231–240 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Going in with a co-operative mindset (at least until the other party demonstrates they are not) should be win-win." Completely agree. However, the underlying reason for many divorces is that they no long have the ability to cooperate or view things rationally.
The ability is still there. Usually it’s the willingness that’s absent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In place I currently live even retirements savings are part of divorce split, and I don't think any prenup can affect that. They basically add them together and split 50:50, which is often more fair to women who skipped years of work and career building and stayed with kids. Earned before/during marriage doesn't matter in this case.
"which is often more fair to women who skipped years of work and career building and stayed with kids." Or unfair to those who simply choose not to save (without staying home with kids). "Earned before/during marriage doesn't matter in this case." That sounds like a terrible and unfair place. Where is that?
Retirement saving is mandatory just like elsewhere in Europe and taken automatically, so you can't avoid that part if you actually work. There is additional voluntary pillar but that's a minor sum compared to mandatory ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting the father derived no benefit from the arrangement, that he continued to do half of the childcare, cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc?
Hey I can play that game too! Are you suggesting the mother derived no benefit from the arrangement, that she continue to pay half the rent, health insurance, groceries, car insurance, gas, etc? Personally, when my wife didn't work for over a year (more like two), it did fuck all for me. I paid all of the fulltime childcare, took care of the kid before and after school, and paid every single financial interest of my…
So, you gave her everything but the freedom to get out of the house and the freedom to talk to people as needed, even though she wasn't working at the time? Seriously.. the first thing my spouse did when I moved overseas with them was to make sure I could communicate with folks and have the ability to leave the house on a whim (within reason, I could always do free stuff). This was because these things keep people more free and less trapped in a situation.
And honestly, it sounds like your situation wasn't average: Most of the time, the stay at home parent is an unpaid childcare worker, unpaid cook, and unpaid maid without ever getting days off and often without having spending money of their own unless they save money on groceries. I'd guess that your situation had other factors.
And a note: If your ex lives in poverty after divorce, it means your children live in part-time poverty and I really don't understand wanting that sort of thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"which is often more fair to women who skipped years of work and career building and stayed with kids." Or unfair to those who simply choose not to save (without staying home with kids). "Earned before/during marriage doesn't matter in this case." That sounds like a terrible and unfair place. Where is that?
Switzerland, hardly a terrible place, in contrary. And as fair as one can possibly hope on this planet. Retirement saving is mandatory just like elsewhere in Europe and taken automatically, so you can't avoid that part if you actually work. There is additional voluntary pillar but that's a minor sum compared to mandatory ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Going in with a co-operative mindset (at least until the other party demonstrates they are not) should be win-win." Do you have a source for this? In my state, and many others, temporary protection from abuse orders against spouses are very easy to get just by saying the right things without any real evidence. Those stay in effect for a couple of weeks until a hearing. Then it's difficult to get them overturned unle…
Everything in America depends on the state you’re in, but that not my experience at all. Once officialdom realizes there is a divorce in progress, they become much, much, much less inclined to take sides. The general attitude is: “You’re going through a divorce. We aren’t going to take your word for it. If we didn’t see it, it didn’t happen.”
This is a well known issue that may be more prevalent in some states than others, but is certainly a national issue.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/order-of-protection-and-j_b_9...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-worst-thing-a-woman-c_b_8...
The supreme court should ban apps like this because it encourages divorces
Marriage and divorce aren't mentioned in the Constitution (at least not yet). Is it impiled like that right to privacy that was recently redefined? A freedom loving state should also love the freedom to end marriages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting the father derived no benefit from the arrangement, that he continued to do half of the childcare, cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc?
Hey I can play that game too! Are you suggesting the mother derived no benefit from the arrangement, that she continue to pay half the rent, health insurance, groceries, car insurance, gas, etc? Personally, when my wife didn't work for over a year (more like two), it did fuck all for me. I paid all of the fulltime childcare, took care of the kid before and after school, and paid every single financial interest of my…
I would be quite displeased indeed if my generosity in marriage is taken to mean I would be so generous after being ditched.
I would say to anyone on the default marriage contract, there may well be spousal maintenance in the event of divorce, so if anyone thinks that's unfair, draw up your own agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you despise the violence the state used to make you and your father miserable, the consistent position would be to advocate for doing away with the state's monopoly on dictating the terms of marriage (and, consequently, divorce) in the first place.
What exactly are you advocating here? Anarcho-capitalism? The state outsourcing marriage and divorce law to religious groups (as is done in Israel or Lebanon, for example)? “Marriage privatisation”? If we accept the reality that a “monopoly on violence” is the very definition of “the state”, it isn’t unreasonable for people who feel harmed by the state exercising that monopoly in particular ways, to call for it to be…
> It we accept that a "monopoly on violence" is the very definition of "the state"
The state is not itself a monopoly on violence. You're conflating function with identity. The state is a collection of people not substantially different from a corporation in how it is organized. It has many powers outside of violence. All of them are ideally acquired by the consent of the governed and and yet limited by the rule of the law and the respect of individual rights.
> It isn't unreasonable for people who feel harmed by the state exercising that monopoly in particular ways, to call for it to be exercised differently.
You can call for it. But why would expect your views to be accepted without scrutiny. Your position lacks consistency. Initially, your complaint stemmed from harms perpetrated by the state. Now, you say that the state has a right to deploy its violence, but in manner that would have benefitted you and your father. You're engaging in a contradiction. If you desire a Hobbesian legal system, then you must accept in all cases that victory is justice and weakness is sin and not just when the outcome suits you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you despise the violence the state used to make you and your father miserable, the consistent position would be to advocate for doing away with the state's monopoly on dictating the terms of marriage (and, consequently, divorce) in the first place.
> the consistent position would be to advocate for doing away with the state's monopoly on dictating the terms of marriage (and, consequently, divorce) in the first place. Maybe, but that's not the pragmatic position. In foreseeable future, it's unlikely that you can decouple marriage from the state's legal understanding of it.