing politics with a liberal woman.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

Oh... apologies for touching a nerve. May the degeneracy I offer never become your reality.

[LazerBean]

My emotions are stable and logical, yours are the ones that are so sentive that they rule you. And thank you, I hope one day you choose accountability over degeneracy as well. Have a blessed day!

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

Your highness

[FunkyMonkee]

The ONLY reason she should get ANY money from him is if there are kids under 18 involved (or 16, depending on the state's rules of adulthood) and he should ONLY have to pay for half of THEIR needs since, they are half his kids!! Once they reach adulthood, he should no longer have to pay their way! Same goes if he gets the kids! SHE should pay half their way!! If there's and equal number of kids and they split down the middle, neither should have to pay for anything more than their half. Otherwise, it's kinda stupid to have him pay for her two kids while she pays for his two.

[Lesbologist]

They turned (the government), relationships into a PvP server. You know what I voted for because I wouldn't vote against myself. Reminds me of that time Rich Piana married some chick only to find out she was there for the money... he got lucky getting out of that one, only just to die taking workout gear, which was probably for the chicks too.

[HighValue]

For the unfair sexist morons that think yes, then the woman should be billed for all the shelter, utilities, food, etc. that the man provided during the relationship and be put in prison if she doesn't immediately start making monthly payments for it.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Of course yes.

But the same is true for woman's money, the man gets his share of hers, when it's a no fault divorce right? At least this is the law as I understand it. Then there's also prenuptial agreement as a modifier.

[slatyb]

Women are entitled to about half of the joint assets in a divorce. If the man worked outside the home while she maintained the home and provide most of the child care, they deserve half the joint assets, as if she had been paid for all that work.

[strateguy632]

she should return to her parents. our modern system is not fair. it is even wrong.

[Nikki1989]

So you just want like-minded women-haters to jack you off in agreement, huh?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I think if a man marries a woman and the woman isn't working or doesn't have any funds and he has money then he should be required by law to give that woman at least a bit of money so thathe can cover for a month or two til she finds a job.

[Ariesman81Nshiiit]

That's why my next prenup will require a BJ ( a good one with eye contact) and a 1 hour back rub before I sign the alimony check. Because the fucking I get will be worth the fucking I get.

[In_Trance]

It really is circumstantial and there's no one correct answer

[Anonymous]

Only if he earned it while she was with him