Why Do Men have No rights in Marriage/Divorce?

[metalwater]

I don't think leader of men or chatty chump is important at all. That's more comfort-building and Provider stuff. It's living in the Matrix and it's still BluePill.

With women, you want to bring your own reality. Some call it narcissism, but that's just designed to shame men who have powerful love of their own self.

I have a gang of dudes that I lead in my city, but that's more for myself rather than attracting women. It's good to have guys to talk with and bounce ideas off. I'm a social guy and I like hanging out with likeminded friends, without women being a factor at all.

noted. something I am doing now works very well, I try to figure out what it is so it will not be lost. I changed so many things in a short time. sounds like I do similar things now, and also for different reasons. the speed and intensity of the change in results are mind-numbing.

narcissism or greedy seem like close friends, self first mindset.

do you find that less attractive women shut you out while the best ones are far more interested?

 

[Zimbabwe]

is a balance. looks/money/status reflects how others will treat you. others' treatment of you is very high on the respect calculator. not so much about increases as decrease if things go bad, but increases also. it's not always directly on the effect of money/status looks maybe... When she sees others defer to you; she is more likely to do so also. Money and status can achieve that. It's not about a silk suit, it's how the others clear a path for you because of it.

Looks/Money/status is only going to get you the foot in the door, you still need game to maintain a relationship. The perfect example of this is Brad Pitt.

Black pillars have this really warped view of the world where they legitamtly believe looks is the only thing you need. It's like having the best resume in the world but if you can't interview you wont get a decent job.

 

[metalwater]

Ugly people, generally, want to destroy beauty in this world. Ugly people are generally untrustworthy because their ugliness manifests in a desire to destroy truth and beauty. If I encounter ugly people they first have to prove to me that they are not trying to destroy beauty if they want to be anything more than an invisible non-entity.

we call that crab mentality. when crabs try to get out of the bucket the others will pull them back down. it doesn't help the ones pulling it only hurts the ones getting pulled. best to just avoid the crabs. I agree that often ugly out translates to ugly in due to a lifetime of cope. although if loyalty is valuable, it can be found in ugly.

Machiavellianism is it beauty and trustworthy.... for sure it is effective.

pulling down beauty is crabby.
pulling down or removing a dark triad, not crabby. Any agreement with them is only as good as what you enforce.

 

[metalwater]

Loyalty from an ugly person is born from necessity. They don't have much else to offer.

agree.

I would not be chosen by an Ugly girl either, but in general, haveing loyal people around is a good move. The crabs don't try to pull you down if you are not in the bucket. Instead, they protect you in many ways. But to each other, yikes...

I have tapped into it.. that's the reason for my reflection...

 

[mrgoodstuff]

That is why I divorced without having kids. Now I can just complain about being incel rather than divorced rape.

Better an incel than be cucked in a marriage

 

[mrgoodstuff]

Go even deeper than shame, Mike Tyson is wise as hell

Listen to Tyson speak wisdom

 

[B80]

Who the fvck told you this?

Divorce law wasn’t pulled out of thin air. It revolves around dissolution of shared marital assets and preserving stability if children are involved. Why would a man with children be absolved of all financial responsibility? Child support is literally the bare minimum.

Whilst I hear the odd story that the tide is changing and women don't automatically get more than 50% of assets in a divorce, I know of plenty of men that certainly pay more than the 'bare minimum' including myself... even if the woman is earning a very good wage or has since married someone else, who has a decent career, nice house etc. So it becomes difficult for some men to deal with seeing the ex living in a big house, going holidays, nice car, whilst being forced to pay them way more than clothing, food cost etc

Another 'feature' of divorce is that sometimes, even if the man wants the child 50/50 he may not get it (even if they're not an alcoholic, junkie etc). So he's forced to pay a significant amount a month as the woman has the child more often, even if not his choice. So its a heavy hitting double whammy for some, so although I wouldnt become bitter myself, can understand how some become like that and I've seen plenty of men who have become like that, albeit there divorces were 10 years + ago.

 

[bat soup]

How did something like this even happen in the first place, why did men allow themselves to be treated like second class citizens in the divorce court?

A man goes to jail if he doesn't pay child support, but a woman can use the payments however she wants and doesn't even need to account for how she spends it. There's literally nothing the man can do.

Most judges and lawyers were men, why did they just sit on the sidelines while their entire was gender screwed over? Eventually it came back to bite them.

It´s the current political ideology. I don´t think the same thing happens in countries where the men are still in charge (as they should be) and I think there will be a backlash.

 

[CAPSLOCK BANDIT]

I forget who said it but Women control sex, Men control relationships; without marriage the truth is that we possess far too much power, yet we give up that power for the sake of what?

Most of my friends from the small town I grew up in are married with kids, a group of them came into the big city looking specifically for me, buddies from back in the day, we spoke about their lives currently and they all fed into this "Well I'm not an incel" narrative, as if somehow I am lesser because I'm not married or have kids, which is quite funny because even attached to their spouses, I have a higher net than their entire household.

Then, these guys started... This is brutal too, but they started trying to gossip with me about other people we went to school with, how they are doing, I was in disbelief, watching 30 year old men gossip and I realized, wow, this is all they have left... All because they wanted to fit in, not be left behind, well now with our Covid numbers surging for the last almost 2 years, most well to dos have left the province, they have been left behind, I'll be following others departure I imagine... The one guy, my closest friend, used to make $40/H without any post secondary or GED, basically unheard of, then inherited $100,000 and the culmination of this opportunity is him working at McDonald's now, between the wife, kid and his lifestyle, the wealth was diffused.

Shjt is just plain sad man, guys thought they were getting ahead of the game, military guys, out now but entered when we were young.

 

[BeExcellent]

The courts protect the well being of the children and also consider the financial dynamics of the marriage. Usually the man is the breadwinner and has higher earning potential so the courts seek to provide means to the non breadwinner spouse (with less earning potential.). The courts factor in earning potential significantly. They figure the breadwinner can go create more income after the divorce; the custodial parent may not be able to do so as well.

I was the breadwinner. I would have been stripped of half my assets (which I earned the money to acquire) and saddled with child support and alimony since I (even though I’m the wife & mother) had the earning potential and the breadwinner role. My husband was a full time stay at home father for 10+ years. So I was at great financial risk.

My exhusband and I worked out something that benefitted our kids and the court signed off on it. This preserved me financially and allowed me to continue to support my children as necessary.

So really it’s more about who is the breadwinner and who has the earning potential.

Typically that’s the man, but not always (as in my case.)

 

[jimwho]

My exhusband and I worked out something that benefitted our kids and the court signed off on it

So you got fortunate and divorced a man that didn't destroy everything you worked hard for? Good, great, as it should be. What are your feelings about what normally happens in the west? Just curious, not starting a skirmish.

 

[BeExcellent]

So you got fortunate and divorced a man that didn't destroy everything you worked hard for? Good, great, as it should be. What are your feelings about what normally happens in the west? Just curious, not starting a skirmish.

Correct. My ex husband has benefitted from this too, by design. To be honest my arrangement with my ex husband has irked the men I have been involved with since my divorce. I make it clear that those responsibilities are non-negotiable and that I will continue to honor them. Once my significant other understands the context of the arrangements and my commitment to it they relax about it.

As far as what typically occurs in divorce? I think what usually happens is awful. My father was an accomplished attorney. He practiced Family Law for 20 years and during that time he himself got divorced from my mother (and married his mistress)…My parents were always fair with each other for our benefit. My step mother, incidentally hated this. My dad didn’t care. He put his kids first.

My ex husband came from a good marriage but his father died suddenly when he was an adolescent. His mother never remarried.

I think what often happens to men when things become combative is reprehensible. But I also understand the court intent to keep things as stable as possible for the kids.

It has been my observation as well that courts will NOT strip a man (or woman) of assets if there are not minor children involved unless it is a decades long marriage with a stay at home spouse who has not been in the workplace. If that spouse raised children instead of working that is seen by the courts as worthy of financial consideration. The stay at home spouse enabled & supported the success of the working spouse.

Really it comes down to earning potential, sacrifice of earning potential (by staying home or child rearing) and the number of years. It has to do with the partnership and equitable distribution of partnership assets. With any minor children as highest priority.

My dad used to always talk about how marriage is really a legal partnership and should be run like and treated as such.

I share his view.

 

[jimwho]

As far as what typically occurs in divorce? I think what usually happens is awful.

I appreciate your candor, I won't bore you with my story. But ohh what a ride!

 

[Zimbabwe]

The courts protect the well being of the children and also consider the financial dynamics of the marriage. Usually the man is the breadwinner and has higher earning potential so the courts seek to provide means to the non breadwinner spouse (with less earning potential.). The courts factor in earning potential significantly. They figure the breadwinner can go create more income after the divorce; the custodial parent may not be able to do so as well.

I was the breadwinner. I would have been stripped of half my assets (which I earned the money to acquire) and saddled with child support and alimony since I (even though I’m the wife & mother) had the earning potential and the breadwinner role. My husband was a full time stay at home father for 10+ years. So I was at great financial risk.

My exhusband and I worked out something that benefitted our kids and the court signed off on it. This preserved me financially and allowed me to continue to support my children as necessary.

So really it’s more about who is the breadwinner and who has the earning potential.

Typically that’s the man, but not always (as in my case.)

Historically the Man would always get the children because he was the sole bread winner, the women got absolutely nothing and were labled spinsters.

The expensive wedding ring was for women to sell it off in the event of a divorce so they wouldn't end up in poverty.

Ever since divorce laws were reformed, women have been initiating the vast majority of them. Divorce rates have skyrocketed and it has destroyed entire generations of children.

Division of assets sound good in theory, but in reality it is a system that is often abused for the benefit of greedy lawyers. The divorce industry makes billions out of other peoples misery.

But I also understand the court intent to keep things as stable as possible for the kids.

That's often not the case though, you have many parents fighting over custody and child support payments. It's often very messy and it's proven that it has long term psychological effects on the children.

Most women i dated came from broken homes, i know for a fact it destroyed them.

 

[The Duke]

How did something like this even happen in the first place, why did men allow themselves to be treated like second class citizens in the divorce court?

A man goes to jail if he doesn't pay child support, but a woman can use the payments however she wants and doesn't even need to account for how she spends it. There's literally nothing the man can do.

Most judges and lawyers were men, why did they just sit on the sidelines while their entire was gender screwed over? Eventually it came back to bite them.

Men are seen as resources and meant to be consumed. They send us to war first. They don't care about prostate cancer, just female breast cancer. There are no men's rights groups. When the ship starts sinking, it's women and children on the life boats first. Men are expected to pay the bill, never women. It's basic societal stuff. Been that way forever. Those views were formed when men also had the most power. The problem we have today is women want power yet pick and choose what benefits them. Men haven't stood up and said you get the good with the bad.

 

[Zimbabwe]

It actually used to be very difficult to get divorced for either men or women. It was by no means a male-free-for-all.

Society was well aware of how destructive it is for children to lose their parents, and how it ruins their mental health. What's happened to our world today has been done on purpose. Globalists want a world full of broken people because it's easier to control them.

Putting women to work also removes one of the key purposes of marriage. Marriage is about raising a family, with the woman at home, and state intervention if the man and women try to divorce (to prevent it from happening).

There was also a huge social stigma around being divorced, for both men and women. It was considered shameful to be a divorced person.

Marriage is a totally bizarre and outdated model for 2021, where Gender doesn't even exist anymore (officially). Are you even allowed to say bride and groom anymore? or is it "Married persons"?

I honestly can't see how anyone with a proper historical education about where we used to be, and how we got to where we are now, can justify marriage in 2021.

feminism was a drive by the bourgeoisie to have a larger labor supply to undermine wages. Being able to afford an entire house and support a family is an incredibly high standard of living and infinitely superior to husband and wife working and still just getting by. Feminism was a corporate scam to exploit the other half of the population

 

[BedSwerver]

How did something like this even happen in the first place, why did men allow themselves to be treated like second class citizens in the divorce court?

It started due to abuse of the welfare system in the 50's - 60's. The government wanted to figure out how to relieve some of that financial pressure. So they would establish paternity and enforce child support orders if money was owed to the State. If it wasn't owed the state, the cases would sit. Through our feminized culture, probably religion and legislatures not really seeing the impact, they turned up the heat and made it into a whole government Office. Then they crated UIFSA to allow long arm drivers license suspensions across states and enforcement of a New York order in Florida, etc. It's a mess and a busted system. I understand where it came from but it is now out of control.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

How did something like this even happen in the first place, why did men allow themselves to be treated like second class citizens in the divorce court?

A man goes to jail if he doesn't pay child support, but a woman can use the payments however she wants and doesn't even need to account for how she spends it. There's literally nothing the man can do.

Most judges and lawyers were men, why did they just sit on the sidelines while their entire was gender screwed over? Eventually it came back to bite them.

Morons continue to play house. Fellas won't go nuclear when things go up. I would do my houdini disappearing routine and ghost in said predicament.

Most men are cucked and pander to their fat wives who in their best days never gave a second thought.

I am not thrilled about the fallout on guys but if men are so ****ing retarded they still sign up, good riddance. The writingis on the wall. If a man is that stupid, ****ing him. 80% of divorce rape initiated by women. She's not on top form. 18-23? Typically ran through and or has some other man's kid? Series of abortions and used condoms. Retards marry that.

I said many a times, the outlier is religious, girl went all in hot and young. Best yrs. Not rump roast. Even still, it is not for me.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

feminism was a drive by the bourgeoisie to have a larger labor supply to undermine wages. Being able to afford an entire house and support a family is an incredibly high standard of living and infinitely superior to husband and wife working and still just getting by. Feminism was a corporate scam to exploit the other half of the population

I am 100% convinced that the issue is government that's pitted sexes against one another. Feminism and the propaganda for soy boys. Generation of men raised by women. I've pointed out that many of the big 3 religions all warn about female nature and the proclivity of women wrecking kingdoms. Demonstrations of vulnerability, pandering or something in the form of simp by man always ends in a catastrophe.

Women are approached by the state. Feminism and championing victimhood led to the betrayal by women. There's no ambiguity. She's either with you or against you. By and large, modern women have blatantly made it obvious that she's a enemy. Women are pushing large government in all western society's.

In years of slinging D, I never met a female minimalist. Normy conformy. Pronouns and buzz words. Victim culture and bodies for days. This is what fellas are competing for. It's far less than 1% of the female population worth the time. Fellas are not sourcing enough. Ironically enough, the juice is often not worth the effort. Then again my D won't suck itself.

 

[RickTheToad]

You have rights; if you hold your cards close to your chest and play the game within the rules on how it wants to be played. I've outlined this time and time again. As long as you control the game and not own, you're fine. One also needs to make it quite painful and difficult for the spouse to opt for divorce; unless you both want it. Once you get lawyers involved, nothing is ever fair.