Divorce Custody Bias

This isn't how divorce or child support payments work. This is just a popular line of reasoning in Men's Rights circles. It's certainly possible but very unlikely.I know lots of people that are divorced, with partial custody. Most like the situation better than when they were married.

As far as I know, in the US, the custody and house/apartment is almost always given to the parent who /wants/ the children. Men often don't fight for custody. They should.Also, the division of assets is not out of proportion I think. If I got married and my partner left the workforce to take care of the home/children, I do think they should get their fair share of assets in case of divorce.

Depends on what you want. If you only want money, this is true.If you want custody of your children, most of the time women win it. I believe this is true even if the man was looking after the children and the woman was working, although I'm not sure about the US.

Since men make more than women generally, if the nth percentile earning woman marries the nth percentile earning man, then the man will make more money, yes. That also means that if they divorce, the woman may take out more dollars than she put in. In the less common scenario where then woman makes more, though, she will take out fewer dollars and may have to pay spousal support going forward.Meanwhile, custody of children in most jurisdictions is in fact gender neutral, and based on the best

custody battles, alimony laws, "committed, intimate relationship = you're now married against your will for living together" and other misandrist policies are responsible for demonstrating that men are typically desired only as a financial vehicle. courts & society don't care whether or not men are around to raise kids. if they did care, we wouldn't have such crooked, lopsided laws.

This is based on a lot of assumptions. First that there are children. Second, that one of the parties actually put forth effort to raise the children.> "She took my money"You realize gender is irrelevant now, right? My friend is a VP at a medical device manufacturer and had my situation in reverse. It doesn't just affect men.

We live in a democracy and clearly, no, this isn't what people want. They want people to not lose any living standard over something "they can't help" like a divorce, and of course all animals are equal but some are more equal (kids and women). This money is not allowed to come from the state or justice system so it must come from the only source it can come from: whoever actually earns money.So if you divorce, you should immediately become a total deadbeat, be broke and u

I'm talking specifically about the US. I don't know how divorces are treated in other countries.In the US, many states have family court systems with statutory and/or systemic biases against fathers. Mothers are typically given majority custody of the children and deference when it comes to making decisions about the children.Single mothers often qualify for government assistance that they wouldn't qualify for as a married woman. Tax credits and deductions are awarded t

Women on average make larger financial sacrifices in marriage, taking on unpaid labor in the home rather than paid work outside the home at a much higher rate than men. In this sense they may be financial “winners” in case of divorce, to the extent that courts award them a portion of the accrued assets earned by their partner outside the home. As discussed elsewhere in this thread, the unpaid labor women disproportionately do generally does not accumulate anything that can be taken with them in

Men typically don't take custody (IIRC, they often don't even ask). So he assumed the children would stay with the woman, and be a drag on her dating life, while the man would pay child support. It doesn't have to be this way, but it usually is.