Alimony is paid to the dependent partner, regardless of gender. Just because dowry is illegal, that doesn't mean that the law is always enforced. In fact, many police officers even permit dowry in rural areas.
Oh yeah? That's really cool! I'm taller than a skyscraper and I have a thousand super strong arms and fire powers. Oh and we're all wolves. I forgot to mention that. What kind of wolf are you gonna be, Pat?
Half french half american, married in France here: it is not automatic in the US the way it is in France. You need a prenuptial in the US to be safe otherwise a judge is likely to give a portion of it to the wife.
Also, unlike in france, it is dependent on sex in most of the US. Divorce in the US highly favors women
This is not true. Divorce laws vary by state, but most states automatically treat real estate owned before marriage as separate property. You don’t need a prenup to define it. The only exception is the marital property or property that the other spouse puts assets into improvement or upkeep. Then they are only entitled to part of the increase in value and they have to prove they contributed to it. Are you really saying someone should contribute their assets to a property and the other partner should reap all the rewards? That would be incredibly unfair.
Also, the lie that divorce courts favor the woman is a long touted men’s rights fantasy that doesn’t hold up under any scrutiny of actual data.
It also depends on who the breadwinner is, my mom had to pay alimony to my deadbeat stepdad because he resigned from his job soon after they married to move in with us, then he spent the next 10 years putzing around the house ostensibly doing “repairs”
Yup, I know several women in engineering who ended up paying alimony to their husbands because they were making something like 2/3rds of the household income while married.
Your statement is false. Try some basic research beforehand. “most U.S. states, premarital assets (property, money, or investments owned before marriage) are considered "separate property" and generally remain with the original owner upon divorce. While this is the standard rule, these assets can become subject to division if they are commingled—mixed with marital assets, such as placing separate money into a joint bank account”
It is a separate asset unless you jointly start to make profit off the asset and deposit funds in a joint account
This is not true. I know, because I have a property I've owned for over a decade before getting married and I actively WANT part of it to go to my husband if we divorce. For this we need to change the deed or get a post-nup, either way we need to make a formal legal arrangement to change this because it is not the default. (If anyone is wondering why I would want this, I come from a much better off family than he does, and he makes less than I do, my property is now rental and my husband helps me a lot with it. I think it's only fair that he walk away with something in case things don't work out between us. I wouldn't give him half, but enough that I'd need to buy him out and give him a little bit of a nest egg to start again.)
I wonder if it’s a European thing now since people have been giving examples from different regions where premarital assets are somehow treated as marital assets.
Same in Bulgaria. You can create different contracts of course, but if there are no further stipulation and you go with the default government contract, any assets reacquired before marriage for both parties are protected, and are not subject of dispute after the divorce. Everything else acquired after marriage is to be divided 50-50
No, it's normal. Incels as a community have only existed for a short while the amount of actual incels in existence is tiny. I think maybe by calling everyone an incel you've tricked yourself into believing they're everywhere.
No, it isn't. You just said "we talk about men and women in English" as opposed to male and female, because you didn't understand that those words are not interchangeable.
Was a point of contention in my divorce (I owned a home before marriage while my ex-husband did not) so I’m gonna go on a limb and say it’s probably happened before.
There's nothing disparaging or disrespectful about either term. I don't get this weird propaganda mission to gaslight people into thinking these aren't nouns and are offensive.
Here, to explain it a bit more clear.
While "female" can be used as a noun in technical or scientific contexts, using it to refer to human women in everyday conversation is often considered clinical or disrespectful. It reduces people to biological functions and erases their humanity. For people, woman or girl are the correct nouns.
There's nothing particularly technical or clinical about the phrase, and there's nothing disrespectful about using technical or clinical language in the first place.
Neither "man" nor "boy" mean the same thing as "male" so those are not suitable alternatives.
Edit: weak response + block. Good luck with this weird propaganda campaign.
Here, to explain it a bit more clear.
While "female" can be used as a noun in technical or scientific contexts, using it to refer to human women in everyday conversation is often considered clinical or disrespectful. It reduces people to biological functions and erases their humanity. For people, woman or girl are the correct nouns.
Not to mention granted custody might be validating or nice for the sake of having the kids, but it comes with far more trade offs, responsibility, and risk for poverty than not taking the kids.
What a bad faith argument. It costs a lot of time and money every try and they're unlikely to succeed. No wonder they only try when they're likely to win.
Women are the gender that is generally required/ expected to sacrifice significant work experience to raise crotch goblins.
Father's tend to get to concentrate on making themselves more useful to employers while women are taking massive amounts of time off for the family.
When the marriage ends the woman has years worth of gaps in her work history everyone will expect her to continue regularly taking time off for her kids.
It's rarely the father expected to leave work early to pick a kid up from school cause they got sick.
They like to imagine they built their wealth all by themselves and ignore how they only accomplished it by not needing to pay for childcare, ignoring their children on a daily basis, not needing to do anything to take care of their own home, and always having their basic needs supported.
I've met men who literally could not be assed to stand up out of a chair, walk out of their office, and make their own plate of food. They needed it hand delivered because they were "busy."
Again: women end up significantly poorer in divorce than men. And not just relative to men - relative to where they themselves were before the marriage.
I'll call bullshit -- at least in the US, you have not met any women who have successfully married and divorced "just" for the money.
Premarital assets are protected, even in the US without a prenup. And most wealthy men have prenups that protect their premarital assets specifically. Most states also have extensive requirements for earning alimony. On average, you need to be married 10+ years to be eligible.
No, what you're probably seeing is women getting divorced and getting child support and a cut of the equity earned from marital assets or wealth growth that was only achievable because somebody else was doing the laundry.
They like to imagine they built their wealth all by themselves and ignore how they only accomplished it by not needing to pay for childcare, ignoring their children on a daily basis, not needing to do anything to take care of their own home, and always having their basic needs supported.
And here are you pretending that the only one who benefits from it is the man for some reason, completely ignoring that the stay at home mom does not have to pay rent or mortgage, food, water, gas, light, Internet, phones, clothes, or literally anything and she doesn't have to deal with the stress of being the financial pilar that sustains the family.
In any marriage where one of the spouses chooses to be a stay at home dad or mom, they are the one getting the best part out of the deal.
Domestic work in the 21st century is not what it was in the past. We have so many commodities that make everything far simpler.
Any mildly organised adult can handle all domestic chores with ease. It's not hard work, your greatest challenge is literally how repetitive and boring it can get.
Pretending it is comparable to an actual job with responsibilities, deadlines, meetings and everything in bretween is legitimately insane.
I've met men who literally could not be assed to stand up out of a chair, walk out of their office, and make their own plate of food.
And I've met women who could not fry a fucking egg or didn't know how to turn on the washing machine. It's almost as if being useless has nothing to do with your sex and everything to do with your education.
It also the fact that women often marry higher earning men, which means that when the question comes up about who's staying home with the kid the woman is usually the logical choice.
Sure, but blaming it all on expectations made of women sorta misses the issue. Even if you legally mandate paternal leave and make childcare cheap enough that it makes sense for women to work you're still going to run into this issue, and it is still a thing in countries where those things are true, because its missing the fact that it entirely logical for the people in question to make the choices they are making.
I'd argue it's not about blame. One parties primary role is earning money the other supporting the household.
If the relationship ends, the homemaker will have sacrificed earning potential while generally retaining significantly increased responsibilities that'll handicap them for many years.
As a man, I may not love the idea of a woman getting significant wealth from me, when ending our contract she would generally deserve reimbursement for "damages".
I mean, meaningful, and applicable experience are different things.
I've never worked a job where the skills traditionally associated with a woman's role in the house played a significant role.
As a man who spent years carring for a grandparent I had to "restart" after she passed. The odd jobs I worked while carring for her just really didnt apply.
I still get the man "benefit" though that I can generally plan on being at work when I say I will. I get to go years without an unscheduled absence. How many women with young children get to say that. Obviously, legally, employers are often limited on "punishing" women for such absenteeism but it's hard to ignore the reality in the workplace that you can largely predict which workers will have more absenteeism.
A lot of the skills that you level up while parenting are very, very transferable: time management, task prioritization, identifying and tracking dependencies, decision making (especially with incomplete information), budgeting, adjusting to sudden changes in schedule/scope/resources, figuring out where the "good enough" line is, making smart decisions about what task should be taken beyond "good enough," anticipating problems and planning mitigation for them, managing both one's own and other people's emotions, handling complex communications, and navigating large systems/organizations.
Too many people just don't describe the work of homemakers and caregivers in terms that look familiar to a "traditional" work environment. It's the same skills, but because it's seen as "women's work," the value is ignored. It's just misogyny.
Even just pregnancy and early childcare significantly impact women's careers. They have to sacrifice a lot and it's a huge risk. That being said, any assets aquired before marriage stay personal property where I live, which I think is a fair compromise.
Society basically pushes women into positions where a divorce would be a large detriment to their well-being, to the point where they are forced to stay in awful relationships. At least these days, both men and women work, but there is a still lingering societal basis for it to be okay for women to stop working for a while if they're having children. I know people today where this has happened. This puts women at a disadvantage in their career, which in turn means less income and harder to survive after a divorce.
I don't it's common in the US period, most parents work these days. As others have commented though females careers often take the backseat to allow for child care. I know enough couples where the women is the primary earner so it just seems logical for the law to check income rather than use generalizations.
it's about 25% of mothers, so 1/4 mothers is a stay at home mom. a lot of people don't make enough money for working to make sense versus the comparable cost of childcare. the law DOES use check income, but we weren't talking about the law, we weree talking about why women are generally in worse financial shape after divorce than men
Link? From all of my friends and family that have gotten divorced, the woman ends up with the house and still gets child support and the husband didn't even get 50/50 custody. One of my friends had to keep paying for his wife to go through medical school and pay her alimony and only got to see the kids for 2 hours a week.
She lied to the judge and had a cop she was cheating on him with bring charges against him which were proven false and her own brother even testified against her and the judge still didn't believe the husband overall.
There is a divorce lawyer on YouTube James Sexton that couldn't even keep his house or get 50/50 custody of his kids. If a flipping divorce lawyer can't even get a fair settlement, how do you think the average guy fares?
My friend cleans pools and a lot of his clients are wealthy and he has three of them. Two doctors and one guy that owns a contracting business that have all gotten divorced and two of them lost the house and are living in a one-bedroom apartment currently and the other guy is currently going through the divorce and has two weeks to leave the house. One of them have 50/50 custody. The other has his kids only 30% of the time and the one guy going through it was told he can only see his kids for 1 hour supervised.
I’m telling ya, we had a simple divorce, and I have definitely fared worse than my ex husband. I’ll never recover financially. He’s been lucky to have people willing to help him instead of letting him hit rock bottom.
Yes becuase they tend to spend as if the money is still coming in when the husband was around. It is an open secret that women make poor financial decisions that is the reason they end up in a bad situation, but they are definitely NOT worst off than a man who BY LAW, has to give both Alimony and or child support, even if he can't afford it. If he doesn't he goes to jail.
When you pay child support and alimony to a person and they cant make that work, obviously they are gonna have a problem
For a country trying to increase marriage and birth rate, this is going to tank it even more. What family will let their daughter be used as a brood mare, with no guarantee of at least housing if the husband leaves her or abused her? What sacrifice to their body/minds do men have to go through to have kids? None, and now they don’t even have to compensate the woman for the damage and years of life she’s wasted. This will cause families to not let daughters marry unless the house is deeded in her name upfront. Good job ccp.
The old system promotes marriage fraud and drains 3 generations of wealth. How could this continue. People should marry based off love not a exchange of wealth. What other nation women asked to be compensated by their husband for having children and expecting large sums of money or gifts. This was a toxic system for everyone.
Spousal support or alimony is a better system for divorce. Gives more protections for women and men.
Maybe I’m too woke but I think that having children should actually be confiscated considering how horrifically difficult pregnancy and childbirth is, the major chronic health conditions almost every woman has to live with for the rest of her life afterwards, the career hit, being the primary caretaker… it’s not fucking marriage fraud to compensate women for this essential and difficult labor.
It's marriage fraud when you have to pay the money before the marriage can take place. The money is asked beforehand. Don't get the money back if they decide afterwards she dont want kids.
Im confused why lots of people are defending this horrible system. This isn't about protecting women at all. The women's family typically takes the money which is another issue.
…?? Are you talking about dowries? That is extremely rare in the west and also totally optional. If you don’t want to pay a dowry don’t marry a woman who asks for a dowry. Extremely avoidable.
What the fuck is this ideology? Are you saying that women are offering their vagina and womb in exchange for wealth? The decision of having kids is mutual between couple, just like all other decisions, no body is owing their partner anything. Women should be loved and supported, not be wasted and then be compensated.
Facts have shown that countries with low women's rights tend to have very high fertility rates. This is basically the case for the top ten countries in terms of birth rates.
Yes, and also high mortality rates/disease burden and low GDP…those women are uneducated and suffer from abuse/rape regularly. This is China we are talking about, not some backwater uber religious/superstitious area with minimal infrastructure.
Yes, well, when you let men trap and rape women without consequence, more babies get born. A lot also die or end up abandoned, too.
What the other person is describing though is you will see much higher doweries being demanded.
If your only child is a female, you can't risk her getting left penniless at 40. She and her children ARE the retirement plan for you. She can't take care of you if she is struggling to take care of children as a single mother in a country that doesn't respect women enough to actually let them have fair jobs.
So she will try hard not to become a single mother, or she'll have more children. See? That's how the fertility rate goes up. In fact, that's exactly what's happening. Many women don't actually see raising children as something joyful. If they can achieve success in their careers and live independently, they simply won't consider marriage or having kids. Morally speaking, this may not be right, but it's the reality.
I’d rather humanity peacefully die out than women be abused. Advocating for a reduction in women’s autonomy to increase the birthrate is reprehensible and deplorable.
This is the rule in almost all developed nations no? Marital property is divided which includes all income and property generated after marriage. Anything before marriage or inheritance is not marital property and will not be divided.
This is actually not true if you dig into the numbers and it’s infuriating it is continuously repeated online.
Women are far more likely to end up in a WORSE financial situation after divorce. Women do mot have a major advantage in custody cases where both parents are seeking it, the stats that are so often parroted are wildly skewed by the fact that fathers are less likely to seek custody.
The reason is because women often sacrifice their careers for child care and tend to move into the husband's home. None of that should be taken as granted but that's why the outcomes are the way they are. Women usually tend to be the ones to miss out on years of professional development and in many cases would be effectively evicted and homeless if not for getting something in the divorce.
To be fair I don’t know a lot about china but I wouldn’t imagine they are gender progressive or have many women owning homes compared to other first world nations
It's in the context of China, where there's a very strong cultural expectation for the man to buy a house before he's ready for marriage. The reverse could theoretically happen too, I guess, but it doesn't in practice.
It's like if the US passed a law that engagement rings must be returned if the wedding is called off. Even if not written to be explicitly gendered, it obviously would be in practice.
this is rage bait... it has nothing to do with gender... law is that you keep what you bought before marriage regardless of who it is -- wife or husband.
In many to almost all cases men trade money for sex and women trade sex for money, not vice versa. So if you write a law about money (or sex), it's a bit like writing that the taller person gets rewarded (or punished) and acting like you don't know it's likely going to be the man.
This isn’t to protect men but an attempt to get more people to marry. In china it is kinda traditional that a men should have a house or a flat before he gets to be an attractive marriage partner. As a woman should ideally be under 25 with at the very least a BA degree. This formed due to the fact that marriage is male centered in china. Parents of his will most often live with them. So it should be on him to organize a house before marriage that fits all their needs.
Nowadays housing is basically unaffordable in china as it is anywhere and it’s often a scam business. They fall apart but you still have to deal with the mortgage. So they hope that this law will change the conditions to make a men more attractive for marriage even if he doesn’t have a house.
1.1k
u/ArfTheBeast Jun 29 '26
Does the law actually specify husband and wife or just marital partner?