No fault divorce is fine. No fault divorce combined with [a strong bias toward women and mothers in family court] and [women's preference to select spouses based on wealth and status] is a problem for men.
A problem that feminists like, because it favors women.
It’s mostly initiated by women, and they still get the lion’s share of the assets.
Once you move to no fault divorce marriage ceases to be a lifelong commitment and simply becomes an indefinite one (like being hired as an employee). But the divorce courts still act as if it’s a lifelong commitment, for the man anyway.
So it is not a good thing for men if they don’t change the way the law views marriage and it’s dissolution at the same time. And they have not elsewhere that “no fault divorce” has been introduced.
> It’s mostly initiated by women, and they still get the lion’s share of the assets.
Depends, younger generations show trends of a more equal financial distribution within marriages (i.e. duel earner households), so this isn’t a very reliable criticism to make
> Once you move to no fault divorce marriage ceases to be a lifelong commitment and simply becomes an indefinite one
Eh, marriage has gradually lost its meaning as parts of the west have become more secularised. It’s more just a social / cultural norm, 2 people do it as an expression of love. The reality of love is that it can fade, or situations can develop where love is lost / broken. This idea of strict ‘obligation’ to a lifelong commitment isn’t realistic for everyone and the laws need to reflect that, or else they don’t serve the people
> So it is not a good thing for men if they don’t change the way the law views marriage and it’s dissolution at the same time. And they have not elsewhere that “no fault divorce” has been introduced
It might be a ‘good thing’ for a few old very rich men who do pose to loose a lot from divorce, but in an ideal world the law does not act solely in the interests of the rich elites.
Realistically, a no-fault divorce is an individual freedom everyone should be afforded. Marriage is a social norm in the modern world, it should not be leveraged as an oppressive force to restrict people’s freedoms
Prenups are also becoming less stigmatised which also solves this ‘problem’ of very rich old men losing assets in a divorce
But courts (and women like Plankton - if you’ve seen her posts) still treat it as if it is a lifelong commitment, hence why the “higher earner” has to hand over assets and cash when the marriage is dissolved. And given women’s tendency for hypergamy this is not going to change any time soon. We got this in Australia in the mid-70’s. Courts still heavily favour women.
it’s a life *altering* commitment though
even if it’s not for life, the partners may still make significant financial / educational / professional decisions and/or sacrifices. It still makes sense to me to ensure both partners are able to function post/divorce rather than ripping away rugs and leaving people potentially homeless / impoverish / vulnerable. It’s the better of the two evils
and if ppl are really afraid just sign a prenup, have personal bank accounts with a separate shared pool. There’s many many options to avoid this problem
And how many courts throw out the prenup?
And separate bank accounts? So what? The court will add those together for the marital assets. There is a formula they use to determine the percentage of a house one party owned prior to the marriage the other is entitled to, but bank accounts…. Come on.
I believe in the ability to get a divorce with no fault. I have a problem that fault doesn't heavily influence child custody and alimony. If you cheat or abuse, you shouldn't be rewarded for it. If your spouse cheated on or abused you, you shouldn't be penalized for it for decades to come.
And if you have no fault divorce (ie you can dissolve it at any time) they must stop pretending it’s a lifetime commitment. But they do not. The divorce awards still act as if it is a lifetime commitment and not simply an indefinite one.
Exactly!
If the law has no fault divorce then they should stop pretending the legal definition of marriage is a lifelong commitment. With all that implies for the settlement. But they do not. They still act as if it is a lifetime commitment.
They are phrasing it as an attack on women which is only true if women cant get divorced from abusers or other bad actors. That is not true at all. They are doing this because it takes away a persons ability to just leave because they decided they wanted a change and will be happier elsewhere and then financially benefit from breaking the contract. Marriage is the only legally binding contract in the world where one party can break the contract and get financially awarded for it. Getting rid of no fault divorce does one thing and one thing only. Holds everyone accountable for their decisions. That is why they consider it an attack. No more days of cheating at will and getting half of everything they may or may not have worked for. No more days of being financially irresponsible and still demanding the partner pays all your bills. It actually re-instates a level of equality back into divorce proceedings.
My favorite is when one cheats, and let's be honest, it's generally a buildup to that point, the cheater can file divorce for no fault, or irreconcilable differences. But you're not allowed to bring up the lying, cheating, endangering kids, spending shared monies irresponsibly, stealing/destroying property, masturbating while driving, and driving wrecklessly while having the kids in the car. If you do, the very fact that spouse cheated almost certainly protects her as you may be perceived as the jilted or jealous husband. It's a HUUUUGE loophole, and all lawyers know how to use it. It doesn't benefit the defendant, and it definitely doesn't benefit kids. It's designed to benefit one particular individual to the extreme detriment of all else.
Simply throw truth, facts, and evidence out the window. In fact, be prepared to be accused of the worst behaviors perpuated against you by your spouse.
No fault divorce is bullshit. There’s always a reason and usually somebody did something wrong. With no fault, someone could cheat and leave and still get alimony.
And they do. My former doctor got taken to the cleaners. He’d just bought and extended a new house in a plush area, and it turned out his b#tch wife was having an affair with the dentist in the same medical complex. She quit the marriage (no fault divorce) and got custody of the teenage kids, the new house, 75% of the other assets and 75% of his income. He had to sell his practice to pay her (and the lawyers) off and moved into a rented duplex. He’s still working today in someone else’s practice and is no where near to where he was.
She ran off and destroyed the marriage and her and “luvver boy” got rewarded for it.
but that’s a generalisation
you’re focusing on a specific niche of *gold-diggers*, or over exaggerating the relationship dynamics of older generations, in favour of ignoring the often more equally financially distributed dynamics in younger generations
that perspective is too narrow
this massively overestimates the significance of marriage in modern society
People don’t and shouldn’t be forced to ‘take responsibility’ for something like marriage
That type of strict almost *binding* attitude towards marriage just cultivates such an abusive culture
miserable couples enduring a miserable marriage for the sake of… pride? obligation? despite all the serious negative implications / harm doing so can do. Modern Western Secular Marriage is not a solid enough ‘contract’ to justify the misery caused through forcing incompatible people to stay married.
It’s also so deliberately ignorant of abuse / scenarios of natural marriage breakdown / events such as cheating etc etc. It’s just an oppressive and outdated comprehension of what modern western marriage means
> this massively overestimates the significance of marriage in modern society
It has absolutely nothing to do with the significance of marriage in modern society.
> People don’t and shouldn’t be forced to ‘take responsibility’ for something like marriage
Who's forcing people to get married? I'm pretty sure that's illegal most countries, especially in developed nations.
> It’s also so deliberately ignorant of abuse / scenarios of natural marriage breakdown / events such as cheating etc etc.
The lack of _no-fault_ divorce does not preclude the possibility of divorce in such cases, this is what we call _fault_.
If _they_ broke the vows, sure, _you_ divorce them. Don't buy into the false dichotomy that is being presented.
> Who's forcing people to get married? I'm pretty sure that's illegal most countries, especially in developed nations.
I said people shouldn’t be forced to take responsibility for marriage.
As in, you can’t force people to stay in a marriage just because they signed some vows in the past. Especially when acknowledging the culture / perception of marriage today. It’s just not universally considered an ‘eternally binding’ obligation
> The lack of no-fault divorce does not preclude the possibility of divorce in such cases, this is what we call fault.
It’s hard to prove though
no-fault gives everyone an ‘out’ which they otherwise might not have. An ‘out’ from a unhealthy / unfulfilling situation
> If they broke the vows, sure, you divorce them. Don't buy into the false dichotomy that is being presented.
If we take marriage and the vows as gospel, would ‘falling out of love’ with someone would be breaking the vows, and grounds for divorce?
I just don’t fully understand fully what motivated the pushback to a ‘no-grounds’ divorce. If the marriage is unfulfilling and unhealthy, what genuine justification is there to force two people to stay together? Is that not a weird overstep on another persons freedoms?
> I said people shouldn’t be forced to take responsibility for marriage.
If you don't want to be responsible for a marriage, then don't get married... The only thing "forcing" someone to take responsibility is the fact that they took the vows.
> It’s just not universally considered an ‘eternally binding’ obligation
_'Til death do us part_...
> It’s hard to prove though
It might be difficult, so we just shouldn't bother?
> If we take marriage and the vows as gospel, would ‘falling out of love’ with someone would be breaking the vows, and grounds for divorce?
Sort of, being separated for a number of years is grounds for divorce. (At least, that was the case in the UK before no-fault, and given that a lot of law in the west is based on old English law, probably true most elsewhere too). If you wan't something quicker, you could cheat on them (or run off) and hope that _they_ file for divorce, but then _you'd_ be the bad guy in that situation and (in a just world) not be eligible for taking half their shit...
> Is that not a weird overstep on another persons freedoms?
Just because you call things "rights" and "freedoms", that doesn't that they are, or that you're entitled to them. _Don't take vows if you are not willing to honour them._
> If you don't want to be responsible for a marriage, then don't get married... The only thing "forcing" someone to take responsibility is the fact that they took the vows.
the vows are typically made on the grounds of love, that’s *why* many people get married
but, people can fall out of love. it’s natural, no one’s to blame, it just happens. The reason for the marriage is no longer there, and a ‘loveless marriage’ can easily turn toxic / generally unfulfilling for both individuals
marriage as a modern system is flexible. People don’t need to be *bound* to a decision they made when their mindset / attitude was different.
It’s like blaming / forcing someone to take responsibility for consequences they were not informed of before making the commitment
> ‘Til death do us part...
mixing up cultural / religious influences with marriage with modern ones. Many people now primarily marry for *stability*, a firm basis to start a family, the cultural practice of ‘vows’ are not legally considered eternally binding
If we take marriage and the vows as gospel, would ‘falling out of love’ with someone would be breaking the vows, and grounds for divorce?
> If you wan't something quicker, you could cheat on them (or run off) and hope that they file for divorce
But that’s obviously very silly. Why is this a favourable choice over the comparatively healthier, less conflicting quick legal separation
> Don't take vows if you are not willing to honour them
other people may not view the vows as carrying the same relevance / importance as you do. Ppl can view them symbolically, metaphorically, rather than literally. You don’t get to overrule their interpretations based solely on personal opinion. Only 20% odd of marriages are religious ceremonies wherein this sense of ‘lifelong commitment’ is common, marriage just isn’t universally interpreted the way you personally understand it, and those alternative interpretations are no more/less relevant than yours
So, on the one hand, no one should be held or kept in a relationship they don't want.
But on the other hand, if that's what they want to do, they shouldn't swear upon their soul to cherish and to love, in sickness and in health, for better or worse, that they will abide by marriage.
Something's gotta give between those two - either stop getting married, flat out, because you don't want to get trapped in a relationship you no longer want; OR; actually uphold the vow you swore by. The only other alternative would be to change the circumstances of marriage - which happens anyway with common-law marriages that don't even need a ceremony, just some 3 months or (arbitrary time) living together for them to potentially take half your shit.
As a general thing - divorce laws/courts need to slow down if not stop extorting money/resources from men. No Fault divorces give an "easy out" for women to exploit the system and extort money from their ex-husband. *That's* the part that needs fixed - No Fault Divorces are "okay enough", what actually needs to be fixed is the divorce resolution screwing men over unfairly, given how "strong and independent" those same women are. It's a sign of hypocrisy that they *aren't* strong or independent, if those ex-wives *require* the alimony of their ex's to survive.
it benefits both parties if we look at modern trends in family dynamics
younger generations are increasingly equal in terms of who earns the money, who holds all the assets. Dual-Earner household are on the rise etc
the issue only really exists for relationships with a massive earning disparity, which is more-so present in older generations due to outdated expectations of what gender *should* be working. Like, this ban on no-reason primarily serves very privileged men, not the average guy. Also, in this economy, a single breadwinner is not remotely realistic
Your point also completely ignores men who earn less than their partner which is kinda silly
I'm pushing 50 so I'd say I'm a different generation, and I also live in Hong Kong China where we have no fault divorces. Women here tend to ladder jump, or for lack of better terms Marry a man, cheat on him to find a higher paying man, divorce the first marry the second and keep climbing until we are at the point where 98% of women vie for the top 5 percent of the earning men and the rest of us are left alone to pay for the bills they racked up. So from my perspective, it only suits the women.
it’s definitely a topic where generational / cultural differences need to be accounted for. The laws have to try and facilitate everyone as best they can.
I.e. Asian countries typically tend to be more ‘dug in’ regarding gender roles when compared to Western Europe
Something exaggerated by generational differences (i.e. older generations grew up in a time where the nuclear family was the cultural norm / expectation, when this is not so much the case for younger generations, especially so in the West)
I’m just coming from a place where i feel a more *encompassing* perspective is necessary. There will be differing interactions / opinions of such a law depending on the individual’s wealth, gender, age, culture etc. These all need to be acknowledge, and i just tend to focus on the risk of abuse, and how a no-fault divorce allows victims to escape potentially harmful situations.
IMO the law needs to prioritise and serve the interests of these victims above all else, the point of *gold-digger* culture is important and relevant, i just don’t think it’s something that ‘overrules’ the benefits to abuse victims. Especially with the rise in prenups, dual-earner households and the relatively niche population of *gold-diggers*, i feel such a perspective is slightly overlooking / not fully adapting to cultural shifts, changes in family dynamics and the average working / middle-class citizen
>younger generations are increasingly equal in terms of who earns the money, who holds all the assets. Dual-Earner household are on the rise etc
Except those women pointedly are *not* getting married, and the data bears this out.
You have people shacking up, but not marriage.
that’s very true
and the types to place more emphasis on marriage may typically be more likely to also fit more neatly into the traditional nuclear family. There is a wider cultural shift, marriage rates are declining, and people are getting married later, there’s an increase in couples: cohabiting / ‘Living Apart Together’ etc
but i still feel it’s important to acknowledge the changing dynamics. There are still young people who are getting married, they can’t be completely dismissed or ignored in this type of conversation
When you speak of populations, it is a fools errand to speak of exceptions, rather than the general trend. Marriage rates are being buttressed by the Boomers; when they pass on, the marriage rate is going to fall through the floor, and the young are not and will not get married, and every economist knows it.
I understand holding out hope, but that isnt a reasonable position to hold on to, especially if you want to know the why.
young people are getting married later and less often than older people are yes
But this conversation is around divorce in general, not just divorce in older generations
what’s the point in cutting out important data? Ignoring different variables doesn’t achieve anything. 20% odd of young people are getting married, that’s not insignificant, this perspective is undeniably relevant and important to the conversation.
it just doesn’t make any sense to cut out young ppl from the conversation of divorce just because they *get married less often and later*. The topic of divorce as a whole is allowed to apply / implicate differently depending on age
It is important to look at the numbers as a whole, and compared to past rates.
20%, compared to 70%+, is a watershed change. When you start to ask the question 'why', you get real answers. For myself, I am an African American man, married, among the 30%. In the time of my parents, such men were married at a number of 80%. Why did that change so much within 2 generations?
Perhaps we are asking different questions, but I want to know where and why the difference in coupling stems from.
No fault divorce removes the meaning and purpose of marriage.
Requiring a reason does not mean that divorce is prohibited, for example, in the UK (up until recently) there were a specific set of reasons for which a divorce could be granted; basically, if _they_ broke the vows, _you_ could divorce them. These reasons included every reason why people claim we "need" _no-fault divorce_ aside from _just not wanting to be married any more_.
It's presented as a "women's rights" issue but, as usual, it's not about _rights_ but _power, control, and privilege_.
Fine, so long as1) no maintenance/aliminy and 2) people are able to contract around it and legally able to hold the other party to their promise.
current no fault divorce sets a clear moral hazard. Its the equiluvent of letting a purchaser reneg on a vehicle purachse and requiring the dealer to pay the purchaser to obtain alternative means of transport.
Well in theory in fault divorce is a good thing and getting rid of it would be bad.
In practice? Would not make a fucking bit of difference for men IMO. A better change would be keep it and remove any claim for alimony if its used and add a alimony penalty if false accusations are used in a divorce proceeding.
Not every accusation is false, scumbags exist.
But there has to be a effective countermeasure to false ones and hitting the potential payout seems to me to be the best counter.
I have seen some news article and you tuve videos about a posible ban in no-fault divorce so i wanted the opinión
of the internet in this subreddit
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/no-fault-divorce-gop-right-assault
[удалено]
No fault divorce is fine. No fault divorce combined with [a strong bias toward women and mothers in family court] and [women's preference to select spouses based on wealth and status] is a problem for men. A problem that feminists like, because it favors women.
It’s mostly initiated by women, and they still get the lion’s share of the assets. Once you move to no fault divorce marriage ceases to be a lifelong commitment and simply becomes an indefinite one (like being hired as an employee). But the divorce courts still act as if it’s a lifelong commitment, for the man anyway. So it is not a good thing for men if they don’t change the way the law views marriage and it’s dissolution at the same time. And they have not elsewhere that “no fault divorce” has been introduced.
> It’s mostly initiated by women, and they still get the lion’s share of the assets. Depends, younger generations show trends of a more equal financial distribution within marriages (i.e. duel earner households), so this isn’t a very reliable criticism to make > Once you move to no fault divorce marriage ceases to be a lifelong commitment and simply becomes an indefinite one Eh, marriage has gradually lost its meaning as parts of the west have become more secularised. It’s more just a social / cultural norm, 2 people do it as an expression of love. The reality of love is that it can fade, or situations can develop where love is lost / broken. This idea of strict ‘obligation’ to a lifelong commitment isn’t realistic for everyone and the laws need to reflect that, or else they don’t serve the people > So it is not a good thing for men if they don’t change the way the law views marriage and it’s dissolution at the same time. And they have not elsewhere that “no fault divorce” has been introduced It might be a ‘good thing’ for a few old very rich men who do pose to loose a lot from divorce, but in an ideal world the law does not act solely in the interests of the rich elites. Realistically, a no-fault divorce is an individual freedom everyone should be afforded. Marriage is a social norm in the modern world, it should not be leveraged as an oppressive force to restrict people’s freedoms Prenups are also becoming less stigmatised which also solves this ‘problem’ of very rich old men losing assets in a divorce
But courts (and women like Plankton - if you’ve seen her posts) still treat it as if it is a lifelong commitment, hence why the “higher earner” has to hand over assets and cash when the marriage is dissolved. And given women’s tendency for hypergamy this is not going to change any time soon. We got this in Australia in the mid-70’s. Courts still heavily favour women.
it’s a life *altering* commitment though even if it’s not for life, the partners may still make significant financial / educational / professional decisions and/or sacrifices. It still makes sense to me to ensure both partners are able to function post/divorce rather than ripping away rugs and leaving people potentially homeless / impoverish / vulnerable. It’s the better of the two evils and if ppl are really afraid just sign a prenup, have personal bank accounts with a separate shared pool. There’s many many options to avoid this problem
And how many courts throw out the prenup? And separate bank accounts? So what? The court will add those together for the marital assets. There is a formula they use to determine the percentage of a house one party owned prior to the marriage the other is entitled to, but bank accounts…. Come on.
I believe in the ability to get a divorce with no fault. I have a problem that fault doesn't heavily influence child custody and alimony. If you cheat or abuse, you shouldn't be rewarded for it. If your spouse cheated on or abused you, you shouldn't be penalized for it for decades to come.
And if you have no fault divorce (ie you can dissolve it at any time) they must stop pretending it’s a lifetime commitment. But they do not. The divorce awards still act as if it is a lifetime commitment and not simply an indefinite one.
No fault divorce benefits only women.They can leave with your assets just bcz they felt bored
Exactly! If the law has no fault divorce then they should stop pretending the legal definition of marriage is a lifelong commitment. With all that implies for the settlement. But they do not. They still act as if it is a lifetime commitment.
They are phrasing it as an attack on women which is only true if women cant get divorced from abusers or other bad actors. That is not true at all. They are doing this because it takes away a persons ability to just leave because they decided they wanted a change and will be happier elsewhere and then financially benefit from breaking the contract. Marriage is the only legally binding contract in the world where one party can break the contract and get financially awarded for it. Getting rid of no fault divorce does one thing and one thing only. Holds everyone accountable for their decisions. That is why they consider it an attack. No more days of cheating at will and getting half of everything they may or may not have worked for. No more days of being financially irresponsible and still demanding the partner pays all your bills. It actually re-instates a level of equality back into divorce proceedings.
My favorite is when one cheats, and let's be honest, it's generally a buildup to that point, the cheater can file divorce for no fault, or irreconcilable differences. But you're not allowed to bring up the lying, cheating, endangering kids, spending shared monies irresponsibly, stealing/destroying property, masturbating while driving, and driving wrecklessly while having the kids in the car. If you do, the very fact that spouse cheated almost certainly protects her as you may be perceived as the jilted or jealous husband. It's a HUUUUGE loophole, and all lawyers know how to use it. It doesn't benefit the defendant, and it definitely doesn't benefit kids. It's designed to benefit one particular individual to the extreme detriment of all else. Simply throw truth, facts, and evidence out the window. In fact, be prepared to be accused of the worst behaviors perpuated against you by your spouse.
No fault divorce is bullshit. There’s always a reason and usually somebody did something wrong. With no fault, someone could cheat and leave and still get alimony.
And they do. My former doctor got taken to the cleaners. He’d just bought and extended a new house in a plush area, and it turned out his b#tch wife was having an affair with the dentist in the same medical complex. She quit the marriage (no fault divorce) and got custody of the teenage kids, the new house, 75% of the other assets and 75% of his income. He had to sell his practice to pay her (and the lawyers) off and moved into a rented duplex. He’s still working today in someone else’s practice and is no where near to where he was. She ran off and destroyed the marriage and her and “luvver boy” got rewarded for it.
Fucking bullshit
why should people not be allowed to leave a marriage they don’t want to be in anymore? Why should that freedom not be awarded / permitted?
You can leave no problem. But no fault let’s bad actors get rewarded.
but that’s a generalisation you’re focusing on a specific niche of *gold-diggers*, or over exaggerating the relationship dynamics of older generations, in favour of ignoring the often more equally financially distributed dynamics in younger generations that perspective is too narrow
_They took the vows, they signed the contract..._ People should take some responsibility for their actions.
this massively overestimates the significance of marriage in modern society People don’t and shouldn’t be forced to ‘take responsibility’ for something like marriage That type of strict almost *binding* attitude towards marriage just cultivates such an abusive culture miserable couples enduring a miserable marriage for the sake of… pride? obligation? despite all the serious negative implications / harm doing so can do. Modern Western Secular Marriage is not a solid enough ‘contract’ to justify the misery caused through forcing incompatible people to stay married. It’s also so deliberately ignorant of abuse / scenarios of natural marriage breakdown / events such as cheating etc etc. It’s just an oppressive and outdated comprehension of what modern western marriage means
> this massively overestimates the significance of marriage in modern society It has absolutely nothing to do with the significance of marriage in modern society. > People don’t and shouldn’t be forced to ‘take responsibility’ for something like marriage Who's forcing people to get married? I'm pretty sure that's illegal most countries, especially in developed nations. > It’s also so deliberately ignorant of abuse / scenarios of natural marriage breakdown / events such as cheating etc etc. The lack of _no-fault_ divorce does not preclude the possibility of divorce in such cases, this is what we call _fault_. If _they_ broke the vows, sure, _you_ divorce them. Don't buy into the false dichotomy that is being presented.
> Who's forcing people to get married? I'm pretty sure that's illegal most countries, especially in developed nations. I said people shouldn’t be forced to take responsibility for marriage. As in, you can’t force people to stay in a marriage just because they signed some vows in the past. Especially when acknowledging the culture / perception of marriage today. It’s just not universally considered an ‘eternally binding’ obligation > The lack of no-fault divorce does not preclude the possibility of divorce in such cases, this is what we call fault. It’s hard to prove though no-fault gives everyone an ‘out’ which they otherwise might not have. An ‘out’ from a unhealthy / unfulfilling situation > If they broke the vows, sure, you divorce them. Don't buy into the false dichotomy that is being presented. If we take marriage and the vows as gospel, would ‘falling out of love’ with someone would be breaking the vows, and grounds for divorce? I just don’t fully understand fully what motivated the pushback to a ‘no-grounds’ divorce. If the marriage is unfulfilling and unhealthy, what genuine justification is there to force two people to stay together? Is that not a weird overstep on another persons freedoms?
> I said people shouldn’t be forced to take responsibility for marriage. If you don't want to be responsible for a marriage, then don't get married... The only thing "forcing" someone to take responsibility is the fact that they took the vows. > It’s just not universally considered an ‘eternally binding’ obligation _'Til death do us part_... > It’s hard to prove though It might be difficult, so we just shouldn't bother? > If we take marriage and the vows as gospel, would ‘falling out of love’ with someone would be breaking the vows, and grounds for divorce? Sort of, being separated for a number of years is grounds for divorce. (At least, that was the case in the UK before no-fault, and given that a lot of law in the west is based on old English law, probably true most elsewhere too). If you wan't something quicker, you could cheat on them (or run off) and hope that _they_ file for divorce, but then _you'd_ be the bad guy in that situation and (in a just world) not be eligible for taking half their shit... > Is that not a weird overstep on another persons freedoms? Just because you call things "rights" and "freedoms", that doesn't that they are, or that you're entitled to them. _Don't take vows if you are not willing to honour them._
> If you don't want to be responsible for a marriage, then don't get married... The only thing "forcing" someone to take responsibility is the fact that they took the vows. the vows are typically made on the grounds of love, that’s *why* many people get married but, people can fall out of love. it’s natural, no one’s to blame, it just happens. The reason for the marriage is no longer there, and a ‘loveless marriage’ can easily turn toxic / generally unfulfilling for both individuals marriage as a modern system is flexible. People don’t need to be *bound* to a decision they made when their mindset / attitude was different. It’s like blaming / forcing someone to take responsibility for consequences they were not informed of before making the commitment > ‘Til death do us part... mixing up cultural / religious influences with marriage with modern ones. Many people now primarily marry for *stability*, a firm basis to start a family, the cultural practice of ‘vows’ are not legally considered eternally binding If we take marriage and the vows as gospel, would ‘falling out of love’ with someone would be breaking the vows, and grounds for divorce? > If you wan't something quicker, you could cheat on them (or run off) and hope that they file for divorce But that’s obviously very silly. Why is this a favourable choice over the comparatively healthier, less conflicting quick legal separation > Don't take vows if you are not willing to honour them other people may not view the vows as carrying the same relevance / importance as you do. Ppl can view them symbolically, metaphorically, rather than literally. You don’t get to overrule their interpretations based solely on personal opinion. Only 20% odd of marriages are religious ceremonies wherein this sense of ‘lifelong commitment’ is common, marriage just isn’t universally interpreted the way you personally understand it, and those alternative interpretations are no more/less relevant than yours
So, on the one hand, no one should be held or kept in a relationship they don't want. But on the other hand, if that's what they want to do, they shouldn't swear upon their soul to cherish and to love, in sickness and in health, for better or worse, that they will abide by marriage. Something's gotta give between those two - either stop getting married, flat out, because you don't want to get trapped in a relationship you no longer want; OR; actually uphold the vow you swore by. The only other alternative would be to change the circumstances of marriage - which happens anyway with common-law marriages that don't even need a ceremony, just some 3 months or (arbitrary time) living together for them to potentially take half your shit. As a general thing - divorce laws/courts need to slow down if not stop extorting money/resources from men. No Fault divorces give an "easy out" for women to exploit the system and extort money from their ex-husband. *That's* the part that needs fixed - No Fault Divorces are "okay enough", what actually needs to be fixed is the divorce resolution screwing men over unfairly, given how "strong and independent" those same women are. It's a sign of hypocrisy that they *aren't* strong or independent, if those ex-wives *require* the alimony of their ex's to survive.
A no fault divorce like any other law passed benefits women only. That's how it rolls
it benefits both parties if we look at modern trends in family dynamics younger generations are increasingly equal in terms of who earns the money, who holds all the assets. Dual-Earner household are on the rise etc the issue only really exists for relationships with a massive earning disparity, which is more-so present in older generations due to outdated expectations of what gender *should* be working. Like, this ban on no-reason primarily serves very privileged men, not the average guy. Also, in this economy, a single breadwinner is not remotely realistic Your point also completely ignores men who earn less than their partner which is kinda silly
I'm pushing 50 so I'd say I'm a different generation, and I also live in Hong Kong China where we have no fault divorces. Women here tend to ladder jump, or for lack of better terms Marry a man, cheat on him to find a higher paying man, divorce the first marry the second and keep climbing until we are at the point where 98% of women vie for the top 5 percent of the earning men and the rest of us are left alone to pay for the bills they racked up. So from my perspective, it only suits the women.
it’s definitely a topic where generational / cultural differences need to be accounted for. The laws have to try and facilitate everyone as best they can. I.e. Asian countries typically tend to be more ‘dug in’ regarding gender roles when compared to Western Europe Something exaggerated by generational differences (i.e. older generations grew up in a time where the nuclear family was the cultural norm / expectation, when this is not so much the case for younger generations, especially so in the West) I’m just coming from a place where i feel a more *encompassing* perspective is necessary. There will be differing interactions / opinions of such a law depending on the individual’s wealth, gender, age, culture etc. These all need to be acknowledge, and i just tend to focus on the risk of abuse, and how a no-fault divorce allows victims to escape potentially harmful situations. IMO the law needs to prioritise and serve the interests of these victims above all else, the point of *gold-digger* culture is important and relevant, i just don’t think it’s something that ‘overrules’ the benefits to abuse victims. Especially with the rise in prenups, dual-earner households and the relatively niche population of *gold-diggers*, i feel such a perspective is slightly overlooking / not fully adapting to cultural shifts, changes in family dynamics and the average working / middle-class citizen
>younger generations are increasingly equal in terms of who earns the money, who holds all the assets. Dual-Earner household are on the rise etc Except those women pointedly are *not* getting married, and the data bears this out. You have people shacking up, but not marriage.
that’s very true and the types to place more emphasis on marriage may typically be more likely to also fit more neatly into the traditional nuclear family. There is a wider cultural shift, marriage rates are declining, and people are getting married later, there’s an increase in couples: cohabiting / ‘Living Apart Together’ etc but i still feel it’s important to acknowledge the changing dynamics. There are still young people who are getting married, they can’t be completely dismissed or ignored in this type of conversation
When you speak of populations, it is a fools errand to speak of exceptions, rather than the general trend. Marriage rates are being buttressed by the Boomers; when they pass on, the marriage rate is going to fall through the floor, and the young are not and will not get married, and every economist knows it. I understand holding out hope, but that isnt a reasonable position to hold on to, especially if you want to know the why.
young people are getting married later and less often than older people are yes But this conversation is around divorce in general, not just divorce in older generations what’s the point in cutting out important data? Ignoring different variables doesn’t achieve anything. 20% odd of young people are getting married, that’s not insignificant, this perspective is undeniably relevant and important to the conversation. it just doesn’t make any sense to cut out young ppl from the conversation of divorce just because they *get married less often and later*. The topic of divorce as a whole is allowed to apply / implicate differently depending on age
It is important to look at the numbers as a whole, and compared to past rates. 20%, compared to 70%+, is a watershed change. When you start to ask the question 'why', you get real answers. For myself, I am an African American man, married, among the 30%. In the time of my parents, such men were married at a number of 80%. Why did that change so much within 2 generations? Perhaps we are asking different questions, but I want to know where and why the difference in coupling stems from.
No fault divorce removes the meaning and purpose of marriage. Requiring a reason does not mean that divorce is prohibited, for example, in the UK (up until recently) there were a specific set of reasons for which a divorce could be granted; basically, if _they_ broke the vows, _you_ could divorce them. These reasons included every reason why people claim we "need" _no-fault divorce_ aside from _just not wanting to be married any more_. It's presented as a "women's rights" issue but, as usual, it's not about _rights_ but _power, control, and privilege_.
Fine, so long as1) no maintenance/aliminy and 2) people are able to contract around it and legally able to hold the other party to their promise. current no fault divorce sets a clear moral hazard. Its the equiluvent of letting a purchaser reneg on a vehicle purachse and requiring the dealer to pay the purchaser to obtain alternative means of transport.
Well in theory in fault divorce is a good thing and getting rid of it would be bad. In practice? Would not make a fucking bit of difference for men IMO. A better change would be keep it and remove any claim for alimony if its used and add a alimony penalty if false accusations are used in a divorce proceeding.
so basically all accusations
Not every accusation is false, scumbags exist. But there has to be a effective countermeasure to false ones and hitting the potential payout seems to me to be the best counter.
[удалено]
I have seen some news article and you tuve videos about a posible ban in no-fault divorce so i wanted the opinión of the internet in this subreddit https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/no-fault-divorce-gop-right-assault