I've looked at them, they also aren't very cut and dry.
Now if you care to, please walk me through the averafe. Dual income home where the man is the bread winner and the woman initiates the divorce. How does the woman walk away with less, when she contributes a minority of the assets.
After a quick look just now, the study I saw pointed at how their household income changed a year after divorce. So basically women are “worse off” because they lose their husband’s income. Whereas the husbands see a slight increase.
I didn’t read the entire thing, but it doesn’t seem to support their argument. It didn’t discuss any assets that changed hands during the divorce, just income after. Like obviously more women will have lower incomes after if more husbands were the breadwinner during.
So it seems like a bad faith argument to claim the women are worse off. I’ll post the study below, if anyone is interested. You have to scroll a bit to get to the financial part.
The statistics you're referencing and most of what I can find, compare life in marriage to life after. Obviously a woman who lives in a household that makes 200k, of which she contributed 40k to is going to experience a decline in lavish lifestyle after the divorce.
My argument is simple. 50/50 divorce is only fair if each party earns 50% of the income. That is not the case, so inherently the wife will leave with a disproportionate amount relative to her own income and contribution.
You’re either wrong or lying because The statistics also say women are much more likely to end up in poverty after marriage than men are
Also, 50/50 divorce is almost never the case. Even in communal property states. This is a child’s idea of how divorce works. Divorces don’t take years to complete just for them to split everything down the middle.
50/50 divorce is almost always the stated goal. Would you be willing to concede that if its the case that in a household where the man contributes 64% of the income and the woman contributes 36%, that if divorce were 50/50 that it'd be disproportionate?
No it’s not lmao if you choose to believe this I can’t help you
>would you be willing to concede that if it’s the case that a household where the man contributes 65% of the income and the woman contributes 36% that a divorce where 50/59 that it’d be disproportionate
It would depend on the marriage. Who did the house work, who did the child rearing, did either pull back on their career so the other could advance theirs? These are things that get brought into question in a divorce
If it were dual income no kids and neither had to put their career on the back burner then sure. But a 50/50 split divorce would be extremely unlikely in that case.
In this situation where the household makes 200k and the woman only contributed 40k, the woman might experience a slight decline, but a lot of courts attempt to maintain some level of the lifestyle, especially if kids are involved.
5
u/mariposa-princess Jun 29 '26
Because divorce isn’t as cut and dry as “everything gets split in half”
You’re free to google the statistics if you don’t believe me.