Tony, where I live women get paid more the less the father sees the child.
Want to guess on the outcome of that? I'll give you a hint: I've twice had to defend myself from accusations of being a child molester, both made by the same person. Both thrown out of court for having no evidence of any kind. This is a technique that is called "The Silver Bullet" in the USA. Hitting a guy with both a child custody and criminal prosecution at the same time. Women literally teach it to each other in internet forums. Well, it failed the first time (thought it took two years to beat) and the second time was to punish me for asking to see my daughter more. My experience is far from unusual. One conversation with any family lawyer in the field will paint a really consistent picture of the realities.
Women keep the kids in 80% of breakups. If she does keep the children, she is entitled to more of the assets of the union. Here, with two kids she can claim 80% of the assets in a property settlement, plus child support (which is highest if the father has no shared custody) plus she becomes entitled to a government pension until the youngest of the children turn thirteen. Women weaponize the sympathetic court system to get paid. These are facts.
If women want mens' money, then they should negotiate for it. You want no fault divorce? Fine, it shouldn't come bundled with indentured servitude at the threat of jail time (in the USA). Men should be able to negotiate.
If a woman can't solely support the kids, then she should share custody or (gasp) let them be with their dad, who can certainly support them in almost every case. Remember that the Dad's parents probably want to see their grandkids. They can offer help and support, if they want. Right now they are almost entirely cut out.
Your idea that men would walk away and let their kids starve... Holy fuck. Even in the distant past, before this awful situation, that was rare. Mostly what happened was fathers raised their kids, after proving that the mother was at fault for the divorce. If the man was shown to be at fault, then they had to pay.
For a raging faggot you sure are a god damned simp.
I'll give you a hint: I've twice had to defend myself from accusations of being a child molester, both made by the same person. Both thrown out of court for having no evidence of any kind. This is a technique that is called "The Silver Bullet" in the USA.
And you have to pay the creature who made these false accusations? In my opinion, and I'm not recommending it to you, it would be fully justified to go after such a person with a real bullet, or at the very least a slander lawsuit.
Women keep the kids in 80% of breakups.
Who decides who gets the kids?
If she does keep the children, she is entitled to more of the assets of the union. Here, with two kids she can claim 80% of the assets in a property settlement, plus child support (which is highest if the father has no shared custody) plus she becomes entitled to a government pension until the youngest of the children turn thirteen. Women weaponize the sympathetic court system to get paid. These are facts.
You paint a rather bad picture. But if we agree that this is bad, why can it also not be bad for there to be no child support so deadbeats can just go around having kids without lifting a finger to support them in any way?
If women want mens' money, then they should negotiate for it. You want no fault divorce? Fine, it shouldn't come bundled with indentured servitude at the threat of jail time (in the USA). Men should be able to negotiate.
So why then marry at all?
If a woman can't solely support the kids, then she should share custody or (gasp) let them be with their dad, who can certainly support them in almost every case. Remember that the Dad's parents probably want to see their grandkids. They can offer help and support, if they want. Right now they are almost entirely cut out.
That seems reasonable. What if the dad doesn't want custody and doesn't want to pay any child support? I'm sure there are folks like that out there, and there'll be only more of them if there are no legal restraints on it whatsoever.
Your idea that men would walk away and let their kids starve... Holy fuck. Even in the distant past, before this awful situation, that was rare. Mostly what happened was fathers raised their kids, after proving that the mother was at fault for the divorce. If the man was shown to be at fault, then they had to pay.
I'm sure some would, even now. Do you remember the black woman who had 9 kids with 8 different men asking: so who is going to feed my kids? So that number would only increase if there is no standard at all.
You won't have an argument from me that modern divorce culture and permissiveness regarding the matter is bad. Despite being a raging faggot, as you say, I am a traditionalist.
For a raging faggot you sure are a god damned simp.
Not every position taken that you think "benefits women" is motivated by simpery. Some people just think what would be the just solution in a given situation. And definitely, allowing kids to starve because the dad is a deadbeat is not great.
I don't think there is a solution that is good and just in all cases. Even if we follow your guidelines, it would mean that a very rich husband who is not a great parent would great custody of the kids because he can support them, and the wife who is a better parent would not because she can't.
Any series of laws is going to have horror stories. The question is which leads to the minimum of such outcomes.
If the women initiates the breakup, then she takes the kids before the father gets home, or similar.
The courts almost never ever take the children from one parent and give them to the other. Therefore the party with the kids wins by default.
You paint a rather bad picture. But if we agree that this is bad, why can it also not be bad for there to be no child support so deadbeats can just go around having kids without lifting a finger to support them in any way?
Women have every control over bearing a child or not. Men do not have reproductive rights past the initial decision to have intercourse or not. If birth control should fail, or should the woman lie about it, then he has no further say in if he should be a father or how much and when he should pay.
You want a solution? Fine. The fathers get custody in every case of dispute. So, men don't control womens' bodies (to force an abortion etc) but they can't profit from the children either.
After that, leave it to negotiation between couples.
If the women initiates the breakup, then she takes the kids before the father gets home, or similar.
The courts almost never ever take the children from one parent and give them to the other. Therefore the party with the kids wins by default.
This is bizarre. How is that not kidnapping?
You want a solution? Fine. The fathers get custody in every case of dispute. So, men don't control womens' bodies (to force an abortion etc) but they can't profit from the children either.
So if the father is manifestly unfit, still give it to him because of some ridiculous notion of 'profting'?
After that, leave it to negotiation between couples.
I wonder how common what you say is. Because it mystifies me. Are things so much worse in the US, or am I simply not aware of similar things happening here?
Women who filed for divorce usually felt confident that they could keep their children.
“The question of custody swamps other variables,” find professors Margaret Biring and Douglas Willen in their article, “These Boots are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers are Women.”
“Our study found that children are the most important asset in a marriage and the partner who expects to get custody is by far the one most likely to file for divorce.”
You are assuming that men who knock up a girl and disappear are a major problem; that just isn't true Tony. Today no woman has to get pregnant or carry a baby if she doesn't want to do that. The reality is that every woman today who has a baby chooses to do that.
Most of the children that are born are born into some kind of relationship. It is very rare that the father doesn't live with the children, at least for a time. Women initiate separation and divorce, and they do it in the sure confidence that they can and will keep the children, and access to the man's income.
Go and talk to some male divorcees. You must know some! One of the worst divorce horror stories I ever heard was from a gay guy. His wife spent more than two years planning the breakup, and she took him for everything. She was fucking furious that he had married her while in deep denial. She went so far as to hook up with his business partner, then with her half of his share plus the business partners share, they shut him out of the business, with a minor interest and made sure he could not get paid. He never saw his kids again. These are not unusual stories.
My ex has been caught twice by Family Services, coaching my daughter to say that she never wants to see me again. The court social-workers know this, and were still sympathetic to her on every occasion. She will never face any consequences for what she has done. This is standard. I actually got away as well as any man I know.
Even if we adopted the changes that I proposed, that men get custody by default, there would be many, many cases of shared custody. Men honestly want to make women happy.
Tony, where I live women get paid more the less the father sees the child.
Want to guess on the outcome of that? I'll give you a hint: I've twice had to defend myself from accusations of being a child molester, both made by the same person. Both thrown out of court for having no evidence of any kind. This is a technique that is called "The Silver Bullet" in the USA. Hitting a guy with both a child custody and criminal prosecution at the same time. Women literally teach it to each other in internet forums. Well, it failed the first time (thought it took two years to beat) and the second time was to punish me for asking to see my daughter more. My experience is far from unusual. One conversation with any family lawyer in the field will paint a really consistent picture of the realities.
Women keep the kids in 80% of breakups. If she does keep the children, she is entitled to more of the assets of the union. Here, with two kids she can claim 80% of the assets in a property settlement, plus child support (which is highest if the father has no shared custody) plus she becomes entitled to a government pension until the youngest of the children turn thirteen. Women weaponize the sympathetic court system to get paid. These are facts.
If women want mens' money, then they should negotiate for it. You want no fault divorce? Fine, it shouldn't come bundled with indentured servitude at the threat of jail time (in the USA). Men should be able to negotiate.
If a woman can't solely support the kids, then she should share custody or (gasp) let them be with their dad, who can certainly support them in almost every case. Remember that the Dad's parents probably want to see their grandkids. They can offer help and support, if they want. Right now they are almost entirely cut out.
Your idea that men would walk away and let their kids starve... Holy fuck. Even in the distant past, before this awful situation, that was rare. Mostly what happened was fathers raised their kids, after proving that the mother was at fault for the divorce. If the man was shown to be at fault, then they had to pay.
For a raging faggot you sure are a god damned simp.
What do you expect from a mod of r/dickgirls.
That's an oddly specific thing/sub to mention given it was what Ahaus kept spamming about when ban evading and posting from throwaways.
And you have to pay the creature who made these false accusations? In my opinion, and I'm not recommending it to you, it would be fully justified to go after such a person with a real bullet, or at the very least a slander lawsuit.
Who decides who gets the kids?
You paint a rather bad picture. But if we agree that this is bad, why can it also not be bad for there to be no child support so deadbeats can just go around having kids without lifting a finger to support them in any way?
So why then marry at all?
That seems reasonable. What if the dad doesn't want custody and doesn't want to pay any child support? I'm sure there are folks like that out there, and there'll be only more of them if there are no legal restraints on it whatsoever.
I'm sure some would, even now. Do you remember the black woman who had 9 kids with 8 different men asking: so who is going to feed my kids? So that number would only increase if there is no standard at all.
You won't have an argument from me that modern divorce culture and permissiveness regarding the matter is bad. Despite being a raging faggot, as you say, I am a traditionalist.
Not every position taken that you think "benefits women" is motivated by simpery. Some people just think what would be the just solution in a given situation. And definitely, allowing kids to starve because the dad is a deadbeat is not great.
I don't think there is a solution that is good and just in all cases. Even if we follow your guidelines, it would mean that a very rich husband who is not a great parent would great custody of the kids because he can support them, and the wife who is a better parent would not because she can't.
Any series of laws is going to have horror stories. The question is which leads to the minimum of such outcomes.
If the women initiates the breakup, then she takes the kids before the father gets home, or similar.
The courts almost never ever take the children from one parent and give them to the other. Therefore the party with the kids wins by default.
Women have every control over bearing a child or not. Men do not have reproductive rights past the initial decision to have intercourse or not. If birth control should fail, or should the woman lie about it, then he has no further say in if he should be a father or how much and when he should pay.
You want a solution? Fine. The fathers get custody in every case of dispute. So, men don't control womens' bodies (to force an abortion etc) but they can't profit from the children either.
After that, leave it to negotiation between couples.
This is bizarre. How is that not kidnapping?
So if the father is manifestly unfit, still give it to him because of some ridiculous notion of 'profting'?
I wonder how common what you say is. Because it mystifies me. Are things so much worse in the US, or am I simply not aware of similar things happening here?
Tony, right now many mothers are manifestly unfit. Why do you presume fitness for women but not for men? Do you want to think about that or a minute?
https://mensdivorcelaw.com/statistics-show-women-more-often-initiate-divorce/
You are assuming that men who knock up a girl and disappear are a major problem; that just isn't true Tony. Today no woman has to get pregnant or carry a baby if she doesn't want to do that. The reality is that every woman today who has a baby chooses to do that.
Most of the children that are born are born into some kind of relationship. It is very rare that the father doesn't live with the children, at least for a time. Women initiate separation and divorce, and they do it in the sure confidence that they can and will keep the children, and access to the man's income.
Go and talk to some male divorcees. You must know some! One of the worst divorce horror stories I ever heard was from a gay guy. His wife spent more than two years planning the breakup, and she took him for everything. She was fucking furious that he had married her while in deep denial. She went so far as to hook up with his business partner, then with her half of his share plus the business partners share, they shut him out of the business, with a minor interest and made sure he could not get paid. He never saw his kids again. These are not unusual stories.
My ex has been caught twice by Family Services, coaching my daughter to say that she never wants to see me again. The court social-workers know this, and were still sympathetic to her on every occasion. She will never face any consequences for what she has done. This is standard. I actually got away as well as any man I know.
Even if we adopted the changes that I proposed, that men get custody by default, there would be many, many cases of shared custody. Men honestly want to make women happy.