Originally posted by Bardock42
That you are pulling my quote out of context by pretending it was not in reply to Rao's example.
Oh no, I know perfectly well that it was in reply to Rao's query. I was merely pointing out the clear apologist tone of the reply to you. Which you denied, over and over again.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
I think you do. If you don't, then let me repeat it for you; stop trying to defend the lopsided nature in which modern day American divorce laws work. Would you defend male-biased structure of these same laws from the early 20th century United States? Something tells me you won't.
Shit, if you want to comment on modern-day divorce settlements which screw women over, do so to those which take place in India and West Asia. Not the US.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In Rao's example the man was the one making money and the woman was the caretaker of the children and the household. In case of a separation to be equitable it can't be that the man gets to keep all the money, right?
Why should the man pay, if she was the one who cheated? Heck, why should the person who compromised this so-called contract in the first place get anything from the settlement suit at all?
I am pretty sure that if it had been the man who had committed the cheating, the divorce settlement would have been a good deal more severe for him than the case actually is as biensalsa presented it to us.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Perhaps your issue is with the custody? However that is an issue that is decided in the best interest of the children, not the parents who separate, in so far it makes sense to initially keep them with the caretaker. And in the end it seems that custody was shared between the two. Rao says that the guy got himself an expensive lawyer, his phrasing doesn't make it clear whether the woman had to do the same after he did though. In all likelihood she would have to however, if she wanted to fight for sole custody.
As the above paragraph indicates, my issue is not with custody. However Rao clearly indicates that the husband had to spend considerably more money on getting good lawyers, as opposed to the wife who only sufficed with one. Just imagine how tough a divorce settlement could then be(at least from the husband's perspective) if they have to spend considerably more resources on just getting a suitable attorney, than what the wife has to spend.
And considering that the man's the breadwinner of the family in this case, while the wife (I am assuming sh1t here) apparently is not, in all likelihood it was his money which paid for her lawyer as well. Either that or the state provided it for her(does Florida have such regulations in place for divorce and alimony settlements).
And as biensalsa further tells us; providing money for the continued caretaking and rearing of the children is one thing; but the court apparently also forced him to pay for a particular luxurious habit which she had picked up. That too screams unfairness to me, although I am guessing it might not to you.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, I don't follow your train of thought when you quote me there. What exactly is your issue with what I said there?
Then go through our discussion again, with a clear mind. You'll get it the second time round.👆
Originally posted by Bardock42
And I'm sure there's examples where the man has felt cheated by the system (and examples where I would agree that he has been cheated by the system, our judicial systems are flawed in many ways), there are also cases where women feel that way.
In this day and age? Are you f*cking kidding me? 😂
Even if they were, these cases would in all likelihood stand out as outliers, not part of the common trend of such legal separation procedures.
Originally posted by Bardock42
To prove that this is a widespread discrimination of men we can't use anecdotal evidence.
This isn't anecdotal evidence:
http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/divorce-settlements.htmlIn fact the study goes so far as to conclude that because of the current structure of divorce laws pertaining child custody and financial support, women seem to find it advantageous to be single instead of being married.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Many MRA groups try to use statistical approaches, but the ones I can see are usually flawed in by not taking into account whether the men in question actually wanted custody.
Most MRAs also partake in stupid shit like justifying rape, giving bullshit reasons to exclude women from the various male-dominated fields etc. I am not an MRA, nor do I support their tactics, so no point in bringing them up in this conversation.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Most custody decisions do not go to court, as there is no disagreement, and in most of those cases both parties decide that the woman should be the primary caretaker.
Nah, more like the court more or less has already made up its mind about keeping the children with the mother, instead of the father. But if you want to go ahead and delude yourself into thinking that the husband is amicably agreeable to such an arrangement, then that's your prerogative.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Now, I am with you that that's bullshit on a grand level, it shows how ****ed up our gender expectations are, but it doesn't show court bias (which is not to say that there isn't or can't be court bias, but MRAs don't prove their case very well if there is).
Yes it does. You are almost as bad as the MRAs if you have to go so far as to dig your face in the ground like an ostrich to deny the fact that US courts in more instances than not, clearly showcase gender bias in favor of the wife when sorting out a divorce settlement.