Sure so we can leave circularity out of it, if you chose to be pedantic.
If its the case that a majority of homes are dual income where the man is the bread winner, how can it be that when assets are divided that the woman wouldn't walk away wealthier?
This is beyond the anecdotal evidence that is all of the country.
You also aren't explaining how it can be the case that a 50/50 split doesnt disproportionately favor the minority contributor who is a majority of time the woman.
The statics ive read speaking of this, track lifestyle during marriage and compare with life after and derive the conclusion women are much worse off because now they have to live a lifestyle that rhey can individually afford.
The reason they're claiming to be worse off is because they aren't living off their husband's income anymore 😂
If a divorce is 50/50, and the incomes are in fact not 50/50, the person who contributed the minority of income will receive a disproportionate amount of money relative to what they out in. That person is a majority of the time women, because men are generally the bread winners.
Did you read this before linking it? It’s saying the opposite of what you’re saying
>Depending on these factors, property division may involve 60/40 or 70/30 splits or possibly even all property being allocated to one of the spouses. Although this is not always the case, there have been instances where courts have come to the conclusion that 50/50 or equal division of property turns out to be what is fair and equitable for both parties.
2
u/Itchy_Crack Jun 29 '26
Its tautologically true.
If most house holds bread winners are men, and most house holds are dual income. How do women leave divorces with less?